Red Russia v. Modern Russia [Archive]

Philosophical Materialist

11th October 2009, 09:19

I am totally agaisnt bolshevism and think that red russia was nothing more than czarist russia with a new name

Please go and read up on the history of the period before and after the revolution. Even anti-Leninists and Third Campists wouldn't say something as silly as that.

...but it was interesting to read what has happened.

...

You can actually see this pattern in all of the former warsaw states.

The differences in the 1990s were even more stark. Life expectancy fell a full 10 years under the restoration of free market capitalism. The economy of the capitalist Russian Federation sank to only 50% of the Netherlands, this was due to the mass exodus of capital out of the territory. Yeltsin sold off state assets on the cheap and the Russian Federation's working class were well and truly screwed over.

The economy of Russia only regained the 1990 level in 2007. Life expectancy and opportunities have improved in the 2000s but not to the previous Soviet levels.

Another interesting case is in the GDR. The East German working class suffered a great fall in living standards when the GDR was annexed by the Federal Republic. Women and young people suffered disproportionate losses in standards of living. Positive placements of female workers in industry and the professions were removed, and comprehensive free childcare were abolished, thus restraining employment opportunities for women. Places for working class kids in higher education also decreased as the middle class used money and connections under capitalism to 'out-compete' working class students.

ComradeRed22'91

25th October 2009, 10:17

At least we got an anarchbrat spewing anarchaspeak to admit that.

Psy

25th October 2009, 16:49

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/10/07/newsweek-seriously-asks-was-russia-better-red

The blog and posts there are horribly reactionary, they act like Stalin still ran the USSR in the 1980's.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

25th October 2009, 17:54

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Russian_male_life_expectancy.jpg

The reason for the rise of life expectancy in early-Gorbachev Russia was due to a massive anti-alcohol campaign.
This was followed by Gorbachev's little plan of destroying the USSR totally and introduce wild capitalism in Russia.
Well, that's the kind of thing one gets a Nobel Prize for Peace for, these days...

gorillafuck

26th October 2009, 21:00

This was followed by Gorbachev's little plan of destroying the USSR totally and introduce wild capitalism in Russia.
Not that it's extremely relevant but he didn't want wild capitalism, he's a social democrat.

Kayser_Soso

26th October 2009, 21:09

Not that it's extremely relevant but he didn't want wild capitalism, he's a social democrat.

He didn't want it, but he ushered it in. He couldn't have been so naive not to see something like that coming. The kind of corruption that would explode in 1991 had already openly existed for some time since the beginning of Khruschev's economic reforms.

One thing I realized after moving to Russia is that the problem isn't only what they lost, and the decline in statistics. It's the psychological damage that has been done, and is currently done, by Russia's new capitalist ruling class. They are given a bizarre, contradictory narrative of their history, on one hand told to be blindly nationalistic while on the other hand being told that corruption, laziness, and alcoholism are their genetic destiny.

I wish more anarchists, Trots, and "Marxists" from western countries could see what modern Russia has become, not simply as tourists, but actually live here and see the kind of social ills that exist here- ones that are far less prevalent in nations which have even more dire conditions. Then you will understand why the USSR under Stalin had to be that way and no other.

proudcomrade

26th October 2009, 21:10

That mid-1980s crash in life expectancy is most likely due to Chernobyl fallout.

Also, another brief thing on my mind: The post-USSR damage also affected Cubans terribly, too.

Kayser_Soso

26th October 2009, 21:13

That mid-1980s crash in life expectancy is most likely due to Chernobyl fallout.

There was some kind of decline in lifespan and health around 1977. Somewhere I have heard this being attributed to the opening up of the Soviet market to a wide variety of cigarettes; this is when cigarette-smoking became quite fashionable. If you are familiar with Russia today, you already know that this is one of the few industrialized countries where cigarettes are actually incredibly cheap. They can easily be purchased for under a dollar a pack. (Hark, do I hear the sound of tens of thousands of Canadians, trampling toward their international airports?)

Durruti's Ghost

27th October 2009, 18:51

Then you will understand why the USSR under Stalin had to be that way and no other.

Unfalsifiable claim is unfalsifiable. That doesn't make it incorrect, necessarily; it just makes it impossible to prove scientifically. Our claims have the same flaw, but at least we don't claim them to be scientific truths.

Pogue

27th October 2009, 19:11

I guess this proves the authoritarian Russian model of social democracy (state capitalism) can prove a higher standard of living than free market capitalism, if nothing else. I still think socialism would have been better than both Stalinist Russia and free market Russia.

Fohlss

27th October 2009, 21:46

Uncle Hank

27th October 2009, 21:50

Well that nearly derails the the imperialist propaganda machine that spews bullshit about capitalism producing a higher standard of living, ect. Not that fuckwittedness like that needed any help derailing itself, but there you go anyways.

Ovi

27th October 2009, 21:58

I think Communist Russia was pretty good.
I think it wasn't

Well that nearly derails the the imperialist propaganda machine that spews bullshit about capitalism producing a higher standard of living, ect. Not that fuckwittedness like thay needed any help derailing itself, but there you go anyways.
Just because people might have been better off back then that doesn't make it socialist though.

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:08

I think it wasn't

Just because people might have been better off back then that doesn't make it socialist though.

Says the guys who never accomplished anything in history- but ensure us that their system is so much better. We Marxist-Leninists actually try to learn from our mistakes. When have anarchists reevaluated their dismal failures without resorting to- "Bolsheviks stabbed us in the back!!!"?

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:13

Unfalsifiable claim is unfalsifiable. That doesn't make it incorrect, necessarily; it just makes it impossible to prove scientifically. Our claims have the same flaw, but at least we don't claim them to be scientific truths.

Actually much of economics in general is not emperical. Marxism-Leninism is a historical science, meaning that it is based on materialist observation of history, but naturally you can't duplicate the results in order to check the model. The point I was making is that the type of people who make Russia a living hell today existed back in 1917 and throughout the history of the USSR- and that is not only falsifiable but already proven by plenty of books and studies on the subject. Under Stalin, these elements were often suppressed, though those who managed to worm their way into organs of state power caused huge problems. During the war however, the system suffered a severe breakdown, and corruption and black marketeers were occasionally able to flourish. After the triumphalism of the war, nobody wanted to have a truth and reconicilation moment to discuss the darker things that went on during that period. I, and others, would say it was a fatal mistake.

Uncle Hank

27th October 2009, 23:17

Just because people might have been better off back then that doesn't make it socialist though.
Oh, nobody's claiming there was socialism in 'Red Russia'. Just that a higher standard of living was the direct result of an attempt to establish socialism.

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:20

Spawn of Stalin

27th October 2009, 23:24

Oh, nobody's claiming there was socialism in 'Red Russia'.
May I quickly draw your attention to a tiny group of people who call themselves "Marxist-Leninists"? They're kind of a big deal.

Durruti's Ghost

27th October 2009, 23:27

Actually much of economics in general is not emperical. Marxism-Leninism is a historical science, meaning that it is based on materialist observation of history, but naturally you can't duplicate the results in order to check the model.

Right, just as we can't duplicate the conditions existing in Russia in 1917 and see what would have happened had the State not closed down the factory committees, or had there been a larger industrial proletariat, or had the revolution spread to Western Europe. Anarchists generally (though not always) claim that had the State not closed down the factory committees, the revolution would have carried on to establish genuine communism. Lenin did not believe this to be the case; he believed that socialism could not be established in a nation without a large industrial proletariat and so was banking on the revolution spreading (which, obviously, it didn't). Our perspective cannot be proven scientifically, and neither can Lenin's. That's the point I was trying to make.

The point I was making is that the type of people who make Russia a living hell today existed back in 1917 and throughout the history of the USSR- and that is not only falsifiable but already proven by plenty of books and studies on the subject. Under Stalin, these elements were often suppressed, though those who managed to worm their way into organs of state power caused huge problems. During the war however, the system suffered a severe breakdown, and corruption and black marketeers were occasionally able to flourish. After the triumphalism of the war, nobody wanted to have a truth and reconicilation moment to discuss the darker things that went on during that period. I, and others, would say it was a fatal mistake.

I don't disagree.

Ovi

27th October 2009, 23:31

Says the guys who never accomplished anything in history- but ensure us that their system is so much better. We Marxist-Leninists actually try to learn from our mistakes.
"Accomplishing" a few millions of deaths is not something I envy Stalin for by the way. Maybe you do. And no I don't think those deaths were a "mistake of socialism" either. Stalin was not the problem, but the state capitalist regime that put him in charge. This is what I learned and this is what we should avoid.

Durruti's Ghost

27th October 2009, 23:31

How is this any different from the libertarian claiming that America with slavery wasn't truly capitalist because the government still had some influence in the private sector?

Because capitalism, by definition, is a system wherein the majority of the working class is composed of proletarians rather than serfs or slaves, not a system in which the government doesn't interfere with the market. Socialism, by definition, is a society in which the proletarians are in control of the means of production. People who claim the USSR was not socialist hold that the proletarians did not control the means of production and so the USSR does not fit the definition of "socialism". The libertarians just change the definition of capitalism to suit their purposes.

"Accomplishing" a few millions of deaths is not something I envy Stalin for by the way. Maybe you do. And no I don't think those deaths were a "mistake of socialism" either. Stalin was not the problem, but the state capitalist regime that put him in charge. This is what I learned and this is what we should avoid.To be fair, free-market capitalism is responsible for more deaths than Stalin ever was. Small praise, I know.

Oh, nobody's claiming there was socialism in 'Red Russia'.

Nobody's claiming there was communism in Red Russia, but Marxist-Leninists do claim there was socialism.

Ovi

27th October 2009, 23:38

To be fair, free-market capitalism is responsible for more deaths than Stalin ever was. Small praise, I know.
That's irrelevant. I was talking about the deaths of the USSR, not those of capitalism.
And saying that capitalism killed more people than the soviet union doesn't make the soviet union socialist either.

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:39

That's irrelevant. I was talking about the deaths of the USSR, not those of capitalism.
And saying that capitalism killed more people than the soviet union doesn't make the soviet union socialist either.

No, what made the Soviet Union socialist, for a time, was socialist ownership of the means of production, central planning, and the fact that labor power was not a commodity.

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:42

"Accomplishing" a few millions of deaths is not something I envy Stalin for by the way. Maybe you do. And no I don't think those deaths were a "mistake of socialism" either. Stalin was not the problem, but the state capitalist regime that put him in charge. This is what I learned and this is what we should avoid.

Yes, those "Stalinists" sure were dicks for purposely killing a few million people with no reason. Next time they should leave the "kill innocent people" out of their plan.

Durruti's Ghost

27th October 2009, 23:42

No, what made the Soviet Union socialist, for a time, was socialist ownership of the means of production, central planning, and the fact that labor power was not a commodity.

I have never seen a Marxist-Leninist provide evidence that the workers in the Soviet Union were in control of productive processes.

That's irrelevant. I was talking about the deaths of the USSR, not those of capitalism.
And saying that capitalism killed more people than the soviet union doesn't make the soviet union socialist either. No, but one could argue that by preventing the USSR from becoming a free-market system for a time, Stalin actually saved lives. I don't, but one could.

Ovi

27th October 2009, 23:47

No, what made the Soviet Union socialist, for a time, was socialist ownership of the means of production, central planning, and the fact that labor power was not a commodity.
The only "socialist" ownership of the means of production is direct worker control. And central planning by a government is anything but democratic or socialist. Of course you disagree.

Uncle Hank

27th October 2009, 23:48

May I quickly draw your attention to a tiny group of people who call themselves "Marxist-Leninists"? They're kind of a big deal.
:lol: I meant nobody among the two people then whom were involved in the discussion, not among the 6 billion people inhabiting this planet.

Ovi

27th October 2009, 23:50

No, but one could argue that by preventing the USSR from becoming a free-market system for a time, Stalin actually saved lives. I don't, but one could.
If that is true, then I believe it makes Stalin (and his regime) less of a murderer than a 'free' market one. Socialist? No.

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:50

Because capitalism, by definition, is a system wherein the majority of the working class is composed of proletarians rather than serfs or slaves, not a system in which the government doesn't interfere with the market. Socialism, by definition, is a society in which the proletarians are in control of the means of production. People who claim the USSR was not socialist hold that the proletarians did not control the means of production and so the USSR does not fit the definition of "socialism". The libertarians just change the definition of capitalism to suit their purposes.

While one could make the argument that the Soviet working class was not entirely in charge of their means of production, they did have far more influence in their workplace than their counterparts in many countries. Foreign observers were shocked at how workers could take managers to task, when the same managers were not granted a forum to do the opposite. Soviet workers always had a degree of influence at the local level. More importantly, their rights to work were protected(at least under Stalin and until Khruschev's schemes of 1957, which was later put into widescale practice under Kosygin), and their labor power was not a commodity. Lastly, during the Stalin time, people weren't getting rich off their labor. Profits would be taken by the state, or just recycled into the enterprise in one way or another.

On the flip side, the Soviet working class was still progressing to a more proficient, educated state where they would better be able to run their own affairs of the workplace and in other fields. Unfortunately, the war really set this process back, and though Stalin argues for it in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR- his opponents after his death basically did the precise opposite of what he recommended in that crucial book. Instead, managers were given bigger and bigger bonuses.

This leads us back to another question though. If we speak of worker control of the means of production- how far does that go exactly? Should workers of a particular factor be allowed to determine outputs which allow them to speculate, or blackmail the rest of the country for privileges? And What about projects that had to be done, for whatever reason? Obviously there can be a much higher degree of worker control than what existed in the Soviet Union, but we cannot expect it to come instantly, if only because most workers have been totally denied any say whatsoever in their workplace.

tehpevis

27th October 2009, 23:53

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:54

The only "socialist" ownership of the means of production is direct worker control. And central planning by a government is anything but democratic or socialist. Of course you disagree.

Typical "all or nothing" idealistic anarchist position. Did it ever occur to you that's why your side hasn't achieved any lasting victory?

Do honestly think you can bring about a new social system, a new mode of production, in a finished, ideal form, from the beginning? Did capitalism as we know it today, or the liberal democratic system which makes capitalism at least tolerable in some countries, come about all at once? All systems evolve, suffer setbacks, and make progress.

Like I said before, you are basically like the libertarian who keeps declaring that such and such a state wasn't really capitalist- if a libertarian said that to you, would you back down on your anti-capitalist attacks? I should hope not.

Conversely, do you actually believe that declaring the Soviet Union not to be socialist will somehow make the capitalist enemy lighten his attacks against any proposed alternatives to the status quo? I certainly hope you would not be so naive.

robbo203

27th October 2009, 23:56

No, what made the Soviet Union socialist, for a time, was socialist ownership of the means of production, central planning, and the fact that labor power was not a commodity.

The Soviet Union was based on de facto ownership by the the small class of nomenklatura who controlled the state - state capitalism . You cannot in reality separate "ownership" and "control".

Central planning in the Soviet Union was largely a myth. PLans handed down by Gosplan were constantly modified to fit in with changing reality. Often plans were not even made available until well after commencement of the planning period. In practice a large number of decisions had to be made at state enterprise level

Labour power certainly was a commodity in exchange for which workers obtained a wage. The fact that the labour market was highly regulated does not make it any the less a market

Kayser_Soso

27th October 2009, 23:59

Deciding whether the Soviet Union or Russian Federation was better is merely a decision between the lesser of two evils. If forced to choose, I'd say Red Russia was better off, but not by much. Modern Russia retained the bad aspects of Bolshevism, and dropped the good ones.

Actually that's how I would describe it, because the modern day Russian Federation retains many annoying, bureaucratic practices without any of the social benefits, and the benefit of having some kind of direction in society. Plenty of people old enough to remember can explain the vast difference even in the normal behavior of people under the Soviet regime, including in the revisionist era. Even people I have talked to who lived through the Stalin era will gladly tell you that yes, it was a difficult time, and they may have even had family members locked up- but this was a shared burden, and they felt that the end results, at least prior to the downfall of the USSR, made up for those problems.

All that being said, it is a difficult thing to choose because one has to consider the technology of the time as well. For example, one can look at modern-day Moscow and see all the new, expensive gadgets. People have all sorts of expensive mobile phones, and other gadgets. But at the same time, for all the glitz and glamour of Moscow's Tverskaya street, you can still find dead bodies on the metro platform on any given day. In just over three years in Russia, I've seen probably four corpses in public, making it more than one corpse per year. (Shouldn't this be something like 1.4 corpses per year? Mathematicians help!)

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 00:04

The Soviet Union was based on de facto ownership by the the small class of nomenklatura who controlled the state - state capitalism . You cannot in reality separate "ownership" and "control".

They were the ownership? Then can you show how much money they made off the ownership of the means of production then?

Central planning in the Soviet Union was largely a myth. PLans handed down by Gosplan were constantly modified to fit in with changing reality. Often plans were not even made available until well after commencement of the planning period. In practice a large number of decisions had to be made at state enterprise level

This fits the era from Khruschev onward, beginning with his reorganizing the country into 105 sovnarkhozy. When the planning bureau was reestablished after his fall, it had virtually no influence on production.

Labour power certainly was a commodity in exchange for which workers obtained a wage. The fact that the labour market was highly regulated does not make it any the less a market

Aside from eliminating wages altogether, an end goal of Communism, how else besides what you call "regulation" could labor power be eliminated as a commodity? Labor power is a commodity when the director has a free hand to hire and fire at will. This is something that Soviet enterprise managers could not do(it was an extremely difficult process and usually had to involve criminal matters), and it remained so even years after Stalin was dead. It was only in the days of Kosygin that Soviet enterprises got the power and right to lay off employees at will.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 00:04

Typical "all or nothing" idealistic anarchist position. Did it ever occur to you that's why your side hasn't achieved any lasting victory?

Anarchist Catalonia is a great example. Didn't last? Neither did the Soviet union. Your point?

Do honestly think you can bring about a new social system, a new mode of production, in a finished, ideal form, from the beginning? Did capitalism as we know it today, or the liberal democratic system which makes capitalism at least tolerable in some countries, come about all at once? All systems evolve, suffer setbacks, and make progress.

Ideal form? Is worker control of the means of production something unattainable?

Like I said before, you are basically like the libertarian who keeps declaring that such and such a state wasn't really capitalist- if a libertarian said that to you, would you back down on your anti-capitalist attacks? I should hope not.

Conversely, do you actually believe that declaring the Soviet Union not to be socialist will somehow make the capitalist enemy lighten his attacks against any proposed alternatives to the status quo? I certainly hope you would not be so naive.
I would hope you would not be so naive as to consider the soviet union as on the right way towards socialism. The working class was just as oppressed if not worse than it is today.

Uncle Hank

28th October 2009, 00:05

Yes, if society in a particular country at a particular time does not conform to our modern theories or ideals, aided greatly by hindsight- then it can't be socialist.

How is this any different from the libertarian claiming that America with slavery wasn't truly capitalist because the government still had some influence in the private sector?
Quite an anti-intellectual position you have there- it feels like you're saying we can't analyze things. And then we can go back to the origins of socialist thought. Marx said that socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class, so was Russia under Stalin a society where the members of the working class exercised control?

It is different because capitalism can exist without democracy- socialism cannot.

Anyways, your user title "Eeek! A STALINIST!!!" tells me all I want to know about your political alignment, so I shall recluse myself from this 'Stalin was evil', 'No, Stalin wasn't evil' debate from here on out. :sleep:

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 00:11

Anarchist Catalonia is a great example.

Of what? Total failure thanks to no coherent plans, rigid domatic idealism?

Didn't last? Neither did the Soviet union. Your point?P

Hmm....70 years, surviving two massive invasions, including the largest land invasion of all time. Massive advances in science and technology. The creation of entire nations for people who had none, elimination of illiteracy, the creation of popular literature for millions who previously had none....

Then we have roughly three years of chaos, helped greatly by the fact that the nationalists were far more concerned with Madrid than Catalonia.

Yup, EXACTLY THE SAME!!!

Ideal form? Is worker control of the means of production something unattainable?

Not instantanously.

I would hope you would not be so naive as to consider the soviet union as on the right way towards socialism. The working class was just as oppressed if not worse than it is today.

No, no it was not, sorry. The current Russian ruling class doesn't give a fuck about providing the people here with anything, whereas whatever you want to claim about the Soviet Union- nobody can deny that it gave ordinary people access to art, literature, culture, recreation, and other benefits. Even many of those victimized by the internal problems of the USSR, also benefitted in some way, and usually moreso.

At one time, the Soviet Union was on the right road to socialism, and due to external circumstances, it went off that road. That is how things work in the real world, instead of Anarchist fantasy land. The "right road" isn't lined with gumdrops and a band of singing midgets. Usually there are bad roads, and worse roads. The real world is complicated- and you can't just declare that whatever doesn't fit your ideal must some how be diametrically opposed to it.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 00:12

They were the ownership? Then can you show how much money they made off the ownership of the means of production then?

The fact that a minority controlled the production makes it just as capitalist as the US.

This fits the era from Khruschev onward, beginning with his reorganizing the country into 105 sovnarkhozy. When the planning bureau was reestablished after his fall, it had virtually no influence on production.

Aside from eliminating wages altogether, an end goal of Communism, how else besides what you call "regulation" could labor power be eliminated as a commodity? Labor power is a commodity when the director has a free hand to hire and fire at will. This is something that Soviet enterprise managers could not do(it was an extremely difficult process and usually had to involve criminal matters), and it remained so even years after Stalin was dead. It was only in the days of Kosygin that Soviet enterprises got the power and right to lay off employees at will.
Of course not. You could only get fired and thrown in jail if the Securitate (the former secret service in my country) considered you to be a threat to them.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 00:16

Quite an anti-intellectual position you have there- it feels like you're saying we can't analyze things. And then we can go back to the origins of socialist thought. Marx said that socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class, so was Russia under Stalin a society where the members of the working class exercised control?

Is it literally possible for the entire working class to guide itself? No, for the sake of facilitation, the working class must at times organize its efforts in the form of a party. The working class of Tsarist Russia was simply not technically, physically, nor mentally capable of taking control of all of society. Besides, if self-emancipation of the working class is to be taken so literally, then why doesn't the working class just do it? This is because while workers to spontaneously struggle with the ruling class, they tend not to look at the big picture or the long-term goals. Capitalists have too much of an advantage in this area.

It is different because capitalism can exist without democracy- socialism cannot.

Who made that rule? And democracy for whom?

Anyways, your user title "Eeek! A STALINIST!!!" tells me all I want to know about your political alignment, so I shall recluse myself from this 'Stalin was evil', 'No, Stalin wasn't evil' debate from here on out. :sleep:

I prefer not to engage in such debates either. The history of the USSR cannot be reduced to Josef V. Stalin.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 00:17

The fact that a minority controlled the production makes it just as capitalist as the US.

Again, bad analogy, and inaccurate. Workers did in fact control production in the early days. The state set plans, workers counter-planned, and in many cases overshot targets as a result.

Of course not. You could only get fired and thrown in jail if the Securitate (the former secret service in my country) considered you to be a threat to them.

Ah..Romania, now there was a country that can generally be called "not socialist." Please do not confuse the incompetance of people like Ceausescu or Dej with Marxism-Leninism.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 00:19

Yup, EXACTLY THE SAME!!!

I never said that. The big difference is that Catalonia really was socialist.

Not instantanously.

The fact that stalinism failed should give a clue on that.

No, no it was not, sorry. The current Russian ruling class doesn't give a fuck about providing the people here with anything, whereas whatever you want to claim about the Soviet Union- nobody can deny that it gave ordinary people access to art, literature, culture, recreation, and other benefits. Even many of those victimized by the internal problems of the USSR, also benefitted in some way, and usually moreso.

And at the same time locked up people who had anything to say against them.

At one time, the Soviet Union was on the right road to socialism, and due to external circumstances, it went off that road. That is how things work in the real world, instead of Anarchist fantasy land. The "right road" isn't lined with gumdrops and a band of singing midgets. Usually there are bad roads, and worse roads. The real world is complicated- and you can't just declare that whatever doesn't fit your ideal must some how be diametrically opposed to it.
Tell that to the thousands of people who were shot in '89 in my country by the "socialist" regime.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 00:25

Ah..Romania, now there was a country that can generally be called "not socialist." Please do not confuse the incompetance of people like Ceausescu or Dej with Marxism-Leninism.
Oh yeah. The soviet imposed dictator was not socialist but Stalin was. Can you get any more pathetic? :D You could say the same thing about the NKVD. Let me guess, it was meant to protect socialism?

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 00:25

I never said that. The big difference is that Catalonia really was socialist.

Yeah, and really short lived and REALLY shot people at random without trial.

The fact that stalinism failed should give a clue on that.

On the contrary; in the sense that "Stalinism" saved the country from the Fascists and brought it into the 20th century, it was quite successful. What failed were all the market-socialist ideas of the post Stalin era. Well ok, they did a LOT better than anarchism historically, but that's not saying much.

And at the same time locked up people who had anything to say against them.

Well could be worse- in Spain and Ukraine anarchists shot people at random. In Makhno's Ukrainian territory it was a capital crime not to accept the currency they printed.

Tell that to the thousands of people who were shot in '89 in my country by the "socialist" regime.

You're country went over to the socialist camp after 1945. The Soviet Union basically made a full retreat from Marxism-Leninism beginning really in 1956. So I don't know what to tell you there. And why blame the Soviet Union for what YOUR countrymen did? Take some responsibility. You know many innocent people in the Soviet Union died, not because Stalin wished it but because there were millions of petty, short-sighted or vindictive people out there who deliberately bore false witness against neighbors and co-workers for personal gain. Were their flaws in the legal system that allowed this to happen? Definitely. But still the fact remains that many people created their own terror.

Durruti's Ghost

28th October 2009, 00:26

While one could make the argument that the Soviet working class was not entirely in charge of their means of production, they did have far more influence in their workplace than their counterparts in many countries. Foreign observers were shocked at how workers could take managers to task, when the same managers were not granted a forum to do the opposite. Soviet workers always had a degree of influence at the local level.

This certainly is an accomplishment, and it is a far better arrangement than exists in free-market capitalist countries. But then, social democracies also have better arrangements than free-market capitalist systems. I don't see how a degree of influence over production (as exists even in free-market capitalist countries that have a strong labor movement) can translate to control over it.

More importantly, their rights to work were protected(at least under Stalin and until Khruschev's schemes of 1957, which was later put into widescale practice under Kosygin), and their labor power was not a commodity.

Please elaborate on the whole "rights to work" thing. Do you mean that everyone was provided with a job? I believe I did read something about there being no unemployment in the USSR.

Lastly, during the Stalin time, people weren't getting rich off their labor. Profits would be taken by the state, or just recycled into the enterprise in one way or another.

Because the State doesn't count as "people"? :confused:

On the flip side, the Soviet working class was still progressing to a more proficient, educated state where they would better be able to run their own affairs of the workplace and in other fields. Unfortunately, the war really set this process back, and though Stalin argues for it in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR- his opponents after his death basically did the precise opposite of what he recommended in that crucial book. Instead, managers were given bigger and bigger bonuses.

Interesting. I'll have to read that piece.

This leads us back to another question though. If we speak of worker control of the means of production- how far does that go exactly? Should workers of a particular factor be allowed to determine outputs which allow them to speculate, or blackmail the rest of the country for privileges? And What about projects that had to be done, for whatever reason?

Well, as an anarchist, I argue for complete worker control of each factory, with large-scale decisions being made by a voluntary federation of factories/communes to which each factory would agree to cede a bit of its sovereignty in exchange for access to the products of the other factories in that federation. I think that it would be impossible for one factory to blackmail the rest of the country, because it would be improbable for one factory to monopolize a certain product and impossible for it to produce everything its workers needed. However, I would not deny a more statist system the label "socialism" or my support.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 00:27

Oh yeah. The soviet imposed dictator was not socialist but Stalin was. Can you get any more pathetic? :D You could say the same thing about the NKVD. Let me guess, it was meant to protect socialism?

Ceaucescu did not take leadership of Romania until after the death of Stalin, in case you hadn't heard.

So you don't like the NKVD huh? So I guess in anarchist fantasy land- the capitalists never try to take back what you took from them. You just let them infiltrate your society from the inside and cause all kinds of problems, as the CIA and like-minded groups have been doing worldwide since even before the Bolshevik revolution.

Such charming naivety of the world.

robbo203

28th October 2009, 00:31

They were the ownership? Then can you show how much money they made off the ownership of the means of production then?.

The Soviet Union was a massively unequal society. The ratio between the lowest and highest wages steadily increased from 1:1.8 just after the Bolshevik Revolution to 1:40 in 1950 (Ossowski S, Patterson S, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116). According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated "salaries" but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite (who even had access to their own retail outlets stocking western goods and various other facilities from which the general public was physically excluded) the ratio was more like 1:100. Some amongst this elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic succesS

This is what Simon Pirani an expert on Soviet matters has to say:

In 1920, the government ruled that the
highest-paid managers should earn no more
than five times the minimum wage. That soon
went up to eight times. But in 1924 a survey
showed that more than 80,000 state officials
admitted to earning more than the upper limit,
15,000 were on more than 15 times the
minimum and 1500 on 30 times the minimum
– to say nothing of corrupt and illegal
earnings, which everyone knew were
widespread.But that’s not the point. The
Bolsheviks claimed to represent the socialist
future. In 1920 they had agreed to act against
inequality within their own ranks; by 1922
they had effectively changed their minds. A
few weeks after Petrzhek’s resignation, a
party conference decided that 15,000
"responsible officials" had the right to extra
income and priority benefits. Inequality may
have been unstoppable, but now it was being
justified – not for technical specialists or
entrepreneurs, who most socialists grudgingly
accepted needed to be induced to help
economic development, but for supposedly
communist state and party officials.
The issue of material inequality was one
aspect of the much larger problem of the
accumulation of power at the top. And in
1922-23 – that is, under Lenin’s government,
before the rise of Stalin – authoritarian
hierarchies were multiplying. Workers could
see it in communist factory managers who
often treated worker dissidents, including
fellow communists, to methods of workplace
discipline reminiscent of tsarism
http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/dilemma208.pdf

This fits the era from Khruschev onward, beginning with his reorganizing the country into 105 sovnarkhozy. When the planning bureau was reestablished after his fall, it had virtually no influence on production.

.

You are misinformed. The situation I described applied throughout the history of the Soviet Union

Aside from eliminating wages altogether, an end goal of Communism, how else besides what you call "regulation" could labor power be eliminated as a commodity? Labor power is a commodity when the director has a free hand to hire and fire at will. This is something that Soviet enterprise managers could not do(it was an extremely difficult process and usually had to involve criminal matters), and it remained so even years after Stalin was dead. It was only in the days of Kosygin that Soviet enterprises got the power and right to lay off employees at will.

Like I said, the regulation of labour does not alter the commodity nature of labour power under Soviet state capitalism by one iota. Among Japanese corporations there was a tradition in which workers could expect a "job for life" - do you imagine that makes such corporations any the less capitalist.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 00:43

Ceaucescu did not take leadership of Romania until after the death of Stalin, in case you hadn't heard.

I was talking about Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the not socialist dictator imposed by the socialist ussr.

So you don't like the NKVD huh? So I guess in anarchist fantasy land- the capitalists never try to take back what you took from them. You just let them infiltrate your society from the inside and cause all kinds of problems, as the CIA and like-minded groups have been doing worldwide since even before the Bolshevik revolution.

Such charming naivety of the world.
So all the repressions were actually against bourgeois? Fantasy land? Keep dreaming.

Yeah, and really short lived and REALLY shot people at random without trial.

Good thing stalin protected us from those pesky criminal anarchists.

On the contrary; in the sense that "Stalinism" saved the country from the Fascists and brought it into the 20th century, it was quite successful.

Failed in the sense that it did not implement socialism. Churchill also saved the country from the fascists but that still doesn't make him a socialist.

You're country went over to the socialist camp after 1945. The Soviet Union basically made a full retreat from Marxism-Leninism beginning really in 1956. So I don't know what to tell you there. And why blame the Soviet Union for what YOUR countrymen did?

Because it was a "socialist" regime imposed by the soviet union.

Take some responsibility. You know many innocent people in the Soviet Union died, not because Stalin wished it but because there were millions of petty, short-sighted or vindictive people out there who deliberately bore false witness against neighbors and co-workers for personal gain. Were their flaws in the legal system that allowed this to happen? Definitely. But still the fact remains that many people created their own terror.
That's the lamest argument I've ever heard from any stalinist.

28th October 2009, 00:50

The Soviet Union basically made a full retreat from Marxism-Leninism beginning really in 1956. So I don't know what to tell you there. And why blame the Soviet Union for what YOUR countrymen did? Take some responsibility. You know many innocent people in the Soviet Union died, not because Stalin wished it but because there were millions of petty, short-sighted or vindictive people out there who deliberately bore false witness against neighbors and co-workers for personal gain. Were their flaws in the legal system that allowed this to happen? Definitely. But still the fact remains that many people created their own terror.

This is such crap, it's also why so many Romanian people hate 'socialism', clearly it's simply their fault for being Romanian, they just created their own terror because they were Romanian obviously, what else would be the case?

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 07:10

This is such crap, it's also why so many Romanian people hate 'socialism', clearly it's simply their fault for being Romanian, they just created their own terror because they were Romanian obviously, what else would be the case?

Who said that? Nobody said that. Congratulations, another strawman argument.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 07:32

I was talking about Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the not socialist dictator imposed by the socialist ussr.

He was not imposed as much as your side invaded the Soviet Union, sued for peace, let them into the country as a condition, and the Romanian Communists took over. You're starting to sound like some kind of nationalist.

So all the repressions were actually against bourgeois? Fantasy land? Keep dreaming.

Why would you expect all the repressions of the bourgeoisie(which had already been expropriated by the time of the NKVD)? Intelligence and propaganda war is carried out among the workers. Of course anarchists, Trots, and Leftcoms might try to claim that "if the state were really socialist- workers would not betray it!!" Absolute bullshit- workers betray their own interest all the time. People are naturally very fickle and when times are hard, they'll believe nearly anything.

Good thing stalin protected us from those pesky criminal anarchists.

More like good thing they liberated you from the Fascist monarchy. Again, you sound like a nationalist. It's the same propaganda in the end so who cares if you are an anarchist?

Failed in the sense that it did not implement socialism. Churchill also saved the country from the fascists but that still doesn't make him a socialist.

Again, that is based on your erroneous definition of socialism.

Because it was a "socialist" regime imposed by the soviet union.

It was "imposed" by Romanians. After the invasion and the Romanian army switching sides, I'm guessing there weren't many fans of other parties around.

That's the lamest argument I've ever heard from any stalinist.

It's lame, but it's also based on irrefutable fact, which can be verified by archival sources. I noticed anarchists are rarely interested in looking through those. I recommend Getty's Road to Terror and Stalinism as a Way of Life- both of which deal with this issue.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 13:41

He was not imposed as much as your side invaded the Soviet Union, sued for peace, let them into the country as a condition, and the Romanian Communists took over. You're starting to sound like some kind of nationalist.

Romanian Communists took over? There was no sort of socialist revolution and nobody voted for them. You think anyone wanted the Communist Party?

More like good thing they liberated you from the Fascist monarchy. Again, you sound like a nationalist. It's the same propaganda in the end so who cares if you are an anarchist?

You support your government's imperialist actions and the occupation of other countries and I sound like a nationalist?

It was "imposed" by Romanians. After the invasion and the Romanian army switching sides, I'm guessing there weren't many fans of other parties around.

Imposed by us? I think the soviet intervention in Hungary 1956 shows very well what would have happen if anyone would disagree with the soviet empire.

It's lame, but it's also based on irrefutable fact, which can be verified by archival sources. I noticed anarchists are rarely interested in looking through those. I recommend Getty's Road to Terror and Stalinism as a Way of Life- both of which deal with this issue.
I recommend you stop being a nationalist about the imperialist actions of your government.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 13:57

Romanian Communists took over? There was no sort of socialist revolution and nobody voted for them. You think anyone wanted the Communist Party?

Uh yeah, because people VOTE for socialist revolutions right? Why don't you tell me what other parties were popular in Romania at the time?

You support your government's imperialist actions and the occupation of other countries and I sound like a nationalist?

"My government" is technically the one based in Washington DC. Certain countries in WWII decided to throw in their lot with the Nazis, and help launch one of the most destructive campaigns in history against the Soviet Union. Then they lost, and in many cases the Germans forced their allies to fight to the end(e.g. Hungary). Naturally, just as the western allies manipulated politics in the nations they controlled(like Greece), Communists did the same in Eastern Europe.

You're really sounding a lot like Pat Buchanan now, faux-socialism aside.

Imposed by us? I think the soviet intervention in Hungary 1956 shows very well what would have happen if anyone would disagree with the soviet empire.

You're talking to a "Hoxhaist" in case you didn't know. We condemn interventions such as that one.

I recommend you stop being a nationalist about the imperialist actions of your government.

Nationalist? Hardly. If anyone is acting nationalist it is you, not admitting that Romania had homegrown Communists. Remember that it was Romania that started suing for peace after the battle of Stalingrad, and they accepted the conditions imposed on them. Did you really expect the king and Antonesceu to be allowed to keep their positions?

Ovi

28th October 2009, 20:05

Uh yeah, because people VOTE for socialist revolutions right? Why don't you tell me what other parties were popular in Romania at the time?

What parties? They were banned!

"My government" is technically the one based in Washington DC.

Your location reads Moscow, I assumed you're from Russia. Good luck worshiping a system which you never experienced then.

Certain countries in WWII decided to throw in their lot with the Nazis, and help launch one of the most destructive campaigns in history against the Soviet Union. Then they lost, and in many cases the Germans forced their allies to fight to the end(e.g. Hungary).

Of course eastern europe governments such as the one in my country allied with the germans. How stupid would they have to be to consider a government that had imperialist tendencies against them since 1812 their friend?

You're talking to a "Hoxhaist" in case you didn't know. We condemn interventions such as that one.

You condemn such an intervention yet to praise the same system. Let me guess, Stalin would have never done such a terrible thing.

Nationalist? Hardly. If anyone is acting nationalist it is you, not admitting that Romania had homegrown Communists.

I never said that. But they would have never got in charge without the "help" of the soviet government. Nor would it have lasted that long without the USSR crushing any uprising.

Remember that it was Romania that started suing for peace after the battle of Stalingrad, and they accepted the conditions imposed on them. Did you really expect the king and Antonesceu to be allowed to keep their positions?
Of course not. That doesn't mean the soviet union had to replace one totalitarian regime with another one.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 20:32

What parties? They were banned!

Gee, if only those dynamic ANARCHISTS were around to stand up huh? And actually coalitions of parties existed in Eastern Europe immediately after the war.

Your location reads Moscow, I assumed you're from Russia. Good luck worshiping a system which you never experienced then.

I don't worship any system, and you assumed wrong, which seems to be appropriate for anarchists.

Of course eastern europe governments such as the one in my country allied with the germans. How stupid would they have to be to consider a government that had imperialist tendencies against them since 1812 their friend?

So you're now defending the Antonescu government, but the Soviet government doesn't get the same treatment- great.

You condemn such an intervention yet to praise the same system. Let me guess, Stalin would have never done such a terrible thing.

It's not about what someone would have done or could have done, but what actually happened.

I never said that. But they would have never got in charge without the "help" of the soviet government. Nor would it have lasted that long without the USSR crushing any uprising.

Albania remained Marxist-Leninist all the way into the 80s and the Red Army never crossed their border in 1944-45. How do you explain that? Yes, the local Communists did use the presense of the Red Army to their advantage, in the sense that the remnants of the nationalists and bourgeoisie were prevented from using force against the organized workers thanks to the Red Army. It might not seem fair, but then again it isn't any more fair when the boureoisie uses its army and police for the same purpose. One class represses another.

Of course not. That doesn't mean the soviet union had to replace one totalitarian regime with another one.

There's that magic word "totalitarianism" again.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 20:45

Gee, if only those dynamic ANARCHISTS were around to stand up huh? And actually coalitions of parties existed in Eastern Europe immediately after the war.

And the members ended up in jails!

I don't worship any system, and you assumed wrong, which seems to be appropriate for anarchists.

Defending the imperialist actions of the soviet empire and it's oppressive regime says a lot.

So you're now defending the Antonescu government, but the Soviet government doesn't get the same treatment- great.

Wrong. You said that somehow we were against the poor soviet union for not allying with them. Wrong again.

It's not about what someone would have done or could have done, but what actually happened.

But you're a stalinist and stalin would have done the same thing.

Albania remained Marxist-Leninist all the way into the 80s and the Red Army never crossed their border in 1944-45. How do you explain that? Yes, the local Communists did use the presense of the Red Army to their advantage, in the sense that the remnants of the nationalists and bourgeoisie were prevented from using force against the organized workers thanks to the Red Army. It might not seem fair, but then again it isn't any more fair when the boureoisie uses its army and police for the same purpose. One class represses another.

The red army was meant to protect the workers against the bourgeois?:laugh: Good thing Hungarians were protected for 45 years then.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 21:28

And the members ended up in jails!

All of them?

Defending the imperialist actions of the soviet empire and it's oppressive regime says a lot.

How was it imperialist? You weren't aware that there were Communists in Romania prior to the war?

Wrong. You said that somehow we were against the poor soviet union for not allying with them. Wrong again.

Actually the word you are searching for is "right". Apparently you can't see the difference between "not allying with" and "assisting Fascist conquest directly."

But you're a stalinist and stalin would have done the same thing.

Stalinism doesn't exist. Also you are quite confused because you seem to think you are arguing against what you call the "Stalinist" system. If any of us believed that the system, including as it was run under Stalin's tenure, were perfect or even desirable, we would be hard pressed to explain why it failed.

Adults with enough reasoning capability can evaluate the experience, history, and historical conditions of the Soviet Union in a rational way. We all have our criticisms and most of them are the same as yours(though perhaps for different reasons), but we also realize that even though we are still Marxist-Leninists, we have not yet made our own revolution, which means it is pointless to condemn or even praise the USSR.

Still, it is sheer idiocy to declare a real existing state in history to be not socialist simply because it doesn't fit your ideal of what socialism is.

The red army was meant to protect the workers against the bourgeois?:laugh: Good thing Hungarians were protected for 45 years then.

Again, you are praising a regime that I do not support.

This is why we rightly see you so-called anarchists as basically enemies of socialism. How much time in this thread have you spent attacking real-world existing socialism, which whatever its fault, actually existed and made progress of some sort, and how much time have you spent attacking the modern Russian fascist regime, conditions in capitalist Eastern Europe, etc.? You claim, erroneously, that the systems were relatively the same, and it is clear that most of your hatred is directed not at the capitalist regime but the Soviet socialist/ state-capitalist regime. So in other words, you are basically doing the work of the bourgeoisie for them, and it is far more effective when it comes from self-proclaimed "socialists". Your personal intentions for making those claims are irrelevant; it's the result that counts.

Oh yes we all know your vision of socialism is so much better; but please, go ahead and SHOW us some time.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 21:44

All of them?

Why do you thing there was a single party system? People were in some fetish love for it?

How was it imperialist? You weren't aware that there were Communists in Romania prior to the war?

I'm talking about the soviet occupation of Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova and so on after the RIbbentrop-Molotov pact.

Actually the word you are searching for is "right". Apparently you can't see the difference between "not allying with" and "assisting Fascist conquest directly."

The only choices were allying with nazi Germany or with the Soviet Union. Both were just as bad so stop pretending like anyone had a real choice.

Stalinism doesn't exist. Also you are quite confused because you seem to think you are arguing against what you call the "Stalinist" system. If any of us believed that the system, including as it was run under Stalin's tenure, were perfect or even desirable, we would be hard pressed to explain why it failed.

Adults with enough reasoning capability can evaluate the experience, history, and historical conditions of the Soviet Union in a rational way. We all have our criticisms and most of them are the same as yours(though perhaps for different reasons), but we also realize that even though we are still Marxist-Leninists, we have not yet made our own revolution, which means it is pointless to condemn or even praise the USSR.

Still, it is sheer idiocy to declare a real existing state in history to be not socialist simply because it doesn't fit your ideal of what socialism is.

It's not about any ideal socialism, whatever that means, but the fact the working class was just as oppressed during those times. There was no such thing as worker run factories and no such thing as direct democracy which makes those countries anything but socialist. Not to mention that deportations, causing famines and occupying other countries is anything but a socialist argument.

Again, you are praising a regime that I do not support.

This is why we rightly see you so-called anarchists as basically enemies of socialism. How much time in this thread have you spent attacking real-world existing socialism, which whatever its fault, actually existed and made progress of some sort, and how much time have you spent attacking the modern Russian fascist regime, conditions in capitalist Eastern Europe, etc.?

What's the point? Nobody claims that the current regimes are any good, so argue what?

You claim, erroneously, that the systems were relatively the same, and it is clear that most of your hatred is directed not at the capitalist regime but the Soviet socialist/ state-capitalist regime. So in other words, you are basically doing the work of the bourgeoisie for them, and it is far more effective when it comes from self-proclaimed "socialists". Your personal intentions for making those claims are irrelevant; it's the result that counts.

I'm doing the work for my own and the other workers well being. Having to go again through such a regime is not something I hope for when I say I'm a leftist.

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 21:57

I'm talking about the soviet occupation of Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova and so on after the RIbbentrop-Molotov pact.

The Soviets acquired these territories to put distance between them and the Nazis, and to secure ports on the Baltic sea. In fact populations in these countries were concerned about German expansionism as well, which is why their parliaments voted for the annexation. Granted, there are claims that these votes were rigged somehow- but I haven't seen the specific evidence of that.

Moldova had been part of the Russian empire since the 19th century, and it was seized by Romania when the USSR was weak. Why is Romanian imperialism ok then?

The only choices were allying with nazi Germany or with the Soviet Union. Both were just as bad so stop pretending like anyone had a real choice.

Absolute nonsense. You are trying to pretend that Romania's politics, like that of Hungary, didn't influence the decision to side with the Nazis. There is no reason to believe that the USSR would have taken any Romania territory beyond that which was arranged by the M-R pact.

It's not about any ideal socialism, whatever that means, but the fact the working class was just as oppressed during those times.

No, objectively speaking it clearly wasn't, when you compare it to Tsarist times and to a very large degree present times. Repression doesn't seem as widespread in modern day Russia, but instead it is something always hanging over your head, and people have little hope for the future because the conditions for elderly are abyssmal. The situation in the Soviet Union might not have been that much better, but it was in many ways better.

There was no such thing as worker run factories and no such thing as direct democracy which makes those countries anything but socialist.

Does socialism automatically mean "worker run factories" and "direct democracy"? No, it does not.

Not to mention that deportations, causing famines and occupying other countries is anything but a socialist argument.

Thanks for giving us more fascist propaganda about causing famines.

What's the point? Nobody claims that the current regimes are any good, so argue what?

Since all your attention and condemnation is focused on the USSR, which incidentally, does not even exist anymore, one can reasonably conclude that you support the status quo. Even if you don't your words and actions clearly demonstrate in favor of that idea.

I'm doing the work for my own and the other workers well being. Having to go again through such a regime is not something I hope for when I say I'm a leftist.

Why the hell would we want to repeat the experience of the Bolshevik revolution, as if that were even possible? Revolutions occur in the context of their time and place. Since this is a different time, and the place is the same only in the geographical sense, the idea that we, even as Marxist-Leninists, would seek to duplicate the experience of others nearly 100 years before is absolutely ludicrous. If you want to refight the Bolshevik revolution, talk to the Trots, they seem to like doing that.

Now, if I were to write all the problems I had with the USSR under Stalin, it would take up many pages, and a lot of the criticisms would be related to many of the same things you are writing about here. The difference is that despite the fact that I see myself as following the same political ideology of leaders like Stalin, I also acknowledge that I have the benefit of hindsight and people like me haven't started a revolution yet.

Ovi

28th October 2009, 22:24

The Soviets acquired these territories to put distance between them and the Nazis, and to secure ports on the Baltic sea. In fact populations in these countries were concerned about German expansionism as well, which is why their parliaments voted for the annexation. Granted, there are claims that these votes were rigged somehow- but I haven't seen the specific evidence of that.

Moldova had been part of the Russian empire since the 19th century

I already said this.

and it was seized by Romania when the USSR was weak. Why is Romanian imperialism ok then?

Because it was the Russian Empire occupying Moldova in 1812, not my country if that matters.

Absolute nonsense. You are trying to pretend that Romania's politics, like that of Hungary, didn't influence the decision to side with the Nazis. There is no reason to believe that the USSR would have taken any Romania territory beyond that which was arranged by the M-R pact.

And how is the soviet occupation of Moldova justified to you?

No, objectively speaking it clearly wasn't, when you compare it to Tsarist times and to a very large degree present times. Repression doesn't seem as widespread in modern day Russia, but instead it is something always hanging over your head, and people have little hope for the future because the conditions for elderly are abyssmal. The situation in the Soviet Union might not have been that much better, but it was in many ways better.

And people in the US made a better living than those in the soviet union. Does that make it socialist?

Does socialism automatically mean "worker run factories" and "direct democracy"? No, it does not.

In my opinion freeing the working class from the ruling class is the whole point of socialism. Replacing the ruling class with another is not.

Thanks for giving us more fascist propaganda about causing famines.

To you the holodomor never existed and anyone against Stalin is a fascist.

Since all your attention and condemnation is focused on the USSR, which incidentally, does not even exist anymore, one can reasonably conclude that you support the status quo. Even if you don't your words and actions clearly demonstrate in favor of that idea.

If that's what you understand then go ahead. This conversation was how socialist the soviet union was, not how the current capitalist world is any good. If I would have supported the status quo then I wouldn't be wasting my time spreading leftist ideas as much as I can.

Why the hell would we want to repeat the experience of the Bolshevik revolution, as if that were even possible? Revolutions occur in the context of their time and place. Since this is a different time, and the place is the same only in the geographical sense, the idea that we, even as Marxist-Leninists, would seek to duplicate the experience of others nearly 100 years before is absolutely ludicrous. If you want to refight the Bolshevik revolution, talk to the Trots, they seem to like doing that.

Now, if I were to write all the problems I had with the USSR under Stalin, it would take up many pages, and a lot of the criticisms would be related to many of the same things you are writing about here. The difference is that despite the fact that I see myself as following the same political ideology of leaders like Stalin, I also acknowledge that I have the benefit of hindsight and people like me haven't started a revolution yet.
What you don't understand is that Stalin was never the problem but the fucked up system that put him in charge. Creating another state capitalist system with "better" leaders won't accomplish shit.

bailey_187

28th October 2009, 22:29

Ovi just stop, this is getting embarrassing (for you)

Kayser_Soso

28th October 2009, 22:38

I already said this.

Because it was the Russian Empire occupying Moldova in 1812, not my country if that matters.

And how is the soviet occupation of Moldova justified to you?

It is justified by the defensive needs of the USSR, plus the fact that Romania basically took this land during the Russian civil war. Why is one imperialism better than another?

And people in the US made a better living than those in the soviet union. Does that make it socialist?

Again, oversimplification. In many ways, Soviet citizens had advantages that Americans didn't. For example, universal healthcare, higher education, and for a period, guaranteed employment. They were provided with cultural and recreational facilities and events. Their necessities were dirt cheap, along with transport, and most important of all, they didn't have to worry about coming up with the rent every month.

QUOTE=Ovi;1582040]
In my opinion freeing the working class from the ruling class is the whole point of socialism. Replacing the ruling class with another is not.[/QUOTE]

Then this is where you misunderstand socialism. In a socialist revolution, you DO replace one ruling class with another, the difference being that the working class is much larger. That being said, it is stupid to think you can have a revolution- and then immediately after workers will automatically be able to run the country, making all the right decisions in complete cohesion as to keep the economy running, all the while dealing with the conditions imposed by the class enemies outside the nation.

QUOTE=Ovi;1582040]
To you the holodomor never existed and anyone against Stalin is a fascist.[/quote]

That's it, give us some more pro-Nazi propaganda. Perhaps the one about Ilya Ehrenburg inciting Soviet soldiers to rape?

There was no "Holodomor". With the Soviet archives having been open for nearly 20 years, nobody can find a scrap of paper planning to starve people. Plenty of evidence to the contrary in fact- look up the work of Professor Mark Tauger, University of West Virginia.

QUOTE=Ovi;1582040]
If that's what you understand then go ahead. This conversation was how socialist the soviet union was, not how the current capitalist world is any good. If I would have supported the status quo then I wouldn't be wasting my time spreading leftist ideas as much as I can.[/quote]

No, look at the name of the thread. Red Russia v. Modern Russia. Thus far, I haven't counted a SINGLE complaint by you about modern capitalist Russia, Tsarist Russia, or capitalist Romania/fascist Romania. All your complaints and attacks are directed only against the Soviet Union, mirroring nearly word for word those of radical nationalists both from back then and now.

And you are really arguing against a strawman because I only defend the Soviet Union, to a degree, within a historical context, usually only compared to the other countries and societies that existed concurrently. I do not compare it with your allegedly better anarchist socialism because thus far- that has never been implemented, and the two best attempts were miserable failures. I compare real with real.

QUOTE=Ovi;1582040]
What you don't understand is that Stalin was never the problem but the fucked up system that put him in charge. Creating another state capitalist system with "better" leaders won't accomplish shit.[/QUOTE]

At the very least you understand that Stalin(and I understood this perfectly by the way) wasn't the problem. However, leaders do make a big difference. The goal, however, is to construct a system that isn't so dependent on leadership. The problem is, that you cannot just implement the reverse- total direct democracy, immediately- and in many ways direct democracy would be undesirable for many. Whatever the people must decide, they will be responsible to inform themselves and take time out of their day to discuss and deal with these issues. Add on to that the time they spend working, plus running the factory, and any education and training that might be necessary for that- and in the end you defeat one of the main goals of socialism- the increase of leisure time for devotion to culture.

As Adam Smith said, "Time is our original measure of value."

28th October 2009, 23:58

The problem is, that you cannot just implement the reverse- total direct democracy, immediately- and in many ways direct democracy would be undesirable for many. Whatever the people must decide, they will be responsible to inform themselves and take time out of their day to discuss and deal with these issues. Add on to that the time they spend working, plus running the factory, and any education and training that might be necessary for that- and in the end you defeat one of the main goals of socialism- the increase of leisure time for devotion to culture.

As Adam Smith said, "Time is our original measure of value."

This coupled with your earlier posts about repression being a self-imposed horror by 'the people' are nothing short of hilarious. Like ovi said, they are some of the worst arguments ever made on this forum. And as for the other condescending comments, just look at kayser's other posts and you'll find it's him that's making himself a laughing stock.

Arguing against worker-self management in and of itself is rarely seen on these forums in such an explicit manner, it's nothing short of hilarious really.

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 00:04

This coupled with your earlier posts about repression being a self-imposed horror by 'the people' are nothing short of hilarious.

Well of course it's hilarious to you because you are ignorant and have most likely done very little actual study of what occured in the Soviet Union outside of crap you read from anarchist publications and of course Wikipedia.

J. Arch Getty seems to think that the terror was something imposed both from above and below, and I'm going to have to take his word for it.

Like ovi said, they are some of the worst arguments ever made on this forum. And as for the other condescending comments, just look at kayser's other posts and you'll find it's him that's making himself a laughing stock.

Dim minds think alike apparently. The rep I get for virtually every post I make casts doubt on your "laughing stock" claim.

Arguing against worker-self management in and of itself is rarely seen on these forums in such an explicit manner, it's nothing short of hilarious really.

Idealistic people rarely tend to think very far ahead and consider what would happen if their plans were so hastily implemented. But please, go on living in anarchist fantasy land- where days after the revolution, all the factories are immediately transferred to the workers direct control, and everybody miraculously runs their enterprises in complete cohesion so as to maintain the infrastructure and economy, all the while defending from counter-revolutionaries. And of course, all this will be done WITHOUT restricting individual freedom as well!!

29th October 2009, 00:21

Well of course it's hilarious to you because you are ignorant and have most likely done very little actual study of what occured in the Soviet Union outside of crap you read from anarchist publications and of course Wikipedia.

Yeah most likely because I'm an 'anarchist' (I've explained this before).

J. Arch Getty seems to think that the terror was something imposed both from above and below, and I'm going to have to take his word for it.

The Russian proletariat clearly terrorised itself, what a pathetic joke, I'm not even attacking the government but the fact you immediately want to say 'terror was imposed from below' is nothing short of a farce.

Dim minds think alike apparently. The rep I get for virtually every post I make casts doubt on your "laughing stock" claim.

Rep on these forums is a joke, you can get rep for saying CHE WAS AN HERO1111!!!, the fact that you take it seriously says alot about you.

Idealistic people rarely tend to think very far ahead and consider what would happen if their plans were so hastily implemented. But please, go on living in anarchist fantasy land- where days after the revolution, all the factories are immediately transferred to the workers direct control, and everybody miraculously runs their enterprises in complete cohesion so as to maintain the infrastructure and economy, all the while defending from counter-revolutionaries. And of course, all this will be done WITHOUT restricting individual freedom as well!!

Or we can never allow worker self-management to happen ever because the workers will impose terror on themselves from below, plus it's just inconvenient you know, workers don't want hassle, workers just wanna have their time off work as leisure time? Who wants to vote or do anything other than work and play?

mykittyhasaboner

29th October 2009, 00:29

Ah, Marxist-Leninists vs Anarchists. So inconclusive, yet so entertaining, well sometimes.

In my opinion freeing the working class from the ruling class is the whole point of socialism. Replacing the ruling class with another is not.
And here's the crux of the divide between the two camps in this debate, as I see it anways. Well for one, socialism means the ownership and control of society's means of production by the proletariat; to do this, it is necessary to overthrow the ruling class (the capitalist class) and institute a society ruled by the workers and (formerly) exploited classes. Socialism is not simply about "freeing the working class" from the capitalists, it's about expropriating them and taking over as the ruling class. In a socialist transitional society, class struggle still exists, except the working classes are now the ruling class.

It doesn't matter what you think the whole point of socialism is, because it's inconsistent with the reality of socialism. When society is ready to abolish class we will then have reached communism, not socialism.

Ovi

29th October 2009, 00:37

It is justified by the defensive needs of the USSR, plus the fact that Romania basically took this land during the Russian civil war. Why is one imperialism better than another?

Nobody invaded Moldova in 1918 and the majority of people in Moldova are romanians. What imperialism? I don't really care much about an act of some national unification, but you don't know what imperialism is.

Again, oversimplification. In many ways, Soviet citizens had advantages that Americans didn't. For example, universal healthcare, higher education, and for a period, guaranteed employment. They were provided with cultural and recreational facilities and events. Their necessities were dirt cheap, along with transport, and most important of all, they didn't have to worry about coming up with the rent every month.

That still doesn't make it socialist. Yes socialist to "my" definition of socialism. You know, worker democracy, abolishing the ruling class, stuff like that.

Then this is where you misunderstand socialism. In a socialist revolution, you DO replace one ruling class with another, the difference being that the working class is much larger. That being said, it is stupid to think you can have a revolution- and then immediately after workers will automatically be able to run the country, making all the right decisions in complete cohesion as to keep the economy running, all the while dealing with the conditions imposed by the class enemies outside the nation.

I think it's even more stupid to believe the new ruling class will act in the interest of the people. Each class with its own interests like always.

That's it, give us some more pro-Nazi propaganda. Perhaps the one about Ilya Ehrenburg inciting Soviet soldiers to rape?

There was no "Holodomor". With the Soviet archives having been open for nearly 20 years, nobody can find a scrap of paper planning to starve people. Plenty of evidence to the contrary in fact- look up the work of Professor Mark Tauger, University of West Virginia.

Exactly as I thought :laugh:. You're so predictable.

No, look at the name of the thread. Red Russia v. Modern Russia.
Thus far, I haven't counted a SINGLE complaint by you about modern capitalist Russia, Tsarist Russia, or capitalist Romania/fascist Romania. All your complaints and attacks are directed only against the Soviet Union, mirroring nearly word for word those of radical nationalists both from back then and now.

I was talking about this conversation, not about the thread. Since you haven't made any claims about modern Russia that I disagree with, this conversation is about the Soviet Union. Yeah, anyone who doesn't agree with the Soviet Union is a fascist. That's what Ceausescu always used to say. Fortunately he's dead.

And you are really arguing against a strawman because I only defend the Soviet Union, to a degree, within a historical context, usually only compared to the other countries and societies that existed concurrently. I do not compare it with your allegedly better anarchist socialism because thus far- that has never been implemented, and the two best attempts were miserable failures. I compare real with real.

In my opinion there was no socialist soviet union, so you might as well compare Japan with Canada.

At the very least you understand that Stalin(and I understood this perfectly by the way) wasn't the problem.

Of course not. In a real socialist country, such a fucked up guy would never end up ruling over anyone.

However, leaders do make a big difference. The goal, however, is to construct a system that isn't so dependent on leadership.

Maybe you need a powerful leader to show you the way to socialism, I don't.

The problem is, that you cannot just implement the reverse- total direct democracy, immediately- and in many ways direct democracy would be undesirable for many. Whatever the people must decide, they will be responsible to inform themselves and take time out of their day to discuss and deal with these issues. Add on to that the time they spend working, plus running the factory, and any education and training that might be necessary for that- and in the end you defeat one of the main goals of socialism- the increase of leisure time for devotion to culture.

It's hard to believe anyone could ever make a critique of worker self management worse than that. Even capitalists can do better.

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 07:36

The Russian proletariat clearly terrorised itself, what a pathetic joke, I'm not even attacking the government but the fact you immediately want to say 'terror was imposed from below' is nothing short of a farce.

As usual, you cannot construct a single argument that actually uses your opponent's words. My argument, which that does not represent, is the basic thesis of J. Arch Getty. The fact that you don't seem to know anything about him is disturbing.

Rep on these forums is a joke, you can get rep for saying CHE WAS AN HERO1111!!!, the fact that you take it seriously says alot about you.

Let's put that to the test: CHE WAS AN HERO11111!!!!

Or we can never allow worker self-management to happen ever because the workers will impose terror on themselves from below, plus it's just inconvenient you know, workers don't want hassle, workers just wanna have their time off work as leisure time? Who wants to vote or do anything other than work and play?

Have you ever made a coherent response to an opponent's actual argument in your entire life?

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 07:42

Nobody invaded Moldova in 1918 and the majority of people in Moldova are romanians. What imperialism? I don't really care much about an act of some national unification, but you don't know what imperialism is.

"National unification" is often given as a reason for imperialism.

That still doesn't make it socialist. Yes socialist to "my" definition of socialism. You know, worker democracy, abolishing the ruling class, stuff like that.

They did abolish the ruling class, and the property was consolidated under the state which was controlled by the working class's party. Even though the system of representation had many flaws, it was still a worker's party and still drew its members from the workers.

I think it's even more stupid to believe the new ruling class will act in the interest of the people. Each class with its own interests like always.

People didn't have an interest in free universal education, healthcare, literacy, etc. ?

Exactly as I thought :laugh:. You're so predictable.

Not an argument.

I was talking about this conversation, not about the thread. Since you haven't made any claims about modern Russia that I disagree with, this conversation is about the Soviet Union. Yeah, anyone who doesn't agree with the Soviet Union is a fascist. That's what Ceausescu always used to say. Fortunately he's dead.

I am talking about this thread. This thread is a comparison of modern day Russia and Red Russia, and you erroneously said there was no important difference.

In my opinion there was no socialist soviet union, so you might as well compare Japan with Canada.

This is the typical argument so far:

USSR had policy X, called itself socialist

Counter that did not call itself socialist nor is considered socialist by anyone also had policy X.

Ergo- the USSR was not socialist.

Idiocy.

Of course not. In a real socialist country, such a fucked up guy would never end up ruling over anyone.

Really? You mean like Makhno? Why wouldn't that happen in a "real socialist country"? It sounds just like a capitalist apologist saying nothing bad would happen in a "real" capitalist country.

Maybe you need a powerful leader to show you the way to socialism, I don't.

What the times demand is what is needed. Seeing as how you anarchists have failed miserably for over 100 years, and you have your own personalty cults around Makhno and Durruti, perhaps you shouldn't be called the kettle black.

It's hard to believe anyone could ever make a critique of worker self management worse than that. Even capitalists can do better.

Apparently your oversimplistic mind cannot comprehend this concept, so we will do it this way- you explain how your worker self-management would work in an anarchist country, and I'll explain the whole can of worms you are opening, and why it won't work.

robbo203

29th October 2009, 08:37

Still, it is sheer idiocy to declare a real existing state in history to be not socialist simply because it doesn't fit your ideal of what socialism is. .

Cute that. BY the same token to declare that the state capitalist dictatorship that was the Soviet Union was somehow "socialist" must similarly be "sheer idiocy" because it doesnt fit the ideal of socialism held by other people. Whats in a word, eh? If the Soviet Union was "socialist" then I for one would be quite happy to declare myself a vehement opponent of this "socialism" - a brutal class-based massively unequal, exploitative society and an imperialist power to boot

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 11:11

Cute that. BY the same token to declare that the state capitalist dictatorship that was the Soviet Union was somehow "socialist" must similarly be "sheer idiocy" because it doesnt fit the ideal of socialism held by other people. Whats in a word, eh? If the Soviet Union was "socialist" then I for one would be quite happy to declare myself a vehement opponent of this "socialism" - a brutal class-based massively unequal, exploitative society and an imperialist power to boot

Do you really expect socialism to be so black and white? Either a country is socialist, because it fits your ideal, or it doesn't, therefore it isn't? Did previous modes of production come into being all at once, in their current form? If we allow for the statement that modern-day liberal democracy is currently the most "free", progressive political system today- was it the same at its inception? Absolutely not.

Pirate turtle the 11th

29th October 2009, 12:31

Che was an hero!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

Ovi

29th October 2009, 13:26

"National unification" is often given as a reason for imperialism.

Often? Is the german reunification also imperialist to you? I'm surprised you haven't called the soviet occupation as liberating yet. Stalinists usually do.

They did abolish the ruling class, and the property was consolidated under the state which was controlled by the working class's party. Even though the system of representation had many flaws, it was still a worker's party and still drew its members from the workers.

I could argue those dumb claims of working class party from the experience in my country, but of course for some reason the soviet union was the only true socialist regime, the imposed ones in the other countries were not according to you.

People didn't have an interest in free universal education, healthcare, literacy, etc. ?

And what does that have to do with anything?

I am talking about this thread. This thread is a comparison of modern day Russia and Red Russia, and you erroneously said there was no important difference.

No there isn't. The working class and the ruling class existed before, they exist are now. The workers were oppressed before, they are now. The only important difference is that between state capitalism and today's capitalism.

This is the typical argument so far:

USSR had policy X, called itself socialist

Counter that did not call itself socialist nor is considered socialist by anyone also had policy X.

Ergo- the USSR was not socialist.

To you it's enough for a country to call itself socialist to start arguing about the working class was liberated and stalin was a good man.

Why wouldn't that happen in a "real socialist country"?

Because true socialism has no rulers to decide the faith of 100 million people.

It sounds just like a capitalist apologist saying nothing bad would happen in a "real" capitalist country.

You're already a capitalist by my definition.

What the times demand is what is needed. Seeing as how you anarchists have failed miserably for over 100 years, and you have your own personalty cults around Makhno and Durruti, perhaps you shouldn't be called the kettle black.

I don't have any personality cult. You do. And the biggest failure of socialism in the last 100 years was making people believe that the soviet union had anything to do with socialism. This is what created a large anti-communist feeling in my country as in many others while you still claim that the soviet union was socialist. That won't get us close to a revolution at all, but on the contrary. If that's what socialism is then I, like robbo203 and the majority of the people in my country am in fierce opposition for anything that has to do with it.

Apparently your oversimplistic mind cannot comprehend this concept, so we will do it this way- you explain how your worker self-management would work in an anarchist country, and I'll explain the whole can of worms you are opening, and why it won't work.
Funny. Every single country that followed the ideas of Lenin ended up being police states and being more authoritarian they were before and you want to show me how you're right?

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 14:23

Often? Is the german reunification also imperialist to you? I'm surprised you haven't called the soviet occupation as liberating yet. Stalinists usually do.

Nazi Germany used the unification of the German people as an excuse to take parts of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.

And as for German reunification, it wouldn't have been necessary had it not been for the Western allies. Stalin proposed that Germany be neutral, unoccupied, just like Austria. Britain, the US, and France refused.

I could argue those dumb claims of working class party from the experience in my country, but of course for some reason the soviet union was the only true socialist regime, the imposed ones in the other countries were not according to you.

Albania was a true socialist regime and it was clearly not imposed by the Soviet Union.

No there isn't. The working class and the ruling class existed before, they exist are now. The workers were oppressed before, they are now. The only important difference is that between state capitalism and today's capitalism.

Again, this is that oversimplistic "Cows are tables" logic that you anarchists love to use. Let me ask you this then- if Soviet Russia and capitalist Russia are allegedly the same because workers were oppressed in some way- which country do you think would have a better chance of achieving what you call real socialism? USSR circa 1953, or modern day Russia?

To you it's enough for a country to call itself socialist to start arguing about the working class was liberated and stalin was a good man.

No, I don't consider China socialist, most of the People's Democracies including Romania were not socialist, etc. Only a few countries at least established themselves on the road to socialist development.

I do not judge socialism by which country was closest to my ideal system, and Stalin has very little to do with any of this.

Because true socialism has no rulers to decide the faith of 100 million people.

Really? Who made that rule? Oh right, you.

You're already a capitalist by my definition.

Damn, then you REALLY need some political education. A capitalist is someone who derives their income mainly from the ownership of private property. I own no private property, ergo I cannot be a capitalist. I also do not happen to have an income high enough to put my interests in line with the capitalists, like some kind of celebrity for example.

I don't have any personality cult. You do.

Actually we Marxist-Leninists condemn the personality cults built up around Stalin and Hoxha. Doesn't it suck arguing against actual people instead of caricatures you made up?

And the biggest failure of socialism in the last 100 years was making people believe that the soviet union had anything to do with socialism.

Yeah, what a travesty that the world never knew what some guy in Romania thinks of socialism and capitalism.

As we all know, socialism is automatically good, so if something negative or bad happens in a socialist country, it can't be socialist at all, because socialism is automatically good..... replace "socialism" with "capitalism" and you've got the standard libertarian argument for capitalism.

You can't expect revolution to be rosy, or to produce the society of your goals immediately. Marx and Engels said the working class would go through maybe over a century of civil war, reverses, and destruction in order to achieve socialism.

This is what created a large anti-communist feeling in my country as in many others while you still claim that the soviet union was socialist.

Right, so you'll try to hoodwink everyone by latching on to a utopian ideology that has never achieved anything significant in the name of socialism, in hopes that people will fall for it.

That won't get us close to a revolution at all, but on the contrary. If that's what socialism is then I, like robbo203 and the majority of the people in my country am in fierce opposition for anything that has to do with it.

Of course you are opposed to anything that happens in the real world, instead of anarchist fantasy land where every thing is good and bad, black and white, and everything is a matter of "smashing the state and turning the factories over to the workers." It's not like any unexpected problems might come up along the way- just steel your belief in your dogma and press on ahead!

Funny. Every single country that followed the ideas of Lenin ended up being police states and being more authoritarian they were before and you want to show me how you're right?

How do you measure "more authoritarian"? Are you saying, for example, that Tsarist Russia was less authoritarian than Bolshevik Russia?

And again, your solution to the failure of Lenin's ideas put into practice is to adopt an ideology that has been even MORE unsuccessful. I could just as easily say that the two countries in which anarchists actually put their ideas into practice, Spain and Ukraine, also turned out more authoritarian after the fact.

Lastly, I remind you that you don't seem to realize who you are arguing with. You are not arguing with representatives of the USSR. All you do by *****ing about the USSR is beat a dead horse. Do you really think we would be stupid enough to try the same thing as Lenin and Stalin did in 1917 onward? It's the job of anarchists to repeat past failures.

Ovi

29th October 2009, 19:08

Nazi Germany used the unification of the German people as an excuse to take parts of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.

And as for German reunification, it wouldn't have been necessary had it not been for the Western allies. Stalin proposed that Germany be neutral, unoccupied, just like Austria. Britain, the US, and France refused.

Huh? I didn't ask you that but whether the german reunification was an act of imperialism.

Albania was a true socialist regime and it was clearly not imposed by the Soviet Union.

Not surprisingly, Albania was also one of the most authoritarian. Yes I understand your view of socialism very well.

Again, this is that oversimplistic "Cows are tables" logic that you anarchists love to use. Let me ask you this then- if Soviet Russia and capitalist Russia are allegedly the same because workers were oppressed in some way- which country do you think would have a better chance of achieving what you call real socialism? USSR circa 1953, or modern day Russia?

It's like asking where is achieving socialism easier, in Canada or Japan. I don't care!

No, I don't consider China socialist, most of the People's Democracies including Romania were not socialist, etc. Only a few countries at least established themselves on the road to socialist development.

I do not judge socialism by which country was closest to my ideal system, and Stalin has very little to do with any of this.

You judge them according to which leader is better? Is a "good" leader everything to make a country socialist to you? Looks like it is.

Damn, then you REALLY need some political education. A capitalist is someone who derives their income mainly from the ownership of private property. I own no private property, ergo I cannot be a capitalist. I also do not happen to have an income high enough to put my interests in line with the capitalists, like some kind of celebrity for example.

State capitalists don't need wealth to be in power but authority. It is hierarchy that defines capitalism and the means to maintain it.

Yeah, what a travesty that the world never knew what some guy in Romania thinks of socialism and capitalism.

Frankly, your ideas are even less interesting to the world than mine.

As we all know, socialism is automatically good, so if something negative or bad happens in a socialist country, it can't be socialist at all, because socialism is automatically good..... replace "socialism" with "capitalism" and you've got the standard libertarian argument for capitalism.

You can't expect revolution to be rosy, or to produce the society of your goals immediately. Marx and Engels said the working class would go through maybe over a century of civil war, reverses, and destruction in order to achieve socialism.

Right, so you'll try to hoodwink everyone by latching on to a utopian ideology that has never achieved anything significant in the name of socialism, in hopes that people will fall for it.

If failure is all that matters, then capitalism is the sure winner today. By your argument, the left should no longer exist.

How do you measure "more authoritarian"? Are you saying, for example, that Tsarist Russia was less authoritarian than Bolshevik Russia?

Weird thing that millions of working class people that have experienced those "socialist" regimes are completely against everything you hold.

Lastly, I remind you that you don't seem to realize who you are arguing with. You are not arguing with representatives of the USSR. All you do by *****ing about the USSR is beat a dead horse. Do you really think we would be stupid enough to try the same thing as Lenin and Stalin did in 1917 onward? It's the job of anarchists to repeat past failures.
Any attempt on your side to achieve socialism will end up exactly like that. As I said, keep praising the "socialist" regime you never lived through.

29th October 2009, 19:32

As usual, you cannot construct a single argument that actually uses your opponent's words. My argument, which that does not represent, is the basic thesis of J. Arch Getty. The fact that you don't seem to know anything about him is disturbing.

Sorry, but I am not going to take your argument on this even remotely seriously, it's just a farce.

Have you ever made a coherent response to an opponent's actual argument in your entire life?

There are a number of things you could say about my response, incoherency is not one of them.

robbo203

29th October 2009, 20:04

Do you really expect socialism to be so black and white? Either a country is socialist, because it fits your ideal, or it doesn't, therefore it isn't? Did previous modes of production come into being all at once, in their current form? If we allow for the statement that modern-day liberal democracy is currently the most "free", progressive political system today- was it the same at its inception? Absolutely not.

No, previous modes of production did not come into existence all at once but that is slightly tangential to the point I was making, isnt it? I was saying that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist dictatorship, there was nothing remotely "socialist" about it and if that is what you call "socialism"then I, for one, want nothing to do with it.

But talking about previous modes of production coming to co-exist with the dominant MOP and eventually replacing it as the dominant MOP, it has to be said that there is more than a suggestion in Marx's writing that this was not possible in the case of socialism. It is literally a case of socialism abruptly replacing capitalism. Hence the reference in the Communist Manifesto to the communist (aka socialist) revolution being the "most radical rupture" with traditional property forms.

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 21:23

No, previous modes of production did not come into existence all at once but that is slightly tangential to the point I was making, isnt it? I was saying that the Soviet Union was a state capitalist dictatorship, there was nothing remotely "socialist" about it and if that is what you call "socialism"then I, for one, want nothing to do with it.

What I call it, if I were to consider it state capitalist throughout its entire existence(which I don't), is the first genuine attempt at creating a truly socialist society. It may not have succeeded, but we have learned much from it.

But talking about previous modes of production coming to co-exist with the dominant MOP and eventually replacing it as the dominant MOP, it has to be said that there is more than a suggestion in Marx's writing that this was not possible in the case of socialism. It is literally a case of socialism abruptly replacing capitalism. Hence the reference in the Communist Manifesto to the communist (aka socialist) revolution being the "most radical rupture" with traditional property forms.

Radical is not the same as immediate or quick. As I said before, both Marx and Engels saw the transition to Communism as being a long period. The transition to socialism, at least via modern technology, can be quite short. The technology exists to eliminate wage labor, and people are mostly literate and far more technically proficient today.

However, I refuse to build castles in the sky. The problem with folks like you is that you assume that decisions in the Soviet Union and other states were made just because the leaders were corrupt, or dicks, or whatever(and yes, some certainly were). The second assumption is that there were suitable and practical alternatives to these decisions made at the time, which(assuming that some variants were doable) appeared so to the leadership. Moreover, it is ridiculous to believe that because the variant chosen didn't work, the alternatives provided probably would have worked.

So like I said before, the list of things I would have done differently in the Soviet Union, or better said, the things I think socialists should do now which differ from the way things were done in the USSR, could fill pages- hell, it could be a series of books. However, I will not insult people's intelligence by acting as though I can predict precisely what we need to do after a revolution to reach Communism. Moreover, I will not insult their intelligence by telling them that more than a dozen countries in the world had "socialist" revolutions in the 20th century, yet none of them achieved a society having anything to do with socialism, as you and others here claim. If socialism is truly so lofty that something like that could happen, then it is nothing more than a utopian dream and most people would rather keep on doing what they are doing.

In case you didn't notice, I am a member of a party, the American Party of Labor, and though it is small, I can tell you what it is NOT: It isn't the Stalin or Hoxha appreciation society. Our views are clearly laid out in our party platform and other documents, and those are views I have personally endorsed. Personally I am not concerned with lamenting endlessly over the crimes, real or imagined, in the Soviet Union; when I read about problems in the USSR, with sufficient evidence- my initial reaction is: "we need to watch out for this in the future." I am not going to answer for the crimes, real or imagined, of a party I was never a member of, for a country I did not live in, or for people I could not possibly have met. I see my responsibility is to study the failings of those regimes and avoid them in the future.

Revolution, class struggle; these are brutal, ardous endeavors. They are not pleasant, they do not present you with clear cut decisions where you will be able to take a moral high ground every time. If you want socialism to come without pain, without suffering, then you basically want something for nothing, and you are a utopian dreamer. I look at the experience of the first socialist states as a column of soldiers walking single file through a minefield. We learn, and we survive, from the fatal mistakes of others. But sooner or later, the one in front of you is dead and you find yourself at the head of the column. That's revolution in the real world.

Sorry to lecture you but I expect to be very busy in the next few days and I cannot say when I will be back. I chose your message to respond to because you are at least providing some actual arguments.

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 22:32

Two related fallacies I see anarchists/ultra-lefts follow are: Utopianism and True Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) where the meaning of a term is ad hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc) redefined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_equivocation) to make a desired assertion about it true. It is a type of self-sealing argument.

Example:
Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haggis).
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

Exactly, and if I were a pro-capitalist, arguing against one of these super socialists, I would say the following:

1. How can it be that so many countries have these "socialist parties", enact what they call socialist revolutions, and call themselves socialist, but according to you- who admit you have never created any kind of lasting society according to your version of socialism, they had "nothing to do with socialism"?

2. How can you be so sure that if YOU overthrow the capitalist system, your socialism doesn't degenerate into that kind of "phony" socialism?

3. By your same logic, I will now claim that all the atrocities attributed to capitalism are null and void because those states weren't truly capitalist, according to my definition of capitalism.

And presto- They've just talked you down into a stalemate.

robbo203

29th October 2009, 23:02

What I call it, if I were to consider it state capitalist throughout its entire existence(which I don't), is the first genuine attempt at creating a truly socialist society. It may not have succeeded, but we have learned much from it..

Yes indeed. How NOT to get socialism for starters. The state capitalist detour (even if, for the sake of argument I were to grant was an attempt to establish socialism) was - lets face it - a disaster. It sullied the good name of socialism by identifying it with totalitarian dictatorship and drab confomity. It set back the movement for genuine socialism by decades. I sincerely hope nothing like that ever happens again

Radical is not the same as immediate or quick. As I said before, both Marx and Engels saw the transition to Communism as being a long period. The transition to socialism, at least via modern technology, can be quite short. The technology exists to eliminate wage labor, and people are mostly literate and far more technically proficient today. .

Actually, to the contrary Marx and Engels revised their notion of the so called transition period and by the late 19th century (particularly Engels) envisaged that it would be relatively short. Modern socialists would contend that there is no need for a transition period at all - the technological infrastructure to support a global socialist already exists and existed for decades. All that is lacking ois the consciousness and will to establish socialism. The entire rationale for a so called transition period has totally disappeared; calling for one only helps to porolong capitalism.

However, I refuse to build castles in the sky. The problem with folks like you is that you assume that decisions in the Soviet Union and other states were made just because the leaders were corrupt, or dicks, or whatever(and yes, some certainly were). The second assumption is that there were suitable and practical alternatives to these decisions made at the time, which(assuming that some variants were doable) appeared so to the leadership. Moreover, it is ridiculous to believe that because the variant chosen didn't work, the alternatives provided probably would have worked. .

This is rubbish. Some peoiple might put it down to a question of the wrong kind of leadership or the leaders betraying socialism. I certainly dont. I reject the Great Man Theory of history. Leaders have got very little to do with it. Socialism was not possible in the Soviet Union because 1) there simply was not the mass understanding and will to establish a genunine moneyless wageless stateless socialist commonwealth and 2) because the infrastructure to sustain such a society - even if it were possible in a single country - was simply lacking in an impoversihed and war torn society like Russia in 1917. With or without a dictator like Stalin, the Sopviet Union still would not have realised socialism

Kayser_Soso

29th October 2009, 23:08

Yes indeed. How NOT to get socialism for starters. The state capitalist detour (even if, for the sake of argument I were to grant was an attempt to establish socialism) was - lets face it - a disaster. It sullied the good name of socialism by identifying it with totalitarian dictatorship and drab confomity. It set back the movement for genuine socialism by decades. I sincerely hope nothing like that ever happens again

The fact that you actually would believe it could happen again, thus disconnecting it from its historical conditions, speaks volumes about your materialist viewpoint, or lack thereof. So does the remark about conformity.

Again, you can write this- but we're all waiting for your attempt at creating socialism.

Actually, to the contrary Marx and Engels revised their notion of the so called transition period and by the late 19th century (particularly Engels) envisaged that it would be relatively short. Modern socialists would contend that there is no need for a transition period at all - the technological infrastructure to support a global socialist already exists and existed for decades. All that is lacking ois the consciousness and will to establish socialism. The entire rationale for a so called transition period has totally disappeared; calling for one only helps to porolong capitalism.

They may contend that, but they are making predictions without anything to base those ideas on.

This is rubbish. Some peoiple might put it down to a question of the wrong kind of leadership or the leaders betraying socialism. I certainly dont. I reject the Great Man Theory of history. Leaders have got very little to do with it. Socialism was not possible in the Soviet Union because 1) there simply was not the mass understanding and will to establish a genunine moneyless wageless stateless socialist commonwealth and 2) because the infrastructure to sustain such a society - even if it were possible in a single country - was simply lacking in an impoversihed and war torn society like Russia in 1917. With or without a dictator like Stalin, the Sopviet Union still would not have realised socialism

No, socialism as you define it- in other words, utopian, was not possible. If everything has to be the way you want it, virtually instantly, then nothing would ever be accomplished. Did you ever consider, since you believe in an instant transition to Communism, how long the period of revolution would be, and then how your new society would survive after that revolution, and construct or reconstruct the technology to create the kind of socialist system we desire? And all this while the capitalists around you sabotage you and plot new attacks?

I'd love to know though, what you think the Russians should have done back then, seeing as how according to you it was impossible to construct socialism(to your liking).

robbo203

30th October 2009, 00:03

The fact that you actually would believe it could happen again, thus disconnecting it from its historical conditions, speaks volumes about your materialist viewpoint, or lack thereof. So does the remark about conformity.).

This is incoherent. How does saying I hope we never have to go through the state capitalist detour (or should I say cul de sac) mean disconnecting it "from its historical conditions". There are still plenty of people who misguidedly think that the way to socialism is through the state nationalising or subsidising industry.

Again, you can write this- but we're all waiting for your attempt at creating socialism.
.

Socialism is not going to come about by you waiting for me to create it for you. Only sheep need leaders. Socialism can only come about when ordinary men and woman want it and understand it in their millions

No, socialism as you define it- in other words, utopian, was not possible. If everything has to be the way you want it, virtually instantly, then nothing would ever be accomplished. Did you ever consider, since you believe in an instant transition to Communism, how long the period of revolution would be, and then how your new society would survive after that revolution, and construct or reconstruct the technology to create the kind of socialist system we desire? And all this while the capitalists around you sabotage you and plot new attacks? .

What a ridiculous argument! Socialism is not instant in that sense. It is the culmination of a movement that is now well over a century old. Its establishment presupposes the long and painful progress that reaches the very point when at last it can be introduced. The revolution, in other words, is now. The transition to socialism is now - under capitalism. We already have the technology to sustain a socialist society - we dont need to "construct or reconstruct" it. What you dont seem to understand is that it is capitalism that is the obstacle in the way of potential plenty. Most of the economic activity under capitalism - from bankers to pay departments - is simply there to keep the system ticking over, not to enhance human welfare or ,meet our human needs. Socialism will remove all of this waste at a stroke and more than double the available resources and manpower for socially useful production. Why prolong capitalism's existence given the opportunity to get rid of it?

I'd love to know though, what you think the Russians should have done back then, seeing as how according to you it was impossible to construct socialism(to your liking).

Yes it was impossible to construct socialism then just as it was impossible to construct socialism in the previous century when Marx and Engels were alive. But at least they were propagating the case for a moneyless wageless stateless socialist alternative to capitalism

Kayser_Soso

30th October 2009, 00:28

This is incoherent. How does saying I hope we never have to go through the state capitalist detour (or should I say cul de sac) mean disconnecting it "from its historical conditions". There are still plenty of people who misguidedly think that the way to socialism is through the state nationalising or subsidising industry.

Socialism is not all or nothing. On one hand, it cannot be small reformist measures like nationalisation, subsidies, welfare state policies, etc. On the other hand, it cannot be defined as what one might call "Communism", immediately established.

Socialism is not going to come about by you waiting for me to create it for you. Only sheep need leaders. Socialism can only come about when ordinary men and woman want it and understand it in their millions

Sounds a lot like waiting for Jesus to come back.

What a ridiculous argument! Socialism is not instant in that sense. It is the culmination of a movement that is now well over a century old. Its establishment presupposes the long and painful progress that reaches the very point when at last it can be introduced.

I would have said the same thing, though I would have included the Soviet Union and Albania as being early forms of socialism, how ever less-than-ideal they may have been.

The revolution, in other words, is now.

Um...no, no it isn't "now".

The transition to socialism is now - under capitalism. We already have the technology to sustain a socialist society - we dont need to "construct or reconstruct" it.

Well guess what- the technology may exist, but it isn't being used for that, and I don't think the capitalists are going to give it up just because we ask nicely.

Also, you have no way of determining now exactly what technology will be needed to run a Communist society. Most of the basics already exist- but again, you are looking beyond the limits of your vision.

What you dont seem to understand is that it is capitalism that is the obstacle in the way of potential plenty. Most of the economic activity under capitalism - from bankers to pay departments - is simply there to keep the system ticking over, not to enhance human welfare or ,meet our human needs. Socialism will remove all of this waste at a stroke and more than double the available resources and manpower for socially useful production. Why prolong capitalism's existence given the opportunity to get rid of it?

I understand that perfectly, save for two things- first of all, you aren't going to remove any of that without a shitload of bloodshed and everything that goes with it. Second, prolonging certain elements that exist as part of the capitalist system is not the same as prolonging capitalism as a system itself, nor does it mean we preserve these things because we specifically want to or that we won't continue the struggle for their elimination. Money is a very important element in capitalism, but money has also been around for thousands of years, long before the development of capitalism. We cannot call ancient civilizations capitalist just because they had money and at times traded in commodities, for example.

Yes it was impossible to construct socialism then just as it was impossible to construct socialism in the previous century when Marx and Engels were alive. But at least they were propagating the case for a moneyless wageless stateless socialist alternative to capitalism

You're putting ideas ahead of the real world unfortunately. Marx and Engels proposed such a society, but also knew the importance of material conditions verses ideals. Also, while on one hand we could use a million third conditionals to explain how the USSR could have succeeded, and at the same time be doing nothing productive save for idle speculation, it is equally untenable that it was "impossible" to build socialism in the USSR.

robbo203

30th October 2009, 01:00

Socialism is not all or nothing. On one hand, it cannot be small reformist measures like nationalisation, subsidies, welfare state policies, etc. On the other hand, it cannot be defined as what one might call "Communism", immediately established.

Socialism is the same thing as communism. At least that is how it was generally seen prior to Lenin. Even the early Bolsheviks like Bogdanov in his Short History of Economic Science 1897 called socialist society the highest kind of society we can conceive of in which there was no market.
Nationalisation , subsidies , welfare state policies are all reforms of capitalism. They have nothing to do with socialism as such

Sounds a lot like waiting for Jesus to come back.

On the contrary, looking to leaders to bring about change is like waiting for Jesus to come back. For Jesus substitute Lenin , Stalin or whatever flavour of the month grabs you

I would have said the same thing, though I would have included the Soviet Union and Albania as being early forms of socialism, how ever less-than-ideal they may have been.

Well, like I said if that is socialism I dont want socialism

Well guess what- the technology may exist, but it isn't being used for that, and I don't think the capitalists are going to give it up just because we ask nicely.

Sigh. Who said anything about asking the capitalists nicely to give up their monopoly? You have some funny ideas methinks. By the time the communist movement is in a position to establish socialism/communism, it will be far to late for the capitalists to do anything about it. The writing will already be on the wall

Also, you have no way of determining now exactly what technology will be needed to run a Communist society. Most of the basics already exist- but again, you are looking beyond the limits of your vision.

Of course there is a degree of uncertainty as to the exact deployment of technology - who said otherwise. The main point is that we have, and have long had. the technology to sustain a genuine communist/socialist society. Are you disputing this?

I understand that perfectly, save for two things- first of all, you aren't going to remove any of that without a shitload of bloodshed and everything that goes with it.

This is just dogmatism. Why should fundamental revolutuionary change necessarily be a bloody process. The popular movements that brought down the state capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe happened with very little bloodshed..

Second, prolonging certain elements that exist as part of the capitalist system is not the same as prolonging capitalism as a system itself, nor does it mean we preserve these things because we specifically want to or that we won't continue the struggle for their elimination. Money is a very important element in capitalism, but money has also been around for thousands of years, long before the development of capitalism. We cannot call ancient civilizations capitalist just because they had money and at times traded in commodities, for example.
.

Certainly money predated capitalism but that is no reason for supposing it would have any role in communism. The socio-economic conditions of communism are antithetical to economic exchange relationships of any kind. Money implies exchange which implies sectional ownership of the means of production. Sectional or class ownership of the means of production existed in ancient civilisations but is incompatible with the common ownership of a communist society. Hence the reference in the Communist Manifesto the "communistic abolition of buying and selling"

You're putting ideas ahead of the real world unfortunately. Marx and Engels proposed such a society, but also knew the importance of material conditions verses ideals. Also, while on one hand we could use a million third conditionals to explain how the USSR could have succeeded, and at the same time be doing nothing productive save for idle speculation, it is equally untenable that it was "impossible" to build socialism in the USSR.

But Marx and Engels were lving at a time when the material conditions were not sufficiently developed to permit socialism/communism. This is no longer the case. Communism is an idea whose time has arrived. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Your mindset is still imprisoned in past conditioned by scarcity. We dont have to think like this anymore

Das war einmal

30th October 2009, 23:55

The popular movements that brought down the state capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe happened with very little bloodshed..

Because the communist parties gave up power themselves. They could have easily crushed these 'popular movements', even more, you wonder why they didn't given their 'bloody reputation'. Not Reagan, nor any individual or group are the ones who gave up. And the movements you mention are everything but revolutionary.

robbo203

31st October 2009, 11:03

Because the communist parties gave up power themselves. They could have easily crushed these 'popular movements', even more, you wonder why they didn't given their 'bloody reputation'. Not Reagan, nor any individual or group are the ones who gave up. And the movements you mention are everything but revolutionary.

The movements I referred to may not be revolutionary in the technical sense - wanting a change in the basic mode of production - but I mentioned this simply as an example of a peaceful political process. It concerns me that some here have an almost dogmatic, not to say overly romanticised, attachment to the need for violence to bring about a revolution which might well turn out to be just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You say the so called communist parties could have easily crushed these popular movements? But that is precisely my point. They could have (while still in control of the state machine) but they didnt. Why? Because they had lost credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public. They recognised there really was no longer any point in resisting the will of the majority. The costs would far outweigh the benefits. So they gave up and caved in to the inevitable.

It would most likely be much the same, in my opinion, come a genuine communist revolution. When the writing is on the wall it would be far too late for the capitalist class to do anything about it. Communist consciousness would have penetrated even members of the armed forces by then. Who knows? many capitalists might themselves have sided with the workers cause by then too. Engels did, didnt he?

Kayser_Soso

31st October 2009, 13:36

Socialism is the same thing as communism. At least that is how it was generally seen prior to Lenin. Even the early Bolsheviks like Bogdanov in his Short History of Economic Science 1897 called socialist society the highest kind of society we can conceive of in which there was no market.
Nationalisation , subsidies , welfare state policies are all reforms of capitalism. They have nothing to do with socialism as such

Uh huh...because some guys that lived before Lenin theorized so. Ok.

On the contrary, looking to leaders to bring about change is like waiting for Jesus to come back. For Jesus substitute Lenin , Stalin or whatever flavour of the month grabs you

Who's looking for a leader?

Well, like I said if that is socialism I dont want socialism

Your socialism is utopia.

Sigh. Who said anything about asking the capitalists nicely to give up their monopoly? You have some funny ideas methinks. By the time the communist movement is in a position to establish socialism/communism, it will be far to late for the capitalists to do anything about it. The writing will already be on the wall

Sure, and why and how is that going to happen exactly?

Of course there is a degree of uncertainty as to the exact deployment of technology - who said otherwise. The main point is that we have, and have long had. the technology to sustain a genuine communist/socialist society. Are you disputing this?

The technology exists, people are the problem.

This is just dogmatism. Why should fundamental revolutuionary change necessarily be a bloody process. The popular movements that brought down the state capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe happened with very little bloodshed..

Dogmatism? The guy who dreams of Communism arriving like the second coming and insists on taking theoretical writings as more accurate than actual practical experienec is accusing others of dogmatism?

And what is this about "very little" bloodshed in Eastern Europe? Take a look at how many people have died prematurely due to privatization(Lancet did a study on this). There has been ethnic cleansing, nationalist violence in the streets, corruption, human trafficking, etc.

If that's you're definition of "bloodless"- give me bloody.

Certainly money predated capitalism but that is no reason for supposing it would have any role in communism.

It wouldn't- it would have a short role in the beginning of a socialist society.

The socio-economic conditions of communism are antithetical to economic exchange relationships of any kind.

Nonsense.

Money implies exchange which implies sectional ownership of the means of production. Sectional or class ownership of the means of production existed in ancient civilisations but is incompatible with the common ownership of a communist society. Hence the reference in the Communist Manifesto the "communistic abolition of buying and selling"

Again, there is theory, and there is practice. Marx and Engels did not want to be utopians who wrote prophesies of how a future society should look.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Your mindset is still imprisoned in past conditioned by scarcity. We dont have to think like this anymore

Yeah yeah yeah...hare krishna hare hare hare....

31st October 2009, 17:35

This is just dogmatism. Why should fundamental revolutuionary change necessarily be a bloody process. The popular movements that brought down the state capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe happened with very little bloodshed..

:confused: Please elaborate?

robbo203

31st October 2009, 18:52

Uh huh...because some guys that lived before Lenin theorized so. Ok.
....

Socialism like I said was essentially regarded as a synonym for communism by people like Marx, Engels and co. prior to the leninist "reinterpretation" of the term. I prefer to stick with the traditional usage; you apparently are otherwise inclined. Each to their own

Who's looking for a leader?

....

You apparenty

Your socialism is utopia.

....

The typical refrain of all bourgeois apologists. Clearly you are no exception

The technology exists, people are the problem.
....

Yes, thats why I said we have yet to fulfil the other precondition for establishing socialism/communism - the mass understanding and desire for it. Unless of course you mean by the above that there is something about human nature that prevents us establishing such a society. Another kind of observation to which bourgeois apologists are all too readily inclined

Dogmatism? The guy who dreams of Communism arriving like the second coming and insists on taking theoretical writings as more accurate than actual practical experienec is accusing others of dogmatism?

....

Er..come again? I think communism can be likened to the "second coming"? There i have been insisting on the need for mass communist consciousness and rejecting all leadership-based forms of political organisation and you have the nerve to liken my approach to some kind of christian fundamentalism . Your comments are as asisine as they are factually incorrect. I have never insisted at any time that theory is more "accurate" than practical experience. On the contrary the theory must be guided by experience. We know, for example that the actual practical experience of what went on in the Soviet Union , that the state capitalist road to socialism is a complete and utter dead end. Yet many leftists of leninist persuasion still cling dogmatically to this utterly discredited theory, preferring to bury their heads in the sand than learn the lesson that history - actual practical expereince - has painfully taught us.

And what is this about "very little" bloodshed in Eastern Europe? Take a look at how many people have died prematurely due to privatization(Lancet did a study on this). There has been ethnic cleansing, nationalist violence in the streets, corruption, human trafficking, etc.

If that's you're definition of "bloodless"- give me bloody.

....

Sigh. Be a little more attentive. I was not making a comparative study of Eastern European countries before and after the Berlin Wall. I was simply talking about the political process that a brought about the collpse of the old state capitalist regimes. It was indeed relatively bloodless. Are you disputing this?