If Communism is for the Working Class why did the Soviets send in the Army when the

[tradeunionsupporter]

If Communism is for the Working Class why did the Soviets send in the Army when the Labor Unions went on Strike ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity ... rade_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union))

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_warni ... _in_Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_warning_strike_in_Poland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4142268.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_o ... st_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany)

[Chambered Word]

If Communism is for the Working Class why did the Soviets send in the Army when the Labor Unions went on Strike ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solidarity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany

Perhaps it wasn't a socialist country?

[Nolan]

If Communism is for the Working Class why did the Soviets send in the Army when the Labor Unions went on Strike ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solidarity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany

For 1953, because they felt they had to, unfortunately. Anything that impedes production is bad when you're competing with the capitalist countries. I disagree with it, but it looks like they weighed their options and decided it was for the best.

By the time Solidarity was around, the USSR was revisionist.

[tradeunionsupporter]

May I ask if the Soviet Union was not Communist or Socialist was it Stalinist and Stalinism.

[Chambered Word]

May I ask if the Soviet Union was not Communist or Socialist was it Stalinist and Stalinism.

Depends on who you ask really. I'm not an apologist for the USSR but I think it had some socialist aspects to it (until Krushchev came to power) and was somewhat important.

[Bud Struggle]

By the time Solidarity was around, the USSR was revisionist.

And what was Solidarity--a Worker's Union? Or did it represent Capitalism?

[Nolan]

May I ask if the Soviet Union was not Communist or Socialist was it Stalinist and Stalinism.

"Stalinism" is one approach to Socialism. It's just many on here don't appreciate its more...practical qualities. :)

[Nolan]

And what was Solidarity--a Worker's Union? Or did it represent Capitalism?

It was a misguided reaction against the decadent, revisionist, and increasingly capitalist Soviet State.

[Bud Struggle]

It was a misguided reaction against the decadent, revisionist, and increasingly capitalist Soviet State.

Solidarity was probably that most exquisite ironies for Communism--to have a UNION form to oppose it.

[Nolan]

Solidarity was probably that most exquisite ironies for Communism--to have a UNION form to oppose it.

It was barely even Socialism at that point. Gorby made sure of that.

[Chambered Word]

"Stalinism" is one approach to Socialism. It's just many on here don't appreciate its more...practical qualities. :)

Some of us don't appreciate the idea of having a dictator. There's nothing impractical about that.

[Nolan]

Some of us don't appreciate the idea of having a dictator. There's nothing impractical about that.

I don't either. But if it means protecting our Socialism from fascism and imperialism, so be it. Then it is a necessary evil. That's not meant to imply that Stalin was perfect or that we should make an exact duplicate of the Soviet Union in Stalin's time.

[Chambered Word]

I don't either. But if it means protecting our Socialism from fascism and imperialism, so be it. Then it is a necessary evil. That's not meant to imply that Stalin was perfect or that we should make an exact duplicate of the Soviet Union in Stalin's time.

I seriously doubt we need a dictatorship to defeat fascists and imperialists, but I'll leave the debate at that for now.

[Nolan]

I seriously doubt we need a dictatorship to defeat fascists and imperialists, but I'll leave the debate at that for now.

That depends how you define dictatorship. But ok.

[Robert]

Some of us don't appreciate the idea of having a dictator.

Maybe, but it's interesting that so many of you see it as inevitable. Just as I do.

The Founding Fathers of the USA offered George Washington a crown after the American revolutionary war. He said no. Mao, Stalin, Fidel, Pol, and Dim Jong Il all said "okay." I'm not sure they didn't actually demand it. (Their histories aren't nearly as transparent as ours, are they?)

Even the French, whose revolution followed ours, enjoyed a dictatorship under Napoleon.

I don't understand why you guys won't give any credit to the American system for that outcome. We're all bad, all the time.

Just watch what happens, again, after your revolution, whereafter you happen to pull it off. I know it's not what you have in mind. History says "tough shit."

[Nolan]

Maybe, but it's interesting that so many of you see it as inevitable. Just as I do.

It very well may be inevitable as long as your ilk are running free and control imperialist superpowers.


The Founding Fathers of the USA offered George Washington a crown after the American revolutionary war. He said no. Mao, Stalin, Fidel, Pol, and Dim Jong Il all said "okay." I'm not sure they didn't actually demand it. (Their histories aren't nearly as transparent as ours, are they?)

A common legend. It didn't happen that way, and that is not what was being considered.

http://www.frankgrizzard.biz/10myths/

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/gbi/docs/kingmyth.html


Even the French, whose revolution followed ours, enjoyed a dictatorship under Napoleon.

I don't understand why you guys won't give any credit to the American system for that outcome. We're all bad, all the time.

Just watch what happens, again, after your revolution, whereafter you happen to pull it off. I know it's not what you have in mind. History says "tough shit."

Trust me. You don't want me to dig up quotes by certain founding fathers that really put their elitism and snobbishness into perspective. It was really as good as a dictatorship.

At one time, the republic was considered to be the weakest form of government. Many fell into tyranny, from the Roman Empire to Napoleon. Now it is the most common form. I think history has the same in store for Socialism.

[Bud Struggle]

Trust me. You don't want me to dig up quotes by certain founding fathers that really put their elitism and snobbishness into perspective. It was really as good as a dictatorship.

And I could dig up quotes by Che that say that Blacks are a happy care free sort of people and quotes by Stalin that say no woman is complete without a child--and then there's a whole Communist anti-Semite thing that's pretty nasty. Communists could be just as elitist as Capitalists if viewed through the lens of history.

YOU may be quite elitist--who know 200 years hence you views on this and that might be quite archaic?

You know it's not like Communism has a great history that you can point to--from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Kim Il Jong EVERYTIME Communism has been tried it's been bloody and nasty and (almost every time for this) it's been overthrown.

America's still around after the Soviet Union and Communist China (about 70% Capitalist these days) and all of those Iron Curtain countries fell. I know, I know you're going to have this great Revolution and we are all going to live happily ever after--and maybe you are right--but just don't go walking around saying that Communism is the obvious choice for freedom--because it far from a fact.

[Nolan]

And I could dig up quotes by Che that say that Blacks are a happy care free sort of people and quotes by Stalin that say no woman is complete without a child--and then there's a whole Communist anti-Semite thing that'sa pretty nasty. Communists could be just as elitist as Capitalists if viewed through the lens of history.

Ah, the old Che was racist argument. Interesting that that was when he was young. He changed that. He actually went to Africa to help the fighting there, but you all seem to forget that. Stalin was nutty like that tho :lol: ya gotta love ol uncle joe.


YOU may be quite elitist--who know 200 years hense you views on this and that might be quite archaic?

You know it's not like Communism has a great history that you can point to--from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Kim Il Jong EVERYTIME Communism has been tried it's been bloody and nasty and (almost every time fro this) it's been overthrown.

Considering you've been on here longer than I have, I shouldn't have to explain why this is bullshit. Socialism does have a good track record. Look at the data from the USSR and China. They had some of the fastest developments in history. Look at Cuba. Even though the country is under a criminal blockade that causes food shortages, there is still practically no child malnutrition or hunger. Children always get first priority. There is no unemployment and little crime. Socialist countries have given us many innovations, from Tetris to ICBMs to laser eye surgery. What major innovation has the private sector itself given us in the last 50 years? Swifferjet?


America's still around after the Soviet Union and Communist China (about 70% Capitalist these days) and all of those Iron Curtain countries fell. I know, I know you're going to have this great Revolution and we are all going to live happily ever after--and maybe you are right--but just don't go walking around saying that Communism is the obvious choice--because it far from a fact.

:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Ah, the old Che was racist argument. Interesting that that was when he was young. He changed that. He actually went to Africa to help the fighting there, but you all seem to forget that. Stalin was nutty like that tho :lol: ya gotta love ol uncle joe.

It's good to know Che gave up racism before he died. Do you have any quotes of him actually renouncing his past ways. :D


Considering you've been on here longer than I have, I shouldn't have to explain why this is bullshit. Socialism does have a good track record. Look at the data from the USSR and China. They had some of the fastest developments in history. I believe the rapid growth of China has taking place AFTER it had begun turning Capitalist.


Look at Cuba. Even though the country is under a criminal blockade that causes food shortages, there is still practically no child malnutrition or hunger. Children always get first priority. There is no unemployment and little crime. Socialist countries have given us many innovations, from Tetris to ICBMs to laser eye surgery. What major innovation has the private sector itself given us in the last 50 years? Swifferjet?
First of all there is no "blockade" against Cuba.
None whatsoever--the US just refuses to trade with Cuba--everyone else could trade with them to their hearts content. The problem is that the US is the only country worth trading with. And further he's an interesting story about Cuban "Communism":

A Black Market Finds a Home in the Web’s Back Alleys

HAVANA — On one block on the outskirts of the Cuban capital, a mother of two goes door to door selling hair ribbons and other sundries to her neighbors. An old man sells cookies and candies to those who ring the bell at his dilapidated home. A grandmother fills up empty beer cans with low-budget rum, which she sells in the evenings to help make ends meet.

Such entrepreneurship is outlawed but thrives nonetheless, and right under the noses of the block captains who are supposed to report such transgressions to the Communist Party chain of command.
These are tough economic times in Cuba, and while the black market has always bustled here it seems particularly intense these days, with enterprising Cubans in a constant search of compatriots who have money to spend.

There are no classified advertisements in the Communist Party newspaper Granma or the other state-run publications that circulate in Cuba. Rather, sales are made through Radio Bemba, which is not a radio station at all but the country’s extensive gossip network, which takes its name from the Spanish word for lip.

Two Cubans in their 20s who left the island for Spain have created a way to make all this secretive selling easier. It is a type of Cuban Craigslist, which allows the small but growing number of Cubans with access to computers and the Internet to buy and sell with less sneaking around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/americas/04havana.html

[Nolan]

[QUOTE=Bud Struggle;1657236]It's good to know Che gave up racism before he died. Do you have any quotes of him actually renouncing his past ways. :D [QUOTE=Bud Struggle;1657236]

I aint your daddy. Look for yourself.


[QUOTE=Bud Struggle;1657236]I believe the rapid growth of China has taking place AFTER it had begun turning Capitalist.[QUOTE=Bud Struggle;1657236]

Ever heard of the Great Leap Forward?

[AK]

You know it's not like Communism has a great history that you can point to--from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Kim Il Jong EVERYTIME Communism has been tried it's been bloody and nasty and (almost every time for this) it's been overthrown.

America's still around after the Soviet Union and Communist China (about 70% Capitalist these days) and all of those Iron Curtain countries fell. I know, I know you're going to have this great Revolution and we are all going to live happily ever after--and maybe you are right--but just don't go walking around saying that Communism is the obvious choice for freedom--because it far from a fact.
Why is it that this guy seems to have been on the boards for ages... but still refutes arguements with "everytime communism has been tried, it doesn't work"? The systems you are thinking of are self described as socialist (which they weren't). Communism is the stateless, classless society. Get it through your thick skull already. It's the state capitalist bureaucracies built around cults of personality that have been overthrown; in place of something worse (in many aspects): free market capitalism. It's every communists opinion that they fall in place of something better, say... true socialism. And when it comes to the freedom thing. I don't call the freedom to own private property a right, I call it a exploitative privillege that no individual should ever have, not even the state. Nor do I call having the freedom to be a sexist racist homphobe a right either. In these aspects, there are no oppressed peoples, the freedom to oppress has been eradicated. So there is more freedom for the oppressed, i.e., more freedom.

[The Red Next Door]

The USSR wasn't communist, it was a stalinlious dictatorship.

[Bud Struggle]

Why is it that this guy seems to have been on the boards for ages... but still refutes arguements with "everytime communism has been tried, it doesn't work"? The systems you are thinking of are self described as socialist (which they weren't). Communism is the stateless, classless society. Get it through your thick skull already. It's the state capitalist bureaucracies built around cults of personality that have been overthrown; in place of something worse (in many aspects): free market capitalism. It's every communists opinion that they fall in place of something better, say... true socialism. I know all of that--the problem isn't with Communism--per se. The idea itself is pretty splended. The problem is that when it's put into practice in the mortal vale in which we live--it (almost) always produces this distorted grotesque contortion of human existance dependant on Great Leaders and Secret Police to peep what should be "happy people" in line. I have nothing against Communism--I completely dislike the way it has played out in the real world so far. I hope it can do better in the future.


And when it comes to the freedom thing. I don't call the freedom to own private property a right, I call it a exploitative privillege that no individual should ever have, not even the state. Nor do I call having the freedom to be a sexist racist homphobe a right either. In these aspects, there are no oppressed peoples, the freedom to oppress has been eradicated. So there is more freedom for the oppressed, i.e., more freedom. I see what you are saying--but that is your opinion of what freedom is--and there's nothing wrong with that. But since it is your opinion (and that of some others) and nothing more you have no right to foist that opinion on others. If some people consider freedom owning property--then they should be allowed to do so. If you think owning property is not freedom--then you shouldn't own it.

Let me say too that while I have the utmost disdain for places ike Stormfront and the people that populate it--I would never want such places to be taken away from them. Racists, homophobes, etc. are better when they can be seen for what they are in public then hidden away to plot in secret.


The USSR wasn't communist, it was a stalinlious dictatorship. No arguement from me.

[Kingpin]

One of the things that make me doubt communists is that revisionists always seem to come to power.

At least that is the reason/excuse given for post-stalin Soviet Union, modern-day China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.

Yes yes I know that none of these places have been communist.


I still need to know

1. Why did revisionists come to power? Is it a flaw in communist theory/praxis that allows revisionist to sieze power, or sabotage by opposing interests?

2. Where were the people in the soviet union decrying party leadership as revisionist and why didn't they return to the correct path to socialism?

3. Why aren't anti-revisionist communists at war in North Korea, China, Russia, etc.?

[AK]

I know all of that--the problem isn't with Communism--per se. The idea itself is pretty splended. The problem is that when it's put into practice in the mortal vale in which we live--it (almost) always produces this distorted grotesque contortion of human existance dependant on Great Leaders and Secret Police to peep what should be "happy people" in line. I have nothing against Communism--I completely dislike the way it has played out in the real world so far.
So do I. But the state I envision doesn't have leaders or secret police. It has a vanguard as an advisory representitive working class ogranisation alongside a system of direct democracy, so people can govern themselves in the workplace and vote on actions previously the responsibility of the government. I endorse these things as well as collective ownership of private property, not the state owned bullshit.


I hope it can do better in the future
We all do.


I see what you are saying--but that is your opinion of what freedom is--and there's nothing wrong with that. But since it is your opinion (and that of some others) and nothing more you have no right to foist that opinion on others. If some people consider freedom owning property--then they should be allowed to do so. If you think owning property is not freedom--then you shouldn't own it.
That's like saying "if you love Communism so much, why don't you live in Cuba?". It doesn't work that way, Communism is an international system and so is capitalism. We won't rest until we win until we replace the latter with the former, that includes stripping individuals of the right to own private property.


Let me say too that while I have the utmost disdain for places ike Stormfront and the people that populate it--I would never want such places to be taken away from them. Racists, homophobes, etc. are better when they can be seen for what they are in public then hidden away to plot in secret.
And presumably subjected to mob violence? :lol:

[Havet]

A Black Market Finds a Home in the Web’s Back Alleys

HAVANA — On one block on the outskirts of the Cuban capital, a mother of two goes door to door selling hair ribbons and other sundries to her neighbors. An old man sells cookies and candies to those who ring the bell at his dilapidated home. A grandmother fills up empty beer cans with low-budget rum, which she sells in the evenings to help make ends meet.

Such entrepreneurship is outlawed but thrives nonetheless, and right under the noses of the block captains who are supposed to report such transgressions to the Communist Party chain of command.
These are tough economic times in Cuba, and while the black market has always bustled here it seems particularly intense these days, with enterprising Cubans in a constant search of compatriots who have money to spend.

There are no classified advertisements in the Communist Party newspaper Granma or the other state-run publications that circulate in Cuba. Rather, sales are made through Radio Bemba, which is not a radio station at all but the country’s extensive gossip network, which takes its name from the Spanish word for lip.

Two Cubans in their 20s who left the island for Spain have created a way to make all this secretive selling easier. It is a type of Cuban Craigslist, which allows the small but growing number of Cubans with access to computers and the Internet to buy and sell with less sneaking around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/americas/04havana.html

Yay agorism!

[Devrim]

May I ask if the Soviet Union was not Communist or Socialist was it Stalinist and Stalinism.

It was Stalinst, but that is not really the point.

It was an imperialist capitalist state.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

I don't either. But if it means protecting our Socialism from fascism and imperialism, so be it. Then it is a necessary evil. That's not meant to imply that Stalin was perfect or that we should make an exact duplicate of the Soviet Union in Stalin's time.

There's a good bit of memetics if ever I saw one.

What was the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to crush Dubcek's reform programme if it was not an act of "imperialism"? What was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Who were the fascists threatening the Soviet Union in 1968 Europe exactly?

When people use the word "necessary evil", alarm bells ring...

[I Can Has Communism]

If Communism is for the Working Class why did the Soviets send in the Army when the Labor Unions went on Strike ?
Solidarity was a CIA-backed anti-communist quasi-fascist union.


Why does the CIA support Solidarity? Because -- as the WSJ's nervous editorial shows -- the CIA, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. ruling class, in fact everyone but the public, from whom the truth has been withheld, knows that Solidarity is as reactionary as they come. It is a fascist organization, not unlike Hitler's, resembling nothing so much as the Moscow and Warsaw "communists" whom it opposes so bitterly.
Solidarity not only tolerates but also itself promotes anti-Semitism:

Unsigned leaflets at Solidarity's summer congress hinted darkly at Jewish figures in the union; questions were asked at some union meetings about the role or presence of Jews; in Solidarity's large Warsaw branch. a 'true Poles' faction grew up, a throwback to eruptions of bigotry in pre-World War II Poland. (V. Hamill, Washington Post, December 26 1981).From: chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/furraft82.pdf

[danyboy27]

Solidarity was a CIA-backed anti-communist quasi-fascist union.

From: chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/furraft82.pdf

dude, can i have real sources about that information?

the only source i have from your link is this phony website.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/

[I Can Has Communism]

Read the article. It has all the sources. Even Wall Street Journal admitted the facts about Solidarity. Its not a big secret for chrissake.

[gorillafuck]

Ever heard of the Great Leap Forward?
That's your idea of success?:confused:

The Great Leap Forward could have done half decently, but it was probably one of the most mismanaged plans ever. I don't see how you could try to prove the success of the PRC by pointing to the Great Leap Forward.

[Bud Struggle]

Read the article. It has all the sources. Even Wall Street Journal admitted the facts about Solidarity. Its not a big secret for chrissake.

Meh. The website is a Stalinist screed--nothing wrong with that, it just can't be taken seriously. There were CIA spies behind the Iron Curtain and there were KGB spies in the West. Everybody knows that. Maybe there were a couple of CIA guys in Poland at the time. Solidarity was a anti-Communist (or what passed for Communism in Poland) union formed by and for Polish Workers.

[I Can Has Communism]

Solidarity was a anti-Communist (or what passed for Communism in Poland) formed by and for Polish Workers.Exactly. Their true colors were revealed as soon as the Eastern Bloc was overthrown. Why some Trotskyists here support it is beyond me.

[Robert]

The Great Leap Forward could have done half decently, but it was probably one of the most mismanaged plans ever. I don't see how you could try to prove the success of the PRC by pointing to the Great Leap Forward.

Really. No sensible person, not even a Chinese, questions that it was absolutely catastrophic. I'm sure Mao continued to eat well all during those terrible, terrible years.



The Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters): 大跃进; traditional Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_characters): 大躍進; pinyin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin): Dàyuèjìn) of the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) (PRC) was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1961 which aimed to use China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)'s vast population to rapidly transform China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) from a primarily agrarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian)communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist) society through the process of agriculturalization and industrialization. Mao Zedong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong) based this program on the Theory of Productive Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Productive_Forces). It ended in catastrophe as it triggered a widespread famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine) that resulted in tens of millions of deaths.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#cite_note-0) economy by peasant farmers into a modern [state].

....

Ironic considering its name, the Great Leap Forward is now widely seen, both within China and outside, as a major economic disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_disaster), effectively being a "Great Leap Backward" that would affect China in the years to come. As inflated statistics reached planning authorities, orders were given to divert human resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_resources) into industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry) rather than agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture). The official toll of excess deaths recorded in China for the years of the GLF is 14 million, but scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#cite_note-xiz-7).

After the death of Mao and the start of Chinese economic reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_reform_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_Chin a) under Deng Xiaoping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping), the tendency within the Chinese government was to see the Great Leap Forward as a major economic disaster and to attribute it to the cult of personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality) under Mao Zedong, and to regard it as one of the serious errors he made after the founding of the PRC.

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

Some poor kid here will think that the above was written by the CIA, of course.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/1958_%E8%BE%B2%E6%A5%AD%E5%A4%A7%E8%BA%8D%E9%80%B2 .jpg
Rocketing to the sky! Hail Chairman Mao!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Great_Leap_forward_poster.jpg/200px-Great_Leap_forward_poster.jpg

Melons anyone?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cD0w1_AEuKAJTM:http://mrmonkeysuit.typepad.com/relaxin_at_camarillo/images/megamao.jpg

Your chairman, looking fat and happy.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

nice mellons, mao. no wonder he was so fat

[Green Dragon]

One of the things that make me doubt communists is that revisionists always seem to come to power.


Its funny how that always seems to happen, isn't it?




Yes yes I know that none of these places have been communist.


Of course- the "revisionists" have always seemed to have come out on top. :rolleyes:




1. Why did revisionists come to power? Is it a flaw in communist theory/praxis that allows revisionist to sieze power, or sabotage by opposing interests?


Its both. "Revisionists" simply are socialists whom other socialists lost to in the Great Debate.


2. Where were the people in the soviet union decrying party leadership as revisionist and why didn't they return to the correct path to socialism?

Why accept the premise that the leadership of the USSR et. al. were the revisionists? Maybe they had the right answers, and their left wing critics were the ones who were trying to take socialism from its proper course?
The revlefters argue passionately amongst themselves as to what is the proper course-- and this on a message board. What happens in the real world, when the opportunity exists to actually do something? That's right. The other fellow becomes a revisionist.

[Nolan]

I cant help but facepalm right about now.

[danyboy27]

Exactly. Their true colors were revealed as soon as the Eastern Bloc was overthrown. Why some Trotskyists here support it is beyond me.

beccause anti state capitalism isnt really anti-communism maybe?

[Nolan]

beccause anti state capitalism isnt really anti-communism maybe?

Oh good one! Tell us all about evil Stalin now.

[I Can Has Communism]

beccause anti state capitalism isnt really anti-communism maybe?Even when anti state capitalism means imperialism?

[danyboy27]

Even when anti state capitalism means imperialism?

i am pretty sure those polish couldnt care less who gave them money and the expertise.

the us work with the old principles of: the ennemy of my ennemy is my friend.

its is indeed possible that the us have infiltrated the polish group in question, but it dosnt really change nothing that originally the polish who started it wanted to oppose to their rule of opression.

blame the us for infiltrating and using the group has a toy, dont blame the worker for getting together to fight back against a rule of opression.

[RGacky3]

This proves absolutely that the USSR was not a functioning socialist society, if you need unions opposing something you don't have a true communist society, because the WORKERS should be in control of their own workplaces.

The fact is in the USSR the State (unaccountable state at that) was in control, and send armies to crush strikes, something that when capitalist countries do socialists are up in arms (as they damn well should be), just because a state calls itself socialist does'nt mean it is, and apologists for this type of anti-worker action are not socialists.

The USSR was'nt socialist since the time the Bolsheviks took the real power from the soviets.

I'm a syndicalist, in my opinion, the Hungarian uprising was a SOCIALIST uprising against a state-capitalist government, even the Czechoslovakia I consider a democratic (which is more socialistic) uprising against the state-capitalists.

Solidarity is a different issue, it started out as a workers responce to state oppression, which is ... socialistic, the problem is once it gained power the west hijacked it, to make it anti-USSR (which it was), i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and ultimately the pro-worker aspect of it was betrayed, which is why when the USSR fell, the hijacked solidarity lost most of its support.


I have nothing against Communism--I completely dislike the way it has played out in the real world so far. I hope it can do better in the future.

WHen its been done, following actual communist principles, its worked out pretty much as expected.

As far as what the anti-revisionists say, they are essencially just making up excuses for the USSR falling, the differences between Stalin and Krustchef were only that the latter was less oppressive, niether were socialsitic.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1658453]This proves absolutely that the USSR was not a functioning socialist society, if you need unions opposing something you don't have a true communist society, because the WORKERS should be in control of their own workplaces.


In communist Poland, there were indeed labor unions. Solidarity was a labor union set up in opposition to the existing labor unions.

Ok. So opposition of workers to other labor unions, is proof that Poalnd, or any other communist country was not really communist. It must mean that a communist commuity requires 100% of the people support in order for it be considered a proper communist community.
Well now, that is what one saw in the USSR et. al.

[RGacky3]

In communist Poland, there were indeed labor unions. Solidarity was a labor union set up in opposition to the existing labor unions.

Ok. So opposition of workers to other labor unions, is proof that Poalnd, or any other communist country was not really communist. It must mean that a communist commuity requires 100% of the people support in order for it be considered a proper communist community.
Well now, that is what one saw in the USSR et. al.

Those "Labor unions" were the soviet equivilent of buisiness unions in the west, i.e. their job was not to represent the workers but to control them, they were state unions that took orders from the state.

A communist community IS the people, thats the point, unless its democratic it can't be a communist community, democratic politically and economically.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1658634]Those "Labor unions" were the soviet equivilent of buisiness unions in the west, i.e. their job was not to represent the workers but to control them, they were state unions that took orders from the state.


Part of the job of any labor union is to "control" the workers. A worker in a labor union is no longer an independent actor.



A communist community IS the people, thats the point, unless its democratic it can't be a communist community, democratic politically and economically.


And what I have wondered (and I have asked this on these boards in the past), is the conception of a communist community one where the workers agree 100% with each other on a course of action?

[RGacky3]

Part of the job of any labor union is to "control" the workers. A worker in a labor union is no longer an independent actor.


If he's a wage slave he's not an independant actor anyway, the job of the labor union is to oppose the capitalist, labor unions are supposed to be 100% democratic, which means it IS the workers.


And what I have wondered (and I have asked this on these boards in the past), is the conception of a communist community one where the workers agree 100% with each other on a course of action?

First of all, they only need to come to consensus with the people involved in the course of action, second they don't need to agree 100% But its mutual consent and democracy, in my opinion, democracy is better than tyranny.

But I suppose, not everyone will be happy with a desicions, or its possible that they won't be, so we need bosses, i.e. NO democracy, I suppose thats a better option, or knowing your posts, your sollution would be something along the lines of .... "lets just love each other."

[Green Dragon]

If he's a wage slave he's not an independant actor anyway, the job of the labor union is to oppose the capitalist, labor unions are supposed to be 100% democratic, which means it IS the workers.


In the communist community, there IS no capitalist to oppose.



First of all, they only need to come to consensus with the people involved in the course of action, second they don't need to agree 100% But its mutual consent and democracy, in my opinion, democracy is better than tyranny.

And should "mutual consent" not exist?? Whither democracy???


But I suppose, not everyone will be happy with a desicions, or its possible that they won't be,

So you really do conceive of socialism (communism, whatever) as requiring 100% agreement amongst the workers.

[RGacky3]

In the communist community, there IS no capitalist to oppose.

Excactly, so the workers are in control, so organizations of workers (what we now call labor unions), would essencially be just desicion making bodies. In the USSR the union "opposed" the state, which was the replacement for the capitalist, in that sense the USSR was not socialist at all.


And should "mutual consent" not exist?? Whither democracy???

I don't know what Whither means, but economic democracy works the same way as political democracy (in an real sense, not republicanism), descisions are made democratically and people are free do participate in those desicions or in whatever they decide.


So you really do conceive of socialism (communism, whatever) as requiring 100% agreement amongst the workers.

No I don't, do you? Does democracy require 100% agreement amungst the citizens? I am saying that UNDER COMMUNISM ther might be some people that are not happy with specific desicions, but I'm sure they are happier to have a voice in those desicions rather than what they have now, which is bosses making those desicions as essencially dictators.

[Green Dragon]

Excactly, so the workers are in control, so organizations of workers (what we now call labor unions), would essencially be just desicion making bodies. In the USSR the union "opposed" the state, which was the replacement for the capitalist, in that sense the USSR was not socialist at all.


So then you are saying if the union opposes the state, that is proof the state is not socialist? Substitute "state" however you so desire.



No I don't, do you? Does democracy require 100% agreement amungst the citizens? I am saying that UNDER COMMUNISM ther might be some people that are not happy with specific desicions, but I'm sure they are happier to have a voice in those desicions rather than what they have now, which is bosses making those desicions as essencially dictators.

But if they are not happy, then they do not have that voice. They lost the vote.

[RGacky3]

So then you are saying if the union opposes the state, that is proof the state is not socialist? Substitute "state" however you so desire.

YES, because that shows that the workers do NOT control the means of production, if they did, who would they oppose? (in class warfare).


But if they are not happy, then they do not have that voice. They lost the vote.

So are you saying in a political democracy you don't have a voice? Having a voice does not depend on getting your way, its having an equal say, thats what democracy is about.

[Invincible Summer]

Really. No sensible person, not even a Chinese, questions that it was absolutely catastrophic. I'm sure Mao continued to eat well all during those terrible, terrible years.

[removed wiki pasting]
Some poor kid here will think that the above was written by the CIA, of course.

[removed images]


It may have not been written by the CIA, but the sources may very well be anti-communist in intent and biased (as all sources are).

And how are those pictures any different from ones like these:
http://tpwdesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obama-change-poster.jpg

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/jalam1001/vAkpEoEajcHiylxpkgpdehtfqltvEssJsEfprImisJfaHEnxuC icblFnqmna/media_httpmastersofphotographycomimagesfullbourkew hitebwlivingjpg_opobabzhiylnzkv.jpg.scaled1000.jpg

http://poster-posters.com/pics/ww2/propaganda/here.jpg





Also you may find this interesting/enlightening: http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

[Green Dragon]

YES, because that shows that the workers do NOT control the means of production, if they did, who would they oppose? (in class warfare).


Okay. So a functioning socialist community requires total agreement. No dissent allowed.




So are you saying in a political democracy you don't have a voice? Having a voice does not depend on getting your way, its having an equal say, thats what democracy is about.


Sure. People went to the polls all the time in the USSR et.al. Fidel Castro was re-elected a year or so before his illness. Last year or so Kim Il Sung was re-elected. Russians, Cubans and N. Koreans all had their equal say.

[RGacky3]

Okay. So a functioning socialist community requires total agreement. No dissent allowed.


NO IT REQUIRES DEMOCRACY, i.e. equal say over the economy, is this so hard to understand?


Sure. People went to the polls all the time in the USSR et.al. Fidel Castro was re-elected a year or so before his illness. Last year or so Kim Il Sung was re-elected. Russians, Cubans and N. Koreans all had their equal say.

I don't understand what that has to do with anything I said, those examples are not funtioning democracies.

In a functioning democracy (aparenltly you don't believe in democracy), people have equal say, they do not agree on everything but desicions are made on consensus. Is that so hard to get? Its the same goddamn thing, do you know what democracy is?

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1661022]NO IT REQUIRES DEMOCRACY, i.e. equal say over the economy, is this so hard to understand?



I don't understand what that has to do with anything I said, those examples are not funtioning democracies.


Based upon your standards, they are.

[RGacky3]

Based upon your standards, they are.

No they arn't, unless the people have actual control of the institutions above them its not a functioning democracy, and don't tell me what my standards are, unless you know what they are. The USSR was not a functioning democracy, because the state was not 100% accountable to the people. You know this, and unless you have real arguments and are interested in an honest discussion, shut up.

[bailey_187]

I believe the rapid growth of China has taking place AFTER it had begun turning Capitalist.

No, rather it continued while it went capitalist

China's industrial economy under Mao grew impressively--at an average rate of 10 percent per year, even during the Cultural Revolution. China, the former "sick man of Asia," transformed itself into a major industrial power in the quarter century between 1949 and 1976--a rate of development comparable only to the greatest surges of growth in history
See S. Ishikawa, "China's Economic Growth Since 1949," China Quarterly, June 1983, Table 1; Raymond Lotta, "The Theory and Practice of Maoist Planning," in Raymond Lotta, ed., Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Communism (New York: Banner, 1994); Carl Riskin, "Judging Economic Development: The Case of China," Economic and Political Weekly, 8 October 1977

During the Cultural Revolution, there was a big push to mechanize agriculture.
In the farming area around Shanghai, the amount of land that was machine-tilled grew from 17% in 1965 to 76% in 1972. The rural industrialization program begun during the Great Leap Forward was accelerated. By the end of the Cultural Revolution, there were nearly 800,000 rural industrial enterprises, plus 90,000 small hydroelectric stations, producing 15% of China’s industrial output
-Feigon- Mao: A reinterpretation pp. 168,169

[Bud Struggle]

No, rather it continued while it went capitalist.

Well in the broadest sense you have a point, but:

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pubs/umrabulo/umrabulo22/images/china-graph.gif&usg=AFQjCNFyUuya58eOk_YgqEsZvcrm60HOaw

[khad]

If Communism is for the Working Class why did the Soviets send in the Army when the Labor Unions went on Strike ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity ... rade_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union))

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_warni ... _in_Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_warning_strike_in_Poland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4142268.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_o ... st_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany)
Just like an opportunist like you to side with xenophobic scum. What remains of Solidarity today is thoroughly entrenched with the far right and the religious right. This is what your trash politics amounts to.

[ls]

The Solidarity administration were very much anti-worker, I do not understand why you would support them?

[Bud Struggle]

Just like an opportunist like you to side with xenophobic scum. What remains of Solidarity today is thoroughly entrenched with the far right and the religious right. This is what your trash politics amounts to.

Look Comrade--a Communist state had a UNION organize against it. How embarrassing is that? That's hide your tail between your legs and crawl off into a corner and die territory.

Which the Polish Communist government subsequently did.

What Solidarity is now is beside the point. Communism FAILED Poland to the point where workers had to organize AGAINST Communism. That's a pretty big FAIL.

[Dimentio]

If Communism is for the Working Class why did the Soviets send in the Army when the Labor Unions went on Strike ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity ... rade_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union))

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_warni ... _in_Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_warning_strike_in_Poland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4142268.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_o ... st_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany)

Because the Soviet Union was socialist in name only.

[bailey_187]

Well in the broadest sense you have a point, but:

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pubs/umrabulo/umrabulo22/images/china-graph.gif&usg=AFQjCNFyUuya58eOk_YgqEsZvcrm60HOaw

GDP per Capita is hardly a good measure, especialy when comparing Socialism to Capitalism

[bailey_187]

Look Comrade--a Communist state had a UNION organize against it. How embarrassing is that? That's hide your tail between your legs and crawl off into a corner and die territory.

Which the Polish Communist government subsequently did.

What Solidarity is now is beside the point. Communism FAILED Poland to the point where workers had to organize AGAINST Communism. That's a pretty big FAIL.

The Nazis had their own unions too. There is also a BNP union (also called Solidarity IIRC). Unions are not always progressive.

[Bud Struggle]

The Nazis had their own unions too. There is also a BNP union (also called Solidarity IIRC). Unions are not always progressive.

You don't get the irony of a group of workers forming a union to fight Communism? I think it's pretty funny myself. :)

[Vendetta]

Then it is a necessary evil.

No it's not.

[KarlMarx1989]

Wasn't the USSR somewhat of a police state?

[RGacky3]

You don't get the irony of a group of workers forming a union to fight Communism? I think it's pretty funny myself.

Don't expect a marxist-leninist to get common sense. Its not gonna work.

The fact is the anti-USSR unions could have been a force for good, had not the major powers taken over the anti-USSR movement and made it into a pro-capitliams movement. Solidarity was hijaked, thats an unfortunate fact. But I agree with you, an union, against a so-called communist state is funny, and ironic, and just goes to show, the USSR was no socialist or communist to the least, if they were, there would be no need for a union, you just vote the conditions diffferently :P.


What Solidarity is now is beside the point. Communism FAILED Poland to the point where workers had to organize AGAINST Communism. That's a pretty big FAIL.

The State failed poland, to the point where the workers organized against the state. I guarantee you, that the majority of the workers organizing against the soviet state were doing so because they wanted to be run by private corporations instead.


The Solidarity administration were very much anti-worker, I do not understand why you would support them?

Its not a matter of supporting them, its a matter of recognizing the implications and the nature of the soviet state, the Solidarity administration was hijaked by the US, which essencially said "The USSR oppresses you, we oppose the USSR, we have lots and lots of money and power, listen to us and we'll help you out." When that became more and more evident the Solidarity movement lost power, tremendously. But the fact remains, just as it would be rediculously ironic to have a popular uprising in a functioning democracy, it would be rediculously ironic to have a union organizing in a socialist state (both would indicate that the state is'nt so democratic of socialistic).

[ls]

The State failed poland, to the point where the workers organized against the state. I guarantee you, that the majority of the workers organizing against the soviet state were doing so because they wanted to be run by private corporations instead.

What??


ts not a matter of supporting them, its a matter of recognizing the implications and the nature of the soviet state, the Solidarity administration was hijaked by the US, which essencially said "The USSR oppresses you, we oppose the USSR, we have lots and lots of money and power, listen to us and we'll help you out." When that became more and more evident the Solidarity movement lost power, tremendously. But the fact remains, just as it would be rediculously ironic to have a popular uprising in a functioning democracy, it would be rediculously ironic to have a union organizing in a socialist state (both would indicate that the state is'nt so democratic of socialistic).

There is nothing ironic about different tendencies. In your ideal anarchist territory, there is no reason to expect different anarchist tendencies to get along perfectly well with each other automatically, not that most anarchism is comparable to the Solidarity trade union's ideology, but seriously it's just dumb to expect everyone to "live together in peace".

Especially in the early SU, there were different tendencies emerging out of the same people who later on had different ideologies, you can't just expect everything to magically fall into place.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Well they had to control the working class for their own good so they didn't start thinking wow life in soviet russia is like a bowl of petunias made of shit. I mean how else do you crush individual thought except through force.

[Richard Nixon]

Looking at the posts I am amused by the fact that when workers impede production in a capitalist state it's nothing short of evil to stop them in any way but as long as the ruling party isn't Republican or Democrat but "Communist" it's alright to do so.