The Soviet Union China and other Communist or should I say Socialist countries banne

[tradeunionsupporter]

The Soviet Union China and other Communist or should I say Socialist countries banned all other political parties where did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels write or say that other political parties beside the Communist Party should be banned and that the Communist Party should be the ruling political Party ?

[Bankotsu]

The Soviet Union China and other Communist or should I say Socialist countries banned all other political parties

List of political parties in the People's Republic of China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republ ic_of_China

National Front (East Germany)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(East_Germany) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28East_Germany%29)

National Front (Czechoslovakia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(Czechoslovakia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28Czechoslovakia%29)

Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Front_for_the_Reunification_of_the_Fath erland

Popular front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front

[Drace]

He didn't. He discussed little on how communism should be achieved and even less on how it would be run.
I don't like to even associate Marxism with the USSR and to just look at it independently.

It seems dumb to have a communist revolution and then allow right wing parties to dominate though, no?
There were various leftist factions in the revolution, mainly the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks and the Anarchists. The Bolsheviks were the one to seize power and they ran according to how their party decided.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The Soviet Union China and other Communist or should I say Socialist countries banned all other political parties where did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels write or say that other political parties beside the Communist Party should be banned and that the Communist Party should be the ruling political Party ?
Nowhere, because Marx and Engels never advocated one-party states. In fact, they probably never even imagined that possibility. Even Lenin did not imagine a one-party state before the October Revolution in 1917.

The one-party state developed in the Soviet Union more or less by accident, due to the civil war. Then it was copied by other countries ruled by Communist Parties. It's an example of a bad idea that, unfortunately, spread far and wide.

[ComradeMan]

He didn't. He discussed little on how communism should be achieved and even less on how it would be run.
I don't like to even associate Marxism with the USSR and to just look at it independently.

It seems dumb to have a communist revolution and then allow right wing parties to dominate though, no?
There were various leftist factions in the revolution, mainly the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks and the Anarchists. The Bolsheviks were the one to seize power and they ran according to how their party decided.

I agree

[ComradeMan]

I see it as basically this:-

There is a regime that is widely disliked by many sections of society

A revolutionary movement builds up "uniting" everyone against the regime

The bellicose phase of the revolution takes place and the regime is toppled.

A new "government" is formed in order to defend the gains of the revolution and inevitably one group tends to be stronger than the others.

The strong group, as a survival mechanism, then begins to see parties/groups with a different view as a threat and they become "counter-revolutionary"- there follow bans, arrests and persecutions.

We end up with a one party state.

The problem is not with revolution but rather with government and states.

You can look at revolutions throughout history, religious, political and so on and although they all differ the same tendencies occcur.

1. The French Revolution toppled the monarchy and then factions formed- Le Terreur- the Girondins come to mind.
2. Constantine Christianity was established and then Christians turned on each other and continued to do so for over 1000 years, except that they were "heretics" and not counter-revolutionaries.
3. The Bolsheviks in Russia
4. In Cuba the anarchists were largely crushed by the Castristas
etc...

Hence the addage about revolutions eating their children. I don't see this so much as inherent to any one particular ideology but rather are a danger of any kind of revolution or massive social upheaval/reform.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=ComradeMan;1619482]I see it as basically this:-

There is a regime that is widely disliked by many sections of society

A revolutionary movement builds up "uniting" everyone against the regime

The bellicose phase of the revolution takes place and the regime is toppled.

A new "government" is formed in order to defend the gains of the revolution and inevitably one group tends to be stronger than the others.


The stronger group, after the revolution, would be the one that can claim the greatest number of people supporting it.



The strong group, as a survival mechanism, then begins to see parties/groups with a different view as a threat and they become "counter-revolutionary"- there follow bans, arrests and persecutions.


Yes. The strong group (the one which the greatest number of people supporting it) sets up its criteria as to what does and what does not constitute proper revolutionary activity to defend and advance the revolution. It admits those who fit the criteria, and excludes those who do not. That small groups of people who claim to be socialist but who do not agree entirely with the actions of the majority, are declared to be counterrevolutionaries and are cast out is not unreasonable or unsocialist. After all, its the majority of the people making that decision.




We end up with a one party state.


Yep.


The problem is not with revolution but rather with government and states.

Nope. The problem is with the revolution. After the revolution can "rival" political parties exist, since they all tow the Communist party line.





1. The French Revolution toppled the monarchy and then factions formed- Le Terreur- the Girondins come to mind.


So are factions bad or good in a socialist community?

[Bud Struggle]

It seems dumb to have a communist revolution and then allow right wing parties to dominate though, no?

I agree in one respect, you get the system to work the way you want. But who is to say which Parties exist and which don't. Now aren't you restricting people's freedom? And even more so than Capitalists who let all sorts of Socialist and Communists parties exist.

When someone is given the ability to decide how people are going to organize politically then you are sewing the seeds of Totalitarianism.

Shouldn't Socialism be about more feedom rather than less freedom?

[bailey_187]

The Soviet Union China and other Communist or should I say Socialist countries banned all other political parties where did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels write or say that other political parties beside the Communist Party should be banned and that the Communist Party should be the ruling political Party ?

They didnt. So what? It was required at the time

"At the end of the discussion, when the subject was the search for a more dispassionate method of counting ballots, [Stalin] remarked that in the West, thanks to a multiparty system, this problem did not exist. Immediately thereafter he suddenly uttered a phrase that sounded very strange in a meeting of this kind: "We do not have different political parties. Fortunately or unfortunately, we have only one party." [Zhukov's emphasis] And then he proposed, but only as a temporary measure, to use for the purpose of dispassionate supervision of elections representatives of all existing societal organizations except for the Bolshevik Party. . . . The challenge to the Party autocracy had been issued. (Zhukov, Inoy 430-1; emphasis added; Tayny 38)"
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

The one party system was not neccesrily what everyone, even Stalin, wanted. The One Party state was due to the severe conditions the only Socialist state was placed under.
It was also expected that after the introductions of the new constitution in Stalin's USSR and more democracy as they moved further to Communism, the Communist Party would retake up the role as an agitational group pushing and popularising theory, rather than an administrative party as it functioned. Unfortunatly this did not happen due to perceived and real security threats, war and revisionism.

I dont know anything about China.

In the GDR the other parties were fairly autonomous (e.g. the head of the Liberal Party was very anti-communist but the SED was unable to get rid of him when they tried), but according to the constitution, the Marxist-Leninist Party was to play the leading role in the country.

[ComradeMan]

[QUOTE]


The stronger group, after the revolution, would be the one that can claim the greatest number of people supporting it.



Yes. The strong group (the one which the greatest number of people supporting it) sets up its criteria as to what does and what does not constitute proper revolutionary activity to defend and advance the revolution. It admits those who fit the criteria, and excludes those who do not. That small groups of people who claim to be socialist but who do not agree entirely with the actions of the majority, are declared to be counterrevolutionaries and are cast out is not unreasonable or unsocialist. After all, its the majority of the people making that decision.




Yep.



Nope. The problem is with the revolution. After the revolution can "rival" political parties exist, since they all tow the Communist party line.





So are factions bad or good in a socialist community?


So you replace one tyranny with another?

[Kayser_Soso]

[QUOTE=Green Dragon;1619547]


So you replace one tyranny with another?

All states are a class dictatorship. So long as class exists, better that dictatorship favor the working majority than the other way around.

What is so great about multiple parties anyway? The US is basically a one-party state, and many other countries that have proportional representation still have a two-party oligarchy. Civic organizations aimed at bringing certain issues to the forefront are good, but what is the use of more parties? Should the displaced capitalists, or workers who have more favored positions simply by nature of the necessity of their work, have their own parties?

[ComradeMan]

All states are a class dictatorship. So long as class exists,

Agree with you there! :)

better that dictatorship favor the working majority than the other way around.

Disagree... falling into the old trap of the "lesser" of evils, but evils they remain.

What is so great about multiple parties anyway?

Not much- am not a fan of political parties. Why not call them ideology lobbies and see if people would still be so keen on them!:D

The US is basically a one-party state, and many other countries that have proportional representation still have a two-party oligarchy.

Yep, got that right too. A bit like the elective dictatorship of Britain.:)

We don't need parties, parties are forms of government/statist culture. The problem is not the rider it's the horse!

Kayser Soo, are you beginning to sound like an anarchist by any chance, or slightly De Leonist? :D

[Kayser_Soso]

All states are a class dictatorship. So long as class exists,

Agree with you there! :)

better that dictatorship favor the working majority than the other way around.

Disagree... falling into the old trap of the "lesser" of evils, but evils they remain.

It's not about "lesser", it's about what is necessary. Don't suppress privileged classes- they restore capitalism and destroy everything. That is the lesson we see everyday in modern Russia.

What is so great about multiple parties anyway?



Kayser Soo, are you beginning to sound like an anarchist by any chance, or slightly De Leonist? :D

Not at all, I'm still an evil authoritarian "Stalinist", remember? It's just that we don't see Marxism-Leninism as copying the Soviet Union and its every policy, since this would be insane and stand M-L theory on its head. Actually if you look at what Stalin hoped for with the 1936 constitution, and look at the rights it provided, it would have been extremely good if only the constitution had been taken more seriously and its laws enforced. As far as democratic representation, the problem was that more actual power was in the CC of the CPSU rather than the Supreme Soviet, which was the governing body which was elected and where non-party organizations and individuals could be candidates.

[ComradeMan]

Not at all, I'm still an evil authoritarian "Stalinist", remember?
:)

And I am still a utopian anarchist, but we can still be friends! LOL!!!:D





A sense of humour is fundamental in all things!