Marxist Science Fiction/Transhumanism

[Dermezel]

Since Stalin destroyed virtually all Marxist art with his "socialist realism" crap I think it's high time we got back to what Marxism is about- it is a pro-technology, future oriented approach meant to free man from economic exploitation by shared ownership of the means of production.

What we need is science fiction, and I don't mean Metropolis. A lot of that is merely just a concession made thoughtlessly to political opponents that Marxism= collectivism, capitalism=individualism. The reality is not that simple, and in fact it is Marxism that empower both the individual and the collective. That is why it is called progress and not a trade off. Just because the bourgeoisie idealist considers everything a matter of trade does not mean we should follow suit. Read Christopher Caudwell's essay on Liberty (http://www.marxists.org/archive/caudwell/1938/liberty.htm), which shows how a more scientific understanding of free will proves the fact that Marxism makes even the individual more free then the bourgeoisie system of exploitation:


That is why all lovers of liberty, who have understood the nature of freedom, and escaped from the ignorant categories of bourgeois thought, turn to Communism. For that is simply what Communism is, the attainment of more liberty than bourgeois society can reach. Communism has as its basis the understanding of the causality of society, so that all the unfreedom involved in bourgeois society, the enslavement of the have-nots by the haves, and the slavery of both haves and have-nots to wars, slumps, depression and superstition, may be ended. To be conscious of the laws of dead matter: that is something; but it is not enough. Communism seizes hold of a higher degree of self-determination, to rescue man from war, starvation, hate, and coercion, by becoming conscious of the causality of society. It is Communism that makes free will real to man, by making society conscious of itself. To change reality we must understand its laws. If we wish to move a stone, we must apply the leverage in the proper place. If we wish to change bourgeois social relations into communist, we must follow a certain path. The have-nots, the proletariat, must take over the means of production from the haves, the bourgeoisie, and since, as we saw, these two freedoms are incompatible, restraint, in the form of the coercive State, must remain in being as long as the bourgeoisie try to get back their former property. But unlike the former situation, this stage is only temporary. This stage is what is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the necessary step from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie – which is what the bourgeois State is – to the classless State, which is what Communism is. And as Russia shows, even in the dictatorship of the proletariat, before the classless State has come into being, man is already freer. He can avoid unemployment, and competition with his fellows, and poverty. He can marry and beget children, and achieve the decencies of life. He is not asked to oppress his fellows.

What we need to see is Marxist science fiction. Too often I see libertarians portrayed as technocratic and the Marxists portrayed as Luddite. And the label sticks, because Marxists themselves ignore high-technology all too often. We ignore transhumanism, when we should be the leaders of the movement. We ignore robotics, nanotechnology, cyberpunk. Perhaps not all, but I rarely see Marxists or socialists active in these circles. In fact, I can't find any actual Marxist/hard-core socialist science fiction for the life of me.

The internet is a free place to write comrades. Please do. Post your science fiction stories, or ideas, or shorts. Spread them. Only by such means can we prove that it is the Marxists who are scientific and look towards the future, while the bourgeoisie idealists and libertarians are really reactionaries culturally stuck in the past.

In other words, with the internet, we do not need publishers. We can post our stories online for free. Even if you think they suck- post them! We need quantity at this point very badly.

And the net offers all sorts of advantages. With computers you can add graphics. With the net- hyperlinks. You can collaborate. Stories remain live on the internet and can evolve through editing and re-editing.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of the reality of the situation, whichever ideological group is the most represented in the science fiction and futurist sub-cultures will be seen by most as the most pro-science, pro-technology and progressive faction. We cannot just let the libertarians continue to dominate this territory.

[Dermezel]

Also one thing I find hugely disappointing is China's stubborn refusal to take this route. Even if they are low-budget, the fact is the Japanese got by this:


This work set a milestone to all the animation artists and shaped the future of anime. You see, animation was a viable alternative in japan, that always struggled back then to produce real-life movies and series due to budget and logistical deficits. They didn't have the machine of Hollywood and the sponsoring costs to take so many people to shoot in different parts of the world were severe, considering the historical moment - two great wars took a large toll to the country. But with anime they could create the characters, landscapes and story's they wanted with less trouble involved!http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Anime-Phenom---Why-do-I-love-it-so-much

Whatever the bourgeoisie can do, we should be able to do better. If they can make science fiction films via animated form that reaches millions, so can we. The People's Republic should be able to do so, just as the USSR should have done so.

But no, instead we get films about China's feudal history, where imperial warriors are cast in an idealist light. Things like Confucius, who was a sexist, an imperialist, a feudalist, patriarchal, and while perhaps progressive at this time, definitely not a Marxist. Nobody is going to watch Confucius and walk away being more pro-Marxist, or even more pro-Socialist. Such a travesty and waste of opportunity. Are they trying to raise the morale of counter-revolutionaries? Why don't you just hold out your throat and hand the bourgeoisie a knife?

In any event, China appears to be a lost cause on this issue. But the proletariat of advanced nations and even those of the developing nations with internet access are not. We can make our own science fiction. We can do better then the bourgeoisie because we are not limited by their constraints.

[Invincible Summer]

The closest thing to Marxist transhumanists are Technocrats, although not all of them are H+ I dont' think. There are a few users on RL who are Marxists and Transhumanist (myself included), although you're right in that pro-technology isn't pushed as much as it should be.

But yeah, it's sort of disappointing to not have very much in the way of Marxist sci-fi. Then again, part of the whole cyberpunk aesthetic is the despair and nihilism of a dystopia... not to have an 'answer' in proletarian revolution

[Crunkenstein]

Hi, I'm approaching this from a slightly different angle but I would really like to see how this thread pans out. I play tabletop roleplaying games popularized by Dungeons and Dragons. More specifically, I'm a huge fan of Eclipse Phase and Transhuman Space. Recently (on my birthday) The Kasama Project released a book review of Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction. After a search for open and out communist/socialist science fiction all I could find was Marxist interpretation of the classics. I'm all for you guys here, I think a bibliography would help out tremendously.

[¿Que?]

A lot of what is now considered classic science fiction was written during the cold war. Thus, I suspect most english language works will probably be critical of communism as opposed to the other way around. A case in point would be Robert Heinlein. While I am not that familiar with his works, I know the book "Friday" at one point depicts a Marxist/communist group, although Heinlein's treatment is to put it lightly, not very flattering.

Of course there is Polish author Stanislav Lem. According to wikipedia, some of what Lem wrote was sympathetic to the idea of communism, although in this case it was a matter of appeasing communist party authorities than his earnest and honest beliefs.

I agree with the OP that if we want Marxist science fiction, we're going to have to make it ourselves.

[RED DAVE]

Here is perhaps the finest socialist novel of the latter part of the 20th Century.

Ursula LeGuin - The Dispossessed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed)

RED DAVE

[black magick hustla]

there was communist futurism. mayasnikov was in my opinion, one of the best 20th century poets. early communist futurism was pretty cool. most science fiction is really silly though, and i imagine ¨marxist* scifi would be worse.

[Spencer]

Isn't China Miéville a member of the SWP?
Ken Macleod and Iain Banks have socialistic themes in their books (Macleod is a former IMG member and Banks' Culture is a sort of socialist/anarchist society).
I'm sure Michael Moorcock is an anarchist (if you haven't read it you might find his essay 'Starship Stormtroopers' interesting), and, according to the foreword of 'Last and First Men', Olaf Stapledon was a Marxist.

Not sure what Miéville's stuff is like, and I could never get to grips with 'Last and First Men' but the other three are well worth a read.


We ignore transhumanism, when we should be the leaders of the movement. We ignore robotics, nanotechnology

Firstly I'd say that's because we're about a million miles away from developing the kind of nanotechnology that you'd find in most science fiction, or of the sort that gets transhumanists and the like so excited. Generally, people like K. Eric Drexler aren't taken very seriously by scientists.

Secondly, and more importantly, as far as I am concerned a socialist is working towards the immediate introduction of free access communism, and so talking about how great molecular or automated manufacturing is going to be, or the huge potential in these fields is completely irrelevant to the task at hand. After all, it only really becomes necessary to have these things central to your political beliefs if they are necessary for the kind of society you are advocating to work.

Since socialists argue that free access is possible in the here and now, with the technology available to us, so this kind of stuff has no more relevance to the case for socialism than cosmology or particle physics. Conversely, when it comes to biological sciences a huge amount of effort is expended in exploring how they relate with the socialist world view because it has a much more direct impact on that view, even if it is nothing more than that it raises new (or seemingly new) potential objections.

Likewise transhumanism is irrelevant to the central issue (unless you believe that it will be technological advance, rather than the conscious action of the overwhelming majority of the human race, which ushers in a socialist society). Either way, it seems to me that any belief in the desirability or necessity of creating a superhuman implies that humanity suffers from some fundamental flaw or intellectually inadequacy which would make it unable to rise to any challenge it might face, a point far from uncontroversial as far as socialists are concerned.

[Invincible Summer]

Perhaps this discussion should be split off into the Sciences & Environment forum? Or maybe even politics?




Firstly I'd say that's because we're about a million miles away from developing the kind of nanotechnology that you'd find in most science fiction, or of the sort that gets transhumanists and the like so excited. Generally, people like K. Eric Drexler aren't taken very seriously by scientists.
I wouldn't say a million miles away, but I do agree that sci-fi-level/H+ idealized nanotech won't be widely implemented within the next decade, especially if capitalism continues the way it is.

The profit motive has to be taken out of scientific advancements in order for these technologies to really come out of the fold. It would be long-term research and development that would bring about such advanced technologies, not the mindset of "we can make money off of this now."


Secondly, and more importantly, as far as I am concerned a socialist is working towards the immediate introduction of free access communism, and so talking about how great molecular or automated manufacturing is going to be, or the huge potential in these fields is completely irrelevant to the task at hand. After all, it only really becomes necessary to have these things central to your political beliefs if they are necessary for the kind of society you are advocating to work.

Since socialists argue that free access is possible in the here and now, with the technology available to us, so this kind of stuff has no more relevance to the case for socialism than cosmology or particle physics. Conversely, when it comes to biological sciences a huge amount of effort is expended in exploring how they relate with the socialist world view because it has a much more direct impact on that view, even if it is nothing more than that it raises new (or seemingly new) potential objections.

I'm not sure what you mean by "free access communism," so I can't comment on that. However, I do think that these technologies are relevant to communism. Automated manufacturing, powerful AI, nanotechnology, robotics, etc could be used to demonstrate how capitalism and the bourgeoisie are simply exploitative and unnecessary. This is not to say that class struggle isn't necessary, but rather that such futurist technology would aid the anti-capitalist argument.

Yes, they may not be relevant to the "here and now," but focusing on the "here and now" is for capitalist economists. Socialism and communism have always been about the long-term.



Likewise transhumanism is irrelevant to the central issue (unless you believe that it will be technological advance, rather than the conscious action of the overwhelming majority of the human race, which ushers in a socialist society). Either way, it seems to me that any belief in the desirability or necessity of creating a superhuman implies that humanity suffers from some fundamental flaw or intellectually inadequacy which would make it unable to rise to any challenge it might face, a point far from uncontroversial as far as socialists are concerned.

I dont' think anyone is arguing that class struggle and transhumanism are mutually exclusive, or that technological advancement replaces class struggle.

This is only my opinion, which I'm not sure is characteristic of other transhumanists, but I don't think your criticism of transhumanists desiring/necessitating the creation of a "superhuman" for the reasons you cite is accurate.
Humans are clearly capable of "rising up to challenges," but the ultimate challenges which we can't really deal with naturally are things such as disease, genetic defects, etc. It's not that humans "aren't good enough," but rather that we can be better. Why do you believe that to be so incompatible for socialists? No one is arguing that humans need to be augmented in order to have class consciousness or anything.


I understand your concern that focusing too much on "future tech" is dangerous, as that leaves the present neglected, but I don't think that transhumanist socialists necessarily neglect the present. I think that these technologies are just things that should be implemented in conjuction with the development of socialism in order for it (socialism) to become more than the old stereotypes of the USSR. PRC, and DDR.

[Dermezel]

Hi, I'm approaching this from a slightly different angle but I would really like to see how this thread pans out. I play tabletop roleplaying games popularized by Dungeons and Dragons. More specifically, I'm a huge fan of Eclipse Phase and Transhuman Space.

Where unfortunately the Info-Socialists are portrayed as despots or terrorists to the "practical" freelance careers that open up in the Neo-Market system.


Recently (on my birthday) The Kasama Project released a book review of Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction. After a search for open and out communist/socialist science fiction all I could find was Marxist interpretation of the classics. I'm all for you guys here, I think a bibliography would help out tremendously.

I agree it would help, but what we really need to do is make our own science fiction. We cannot rely on the bourgeoisie to do it for us.

[Dermezel]

Firstly I'd say that's because we're about a million miles away from developing the kind of nanotechnology that you'd find in most science fiction, or of the sort that gets transhumanists and the like so excited. Generally, people like K. Eric Drexler aren't taken very seriously by scientists.

And you know this how? You do know they already have 3-D printing machines.


Secondly, and more importantly, as far as I am concerned a socialist is working towards the immediate introduction of free access communism, and so talking about how great molecular or automated manufacturing is going to be, or the huge potential in these fields is completely irrelevant to the task at hand. After all, it only really becomes necessary to have these things central to your political beliefs if they are necessary for the kind of society you are advocating to work.

Your view of the matter is regressive and anti-Marxist, almost anti-science. You are saying a Marxist should ignore or downplay technological developments.

If Marxists ignore or underestimate technological advantages, and the bourgeoisie focus on maximizing the use of technology, who benefits from this?

It is obvious that your entire strategy would weaken Marxism greatly.


Since socialists argue that free access is possible in the here and now, with the technology available to us, so this kind of stuff has no more relevance to the case for socialism than cosmology or particle physics. Conversely, when it comes to biological sciences a huge amount of effort is expended in exploring how they relate with the socialist world view because it has a much more direct impact on that view, even if it is nothing more than that it raises new (or seemingly new) potential objections.

I'm not sure how that even begins to make sense, but your argument is that because we have free information networks we should ignore all other branches of technological development?

Again, who does this benefit strategically?


Likewise transhumanism is irrelevant to the central issue (unless you believe that it will be technological advance, rather than the conscious action of the overwhelming majority of the human race, which ushers in a socialist society).

And this is the final proof your worldview is thoroughly non-Marxist. If you had even the vaguest conception of Marxism you would realize that this is not an either/or but a dialectical process whereby technology makes the chances of a proletariat revolution even more possible. By harnessing this technology, the proletariat can accelerate the process of socialist revolution. By ignoring technology, we can only handicap ourselves.

[Dermezel]

In any case I am getting ready to upload a few short stories onto this forum, and some ideas for sci-fi stories with some chapters in first draft stage. The writing may not be of good quality, but it would be rather hypocritical for me to call for us to create our own sci-fi without at least attempting to lead the way.

[Spencer]

However, I do think that these technologies are relevant to communism. Automated manufacturing, powerful AI, nanotechnology, robotics, etc could be used to demonstrate how capitalism and the bourgeoisie are simply exploitative and unnecessary. This is not to say that class struggle isn't necessary, but rather that such futurist technology would aid the anti-capitalist argument.


Yes, they may not be relevant to the "here and now," but focusing on the "here and now" is for capitalist economists. Socialism and communism have always been about the long-term.



Fair enough. If these technologies existed today, I'd be inclined to argue with with you, however, it doesn't change the fact that the implication of talking about them now is that capitalism is necessary until such technologies do exist. If you were using present day examples not only would there be no doubt that communism is a possibility now rather than some utopian future, but such futuristic examples wouldn't be necessary.




but the ultimate challenges which we can't really deal with naturally are things such as disease, genetic defects, etc. It's not that humans "aren't good enough," but rather that we can be better. Why do you believe that to be so incompatible for socialists? No one is arguing that humans need to be augmented in order to have class consciousness or anything.


That wasn't necessarily what I was saying. Rather that the problem, from what I would have thought was a socialist point of view, was our social relations rather than our lack of intelligence or whatever, and that this is the primary problem to be addressed. The implication of this desire for this kind of improvement being central to the case for socialism is that the improvement is necessary for socialism. Would you maintain that Eugenics has a central place in socialist ideas? After all, in some sense, it bears a similar relation to socialism that transhumanism does, that is, it seeks to modify our biology, or something about our fundamental nature, rather than our social institutions.

Not, of course, to dismiss transhumanism itself and certainly not the application of new advances in manufacturing, the treatment of disease etc. but if we say that the possibility for socialism rests on two things, the first being that the overwhelming majority of the working class/humanity wants it and understands, and agrees with, how it will operate, and the second being that we are sufficiently advanced, industrially, to meet all the needs of the human race I can't see any space in here for talking about future technologies, molecular manufacturing, intellectual augmentation or some fundamental improvement of our nature, without relegating it into something only achievable in the future.

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at.




And you know this how?


I'm a physics/chemistry student and spent Christmas writing an essay on the subject. For example, I was surprised to find that as recently as 2004 we didn't properly understand the formation of breath figures.




If Marxists ignore or underestimate technological advantages, and the bourgeoisie focus on maximizing the use of technology, who benefits from this?


I really don't understand what you mean by this. Aren't the bourgeoisie going to benefit from any advanced technology so long as capitalism exists, regardless of what socialists think of it?




I'm not sure how that even begins to make sense, but your argument is that because we have free information networks we should ignore all other branches of technological development?


I don't know where you got the whole free information networks from but I thought my argument was rather simple.
If socialism is possible now, future technological development doesn't make any difference, it only comes into the equation if those developments are necessary for the establishment of socialism. Unless having the capacity to feed 24 billion people rather than 12 billion makes a difference to the potential of a society of 6 billion to have free access to food.




By harnessing this technology, the proletariat can accelerate the process of socialist revolution.


Again, I don't see how the proletariat is in any position to harness this technology in a capitalist society.




almost anti-science


Funny, I don't see how my view of something that falls very firmly out of the boundaries of scientific enquiry can be anti-scientific.

Either way, if this is marxism, then, as they say, ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste

[Crunkenstein]

Perhaps the formation of a think tank might be an appropriate approach to this matter.

[Dermezel]

Heh, an unpaid think tank.

[Crunkenstein]

So that means you're in? It could be like a collaborative scenario building similar to Orion's Arm

[khad]

Since Stalin destroyed virtually all Marxist art with his "socialist realism" crap.


I think that these technologies are just things that should be implemented in conjuction with the development of socialism in order for it (socialism) to become more than the old stereotypes of the USSR. PRC, and DDR.


Of course there is Polish author Stanislav Lem. According to wikipedia, some of what Lem wrote was sympathetic to the idea of communism, although in this case it was a matter of appeasing communist party authorities than his earnest and honest beliefs.

I agree with the OP that if we want Marxist science fiction, we're going to have to make it ourselves.

Enough with the stupid Soviet bashing. They already did what you wanted and more, but all you philistines are all too caught up in your own narcissistic self-aggrandizement to give a shit. Ever hear of the Brothers Strugatsky, the two most famous Soviet sci-fi writers? Of course you haven't, because it's not like any of you have any real socialist heritage.

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


The Noon Universe (Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language) term: "Мир Полудня" or "Мир Полдня" - "World of Noon") is a fictional future setting for a number of hard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction) science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction) novels written by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_and_Boris_Strugatsky). The universe is named after Noon: 22nd Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noon:_22nd_Century), the chronologically first novel from the series. While the Noon Universe shares many utopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia) qualities with the early Star Trek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek) universe (such as world peace and high standards of living), it has its share of problems and internal conflicts.

The victory of communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) and the advance of technological progress on the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) of the Noon Universe resulted in an over-abundance of resources and eliminated the need for most types of manual labor. This, in turn, effectively rendered traditional credit-based currency obsolete. Knowledge became the most valuable commodity.

The most striking difference between Noon Universe and most of the other fictional sci-fi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-fi) universes (most famous include Dune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_universe), Star Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars) and Babylon 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5)) is a complete denial of imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism). This means that no sentient race in the Noon Universe builds an inter-planetary state (republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic), empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) etc.) or has ever built one. Instead, most of them keep to their own planets, and the only space-faring ones (humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_%28Noon_Universe%29) and, probably, Wanderers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanderers_%28Noon_Universe%29)) have chosen a selfless existence assisting in the scientific development of less advanced civilizations ("progressing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressors)" or "progressorizing") rather than building a galactic empire based on their technological advantage.

The Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_%28Noon_Universe%29) of Noon Universe is governed by a global technocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29). The main governing body is the World Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_%28Noon_Universe%29#World_Council), a legislative/executive body composed of the brightest scientists, philosophers, historians and strategists. The Council primarily deals with matters of global and interstellar policies. The local matters are handled by the regional versions of the council. Planetary councils are present on each Earth colony (e.g. Rainbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_%28Noon_Universe%29)), as well, although "colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony)" in this context refers to a planet that wasn't home to any sentient life before the arrival of Terran settlers. In the Noon Universe, Earth has never attempted to seize permanent control over any other civilization.

Instead of blaming Marxists for not being able to write, you should ask yourself why long-published and influential socialist sci-fi never made it into your collection. To this day the Strugatskys' books are being made into movies and video games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arkanar_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inhabited_Island
http://www.hardtobeagod.com/en/

[khad]

LOL Khad that post was so arrogant. It's odd how arrogant behaviour rarely embarrasses someone who's arrogant. Not helpful.
How was that in any way any less arrogant than a bunch of Western philistines who put down the entire legacy of Soviet literature just so they can convince themselves that only they are qualified to write science fiction?

People in the capitalist west apparently have the right to be arrogant and dismissive of the rest of the world without ever being called out for it. Kinda convenient, don't you think? Doesn't feel good being on the receiving end, now, does it? :p

[Invincible Summer]

Just to clarify, I wasn't Soviet bashing. I was saying that there is a stereotype of the USSR, PRC, DDR, etc being "backwards," having shoddily built technology and goods, etc.

My post was more of a response to Spencer than to the topic of sci-fi.

[Crunkenstein]

Khad, I think this thread is about discovery and learning. There're proper ways to disabuse people of their illusions and improper ways. You can be right and be a dick at the same time, or you can be right and be a comrade.

[khad]

Khad, I think this thread is about discovery and learning.
I'm looking, and I can't see anywhere where Dermezel wanted to discover and learn. Did he ask questions about communist science fiction as it existed? Hmm?

No, he spent the first two posts trashing all of Soviet and then Chinese cultural production.

Perhaps you check your own behavior before expecting others to not be offended by it.

[Crunkenstein]

Your abusing your position as a moderator. Peace out.

[Dermezel]

I'm looking, and I can't see anywhere where Dermezel wanted to discover and learn. Did he ask questions about communist science fiction as it existed? Hmm?

No, he spent the first two posts trashing all of Soviet and then Chinese cultural production.

Perhaps you check your own behavior before expecting others to not be offended by it.

Khad, I do not have a problem with you if you believe I am seriously trying to put down the USSR/Soviet economy. Such class consciousness and loyalty is to be commended. I am not Soviet bashing. I regret that the USSR did not win the Cold War. I believe it did not do so because it did not heed various constructive criticisms- though to be honest any objective observer would have to note it had the odds against it from inception (it is actually an achievement that a once feudal economy became the second greatest super-power in the world in less then a century- it's like a midget taking on Bruce Lee and almost winning. )

Keep in mind I have defended the People's Republic on the Tibet issue. That is illegal in many states in the US. By doing so I technically took a risk to show that I am not a capitalist agent.

[Dermezel]

Again, I am okay with any "abuse of power" so long as it is used to defend the Soviets and Socialism from prospective capitalist agents (which undeniably exist on this forum). People here need to be aware of this and extremely cautious.

I am hoping I have proven myself not to be such a person.