Has a true Communist government ever Existed?

[MarxistRevolution]

Like the title says do you have any examples of a government that was purely Marxist? The only one I really know of was the Paris Commune and I believe Lenin did a good job but then Stalin came to power and betrayed the revolution.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The Paris Commune was admirable, but not communist. It was more or less a good example of how the masses can rise up and organize quickly against an inherently evil system. It offered good principles as well, but wasn't communist.

As for the question itself, it doesn't really matter to me, because of my beliefs. I think even Levin twisted the words of Marx too much and relied too heavily on becoming a dictatorship of the party rather than of the proletariat. Cuba, from my very small observations, was more or less a government/economy based on building up it's infrastructure through trade with the USSR. Not even going to touch the subject of DPRK. The African nations were a terrible result, a lot simply based on nationalism and socialism-in-name only (besides maybe excluding Egypt, which was still simply a welfare/Stalinist state)

[Pretty Flaco]

I don't even think socialism has truly existed except on relatively small scales. But then again, many states that claimed to be socialist were unindustrialized and sometimes feudalistic before they had revolutions, so it wouldn't have been an easy or fast route to attain socialism anyway.
Not until the whole world is fed with clothes on their back, shoes on their feet, a roof over their head, and with a job in which what they receive in return is based on their production can we truly say that communism is beginning to form.

[Ocean Seal]

No communist country has existed or claimed to exist. Most countries, including Lenin's USSR have claimed socialism. This is disputed by certain members of this forum who call the regime along with many others state capitalist.

So the breakdown is this lets take 5 states as examples

The United States under all its presidents- Capitalist by all who refer to themselves as socialists
China under Mao- Socialist by Marxists-Leninists and Maoists State Capitalist by Left-Comms and Anarchists and not truly socialist by the Trotskyists
USSR under Lenin- Socialists by the above and the Trotskyists State Capitalist by Left-Comms and Anarchists
The Bavarian Socialist Republic- Socialist by the Left Communists
Anarchist Catalonia- Socialist by the Anarchists

[PolishTrotsky]

I believe no, But i'm Trotskyist. Mainly, that means I think that Lenin was close. Not exact, but close. Then Stalin came along and blew all Marx stood for out and established a Deformed Workers' State.

[Antifa94]

the USSR from 1917-1924( and I can extend it to about 1932) was pretty good,
Mao's China was great until about 1969/70, the Hungarian soviet republic of 1919 was quite admirable, North Vietnam was quite good, so was the republic of vietnam 1975-1986

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Dig the 6 Nations Confederacy, yo.
Or the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities.
Or go check out a dinner-night at yr local anarchist punk-house.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh god, every fucking day this same question.

Answer: NO, and there never will be. The phrase 'Communist government' makes no sense newbie, i'm sorry to be harsh here, but we get this question SO often, please read the intro guide or FAQs or whatever.

The idea of Marxism is that the communist stage of development is where the class struggle has troughed and the classes have withered away. The phrase government (as well as being horribly bourgeois sounding) implies that there are those who govern, and those who are governed. Now, from a Marxist perspective, this is simply not possible in the communist stage of development.

[Rafiq]

No, Communism has never existed, and Communism itself is thrown around far too often.

[F9]

Oh god, every fucking day this same question.

Answer: NO, and there never will be. The phrase 'Communist government' makes no sense newbie, i'm sorry to be harsh here, but we get this question SO often, please read the intro guide or FAQs or whatever.

The idea of Marxism is that the communist stage of development is where the class struggle has troughed and the classes have withered away. The phrase government (as well as being horribly bourgeois sounding) implies that there are those who govern, and those who are governed. Now, from a Marxist perspective, this is simply not possible in the communist stage of development.

Stop been an ass in Learning!If you dont like the questions stop entering the forum...If you come in here, respect those who made questions and dont be a jerk.This is a warning.And saying afterwards that you are sorry to be harsh makes things even worse cause it wasnt just been pissed of at that moment, you knew it and you could go back and correct it, you didnt though...Learning people, the forum is called learning, anyone with no interest to help, answer stupid questions, asnwer questions made 1000 times just dont click to that forum, easy...


Now to the OP, yes indeed communist government is an oxymoron(please dont be smartasses and say its not blah blah) and indeed as others above have said communism has never existed.And while paris commune was something great, it was not communism. Communism is the stateless phase, the end phase of what Marx described, the society where everyone is free, equality exists, there is no rules or rulers(be careful we dont talk about chaos, and rules of some kind exist, but there is no law or written down rules) so no government no party in power no "dictatorship" in place.
Now take that and compare it with what you see...Yeah it never existed, but we all in here hope and fight for it each and every one of use on his/her way.;)


Fuserg9:star:

[Born in the USSR]

The question is about the communist government,that is a government carrying out the communist policy - the destruction of private property, the organization of the nationwide planned production and consumption, the equal access to all social benefits of all citizens.Such governments were in the USSR and East European countries,now Cuba and N Korea have them.

[robbo203]

The question is about the communist government,that is a government carrying out the communist policy - the destruction of private property, the organization of the nationwide planned production and consumption, the equal access to all social benefits of all citizens.Such governments were in the USSR and East European countries,now Cuba and N Korea have them.


Sorry to disappoint you but the Soviet Union et al had none of these things. It was a state capitalist regime based on generalised wage labour, the hallmark of capitalism. As for the planned production and consumption, there was not a single plan in the entire history of the Soviet Union that was ever strictly fulfilled. Many plans did not even become available to state enterprises into well into the implementation period. For the most part plans were retrospectively modified to fit changing circumstances. As for all citizins having equal access to social benefits, you are surely jesting here? The Soviet Union was an incredibly unequal society. The wealthy and privileged nomenklatura - some of them millionaires - even had exclusive access to their own private shops stocking western goods behind blackened windows, from which the ordinary Russian workers were physically barred.

[WeAreReborn]

I believe no, But i'm Trotskyist. Mainly, that means I think that Lenin was close. Not exact, but close. Then Stalin came along and blew all Marx stood for out and established a Deformed Workers' State.
How did Lenin get close? No way the USSR could have become Communist even 20 years later. Technically, the whole world has to become Communist to be "True Communism", but that aside Lenin was not as close as you think. This is true regardless of your opinion on him.

[MarxistRevolution]

Stop been an ass in Learning!If you dont like the questions stop entering the forum...If you come in here, respect those who made questions and dont be a jerk.This is a warning.And saying afterwards that you are sorry to be harsh makes things even worse cause it wasnt just been pissed of at that moment, you knew it and you could go back and correct it, you didnt though...Learning people, the forum is called learning, anyone with no interest to help, answer stupid questions, asnwer questions made 1000 times just dont click to that forum, easy...


Now to the OP, yes indeed communist government is an oxymoron(please dont be smartasses and say its not blah blah) and indeed as others above have said communism has never existed.And while paris commune was something great, it was not communism. Communism is the stateless phase, the end phase of what Marx described, the society where everyone is free, equality exists, there is no rules or rulers(be careful we dont talk about chaos, and rules of some kind exist, but there is no law or written down rules) so no government no party in power no "dictatorship" in place.
Now take that and compare it with what you see...Yeah it never existed, but we all in here hope and fight for it each and every one of use on his/her way.;)


Fuserg9:star:

Thanks for the answer. So communism is basically the end result of Socialism with socialism being the method to change human nature and get there correct?

[Kenco Smooth]

Thanks for the answer. So communism is basically the end result of Socialism with socialism being the method to change human nature and get there correct?

Some people use this two-stage idea of development (leninists, stalinists, others I'm not overly familiar with) but as is always the way many others don't accept it believing that historically socialism and communism have simply been used interchangeably.

Generally it's safe to use the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' for the transitional stage.

[Desperado]

Thanks for the answer. So communism is basically the end result of Socialism with socialism being the method to change human nature and get there correct?

It's not so much about "human nature" . Government for Marxists is simply class hegemony, the ruling (economic) class exercising it's armed power through the state apparatus. The theory goes that if you establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, them being the lowest class, and they through the state abolish capital and the other classes, then there will no longer be different classes, and the state (in the Marxist sense of the word) thus will whither away .

For anarchists however, government and capitalism are almost interchangeable. They wish to crush the state in order to crush capital (the state defends capital), Marxists wish to use the state for this means. For anarchists, the state can never truly represent the proletariat - a true government of the people is impossible - democracy and government are at opposites. Much anarchist description of government is exactly the same as a Marxist description of a capitalist government.

[Born in the USSR]

Sorry to disappoint you but the Soviet Union et al had none of these things.

Sorry,you can dissapoint me about Spain, but you cannot dissapoint me about the USSR,it is my Motherland and I know it better.


As for the planned production and consumption, there was not a single plan in the entire history of the Soviet Union that was ever strictly fulfilled. Many plans did not even become available to state enterprises into well into the implementation period. For the most part plans were retrospectively modified to fit changing circumstancesI will not refute now your statement that plans were never fulfilled in the USSR - the talk is not about it.The point is that plan cannot be fulfilled or not be fulfilled if it do not exist - that is you admit yourself that the economy of the Soviet Union developed according to plan.The USSR had not market but planned economy - and it is one of the features of socialism.


As for all citizins having equal access to social benefits, you are surely jesting here? The Soviet Union was an incredibly unequal society. The wealthy and privileged nomenklatura - some of them millionaires - even had exclusive access to their own private shops stocking western goods behind blackened windows, from which the ordinary Russian workers were physically barred.Are you jesting here ?

Basic public benefits are not "shops stocking western goods" - it is a rights to work, housing, medicine and education for everyone. This is a second feature of socialism and the USSR had this feature.

Inequality under socialism still exists, Marx and Lenin wrote about it.But there was no "incredibly inequality" in the USSR.Just one example.Many will recall in Russia how in 1991 "democrats" hounded marshal Yazov, who bought decommissioned GI refrigerator ZIL release in 1977 for 28 rubles.
(At a price of 300 rubles for new refrigerator.) In capitalist Russia the Minister would not think about such trifles as old refrigerator. His minimum noteworthy problem is the purchase of the villa, a yacht or a large stake in the bank.


It was a state capitalist regimeI'd not write a lot now,but...

There is no capitalism,state or not,that can eliminate private property, the isolation of individual producers, commodity production, competition, anarchy and crises, unemployment and all the other delights of capitalism.

To agree that the USSR was state capitalist means to accept the possibily of capitalism without competition,unmployment,hunger and poverty.This means to withdrow from communist position to idealistic position,the position of a bourgeois reformism.

[robbo203]

Sorry,you can dissapoint me about Spain, but you cannot dissapoint me about the USSR,it is my Motherland and I know it better.

Your "motherland", eh? Well, at any rate, at least we know what we are dealing with here. A nationalist rather than a socialist.




I will not refute now your statement that plans were never fulfilled in the USSR - the talk is not about it. The point is that plan cannot be fulfilled or not be fulfilled if it do not exist - that is you admit yourself that the economy of the Soviet Union developed according to plan.The USSR had not market but planned economy - and it is one of the features of socialism.
.

Absolute rubbish. What the hell do you imagine happened after you had queued for ages in a shop in your glorious "motherland" waiting to be served by the staff on the other side of the counter? What happened was that you exchanged something called "money" (roubles) for a loaf or bread, bottle of vodka, or whatever. This is what is known as a MARKET transaction. Means of production in the so called USSR were likewise bought and sold between enterprises with state agencies like GOSSNAP (State Commission for Materials and Equipment Supply) acting essentially as an intermediary between these state capitalist enterprises

I have no idea what you are on about when you say "The point is that plan cannot be fulfilled or not be fulfilled if it do not exist " Are you saying the plan did not exist? Plans did exists but my point is that that they were pretty muich useless from the point of view of "guiding" the economy. They were constantly being modified to fit in with changing circumstances. This is not a case of the plan guiding the economy so much as the economy guiding thge plan




Are you jesting here ?

Basic public benefits are not "shops stocking western goods" - it is a rights to work, housing, medicine and education for everyone. This is a second feature of socialism and the USSR had this feature.


Are you denying that there were such things as exclusive retail outlets to which you could only have access if you were a member of the CPSU?



Inequality under socialism still exists, Marx and Lenin wrote about it.But there was no "incredibly inequality" in the USSR.Just one example.Many will recall in Russia how in 1991 "democrats" hounded marshal Yazov, who bought decommissioned GI refrigerator ZIL release in 1977 for 28 rubles.
(At a price of 300 rubles for new refrigerator.) In capitalist Russia the Minister would not think about such trifles as old refrigerator. His minimum noteworthy problem is the purchase of the villa, a yacht or a large stake in the bank..

Not quite sure what you are going on about but the evidence of significant inequality in the Soviet Union is pretty much overwhelming
The ratio between the lowest and highest wages steadily increased from 1:1.8 just after the Bolshevik Revolution to 1:40 in 1950 (Ossowski S, Patterson S, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116). According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated (and indeed multiple"salaries") but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite, the ratio was more like 1:100. Some amongst this elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success.



To agree that the USSR was state capitalist means to accept the possibily of capitalism without competition,unmployment,hunger and poverty.This means to withdrow from communist position to idealistic position,the position of a bourgeois reformism.

There was plenty of competition in the Soviet Union. Mnagers of state enterprises stood to gain bonuses and other benefits if their enterprise made a profit or possible demotion if it did not. Unemployment did not officially exist on paper but, in reality, disguised unemployment was extensive. Its a bit like the ruse perpetrated by westen capitalist governments when they go in for job creation schemes as a way of "massaging" the unemployment figures - only in the Soviet union they went much further. As for poverty and hunger not existing - you have got to be joking. Ive visited places like Moscow and Leningrad myself and to call the crumbling old inner city tenement blocks grim would be an understatement.

[Born in the USSR]

What do you want to prove me by calling white black? I leaved in the USSR,if you don't want to listen a living witness of the life in the USSR-that is your busyness,but don't make me lough telling me fairy tales about Soviet reality,keep them for your fellow-citizens.

[redz]

Like the title says do you have any examples of a government that was purely Marxist? The only one I really know of was the Paris Commune and I believe Lenin did a good job but then Stalin came to power and betrayed the revolution.

Short answer: Russia under the Bolsheviks, 1917-1923. This is the model for the working class.

Redz

[robbo203]

What do you want to prove me by calling white black? I leaved in the USSR,if you don't want to listen a living witness of the life in the USSR-that is your busyness,but don't make me lough telling me fairy tales about Soviet reality,keep them for your fellow-citizens.

I havent lived on the moon but I know damn well that its not made of cheese. Besides I have, as it happens, been to the Soviet Union and my sister-in-law is Russian. Not that that matters. What matters are the facts and the arguments. You have provided none. You are nothing but a bourgeois nationalist deeply enamoured of your so called "motherland" and as a revolutionary socialist my only attitude can be one of uncompromising oppostion to you and your kind.

[redz]

There was plenty of competition in the Soviet Union. Mnagers of state enterprises stood to gain bonuses and other benefits if their enterprise made a profit or possible demotion if it did not. Unemployment did not officially exist on paper but, in reality, disguised unemployment was extensive. Its a bit like the ruse perpetrated by westen capitalist governments when they go in for job creation schemes as a way of "massaging" the unemployment figures - only in the Soviet union they went much further. As for poverty and hunger not existing - you have got to be joking. Ive visited places like Moscow and Leningrad myself and to call the crumbling old inner city tenement blocks grim would be an understatement.


If Robbo is arguing that there was competition in the USSR equivalent to that in capitalist economies, I will have to say this is nonsense. Comparing the relatively tiny competition among enterprise bureaucrats to the cut-throat competition amongst capitalist beasts is, to put it politely, astronomically erroneous.

As for unemployment, to compare the tiny amount of (possibly) structural "unemployment" to the massive surges of cyclical unemployment under capitalism is also absurd. And certainly there were relatively minor disparities in income (yes, the gaps were occasionally wide, but on a far smaller scale than under capitalism). In contrast, today the pathetic "Russian Federation" is a disaster for the population - widespread real poverty, unemployment, degradation of life quality - compared to the USSR and its socialized system, even with bureaucratic deformations.

I must say that it's disheartening that the Russian working class has by and large shown little visible sign of resistance to these conditions (as far as I can tell).

Redz

[Unidos Marchemos]

I don't think any Communist will ever reach consensus on what constitutes a communist dictatorship of the proletariat state, exactly. obviously our aims are similiar, but how to accomplish those goals could never be different.

we should focus on establishing an assault on capitalism, then return to such argument in the future.

[robbo203]

If Robbo is arguing that there was competition in the USSR equivalent to that in capitalist economies, I will have to say this is nonsense. Comparing the relatively tiny competition among enterprise bureaucrats to the cut-throat competition amongst capitalist beasts is, to put it politely, astronomically erroneous.

I was actually responding to the claim that there was no competition in Soviet Union at all. This is, of course, nonsense. It is true that under Soviet state capitalism , the profits and losses of enterprises ultimately reverted to the state and to that extent this form of capitalism was different from what operated in West. However it would be foolish to imagine that the state had carte blanche to do whatever it wanted. The need to extract surplus value out of which capital was accumulated meant that the state had to ensure the profitability of enterprises as far as possible and this expressed itself as a downward pressure on enterprises to be profitable. Competition between enterprises was thus more indirect than is the case with western capitalism



As for unemployment, to compare the tiny amount of (possibly) structural "unemployment" to the massive surges of cyclical unemployment under capitalism is also absurd. And certainly there were relatively minor disparities in income (yes, the gaps were occasionally wide, but on a far smaller scale than under capitalism). In contrast, today the pathetic "Russian Federation" is a disaster for the population - widespread real poverty, unemployment, degradation of life quality - compared to the USSR and its socialized system, even with bureaucratic deformations.


To take your second point first that income disparities were minor in the Soviet Union, this is rubbish. There were actually huge disparities and one study i came across put the degree of inequality in the Soviet Union as roughly comparable to that of the UK.

People who make this claim about the minor disparities in income in the Soviet Union overlook two points. Firstly they overlook payments in kind which were hugely important and became more so the higher up you went in the system. Secondly they ignore the widespread practice of multiple salaries which people at the top could enjoy. Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540) argues that the difference income between high and low earners was in the order 100:1. Hardly a minor disparity!


With regard to disguised unemployment you dont seem to have understood what was meant by this, It means simply that individuals remain on the payroll despite there little or no call for their labour. They appear to be employed but are not actually.

Actual registered unemployment did of course occur for a while in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union Year-book (1930) states that that the number of unemployed in 1924-5 was 848,000 , 1,353,000 in 1926-7 and 1,310,000 in 1930. Unemployment insurance was abolished in 1930 and it is really from this time - in the era of so called centralised planning - that the myth of zero unempoyment gained currency. Central planning, it has been claimed, ensured balanced or proportional growth thereby eliminating the structural unemployment that is a recurring feature of capitalist trade cycle. However such a claim invests the soviet planning system with an efficacy it simply did not possess. Unemployment was not banished by the actions and foresight of the Soviet planners; it was simply hidden away or concealed.

In the West, governments have sometimes sought to massage their unemployment figures by all manner of ruses, including the introduction of so called "job creation" schemes. In the Soviet Union this was simply taken taken one stage further and of course we should not overlook in this connection the very significant role that the prison labour camps (gulags) also played in hiding the true extent of Soviet unemployment.

The reality of disguised unemployment was wittily captured in the old Soviet expression"they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". In fact it was the very system of centralised planning that encouraged this tendency to "hoard" staff however surplus to the requirements of the state enterprise in question. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the larger the state enterprise in terms of the number of workers on its payroll, the higher the pay that the managers received. Secondly, there was always the risk that part of the workforce of a state enterrpise might be forcibly seconded by the state authorities and put to work on some other project which would could then jeopardise the enterprise's ability to met its planned target . That in turn would result in it being penalised. Thirdly, the supply of inputs which the state was supposed to arrange for enterprises could not always be counted upon. It thus made sense to have staff on your payroll to allow for last minute "storming" in such emergency situations to meet your production targets. Finally, there was always the concern that targets imposed on enterprises might be unexpectedly increased at some future date.

In fact though the the soviet system performed relatively well to begin with in its terms of crude output figures particularly in the area of heavy industry, in the post war area growth declined noticeably, Part of the reason for this was the inflexibilities built into the system such as keeping workers on unneccesarily. There was a time after the war when workers were not allowed to change jobs which caused considerable disatisfaction. As the economy diversified the inefficiencies of the Soviet system became more and more apparent. Its increasing integration into the global capitalist economy also made it more and more vulnerable to global capitalist crises. Breznev frankly admitted in 1976 that the Soviet Union and other so called socialist countries had been significantly affected by the global economic crisis.

However you look at it, the the old Soviet model for running capitalism was doomed . It was simply not up to competing effectively on the global market becuase of its inherent rigidities and inefficiencies. Significantly , the move to scrap the old soviet model came from within the ruling class itself who realised it had to go and however much you might hanker nostalgically for the "good old days" - a sentiment common to conservatives everywhere - if the Soviet Union had continued to this day I strongly suspect the situation for Russian workers would have been just as bad as they are today if not worse. Because the Soviet model was on a downward trend and that much is abundantly obvious.

[Born in the USSR]

I havent lived on the moon but I know damn well that its not made of cheese. Besides I have, as it happens, been to the Soviet Union and my sister-in-law is Russian. Not that that matters. What matters are the facts and the arguments. You have provided none. You are nothing but a bourgeois nationalist deeply enamoured of your so called "motherland" and as a revolutionary socialist my only attitude can be one of uncompromising oppostion to you and your kind.

A persone who asserts that the USSR had a market economy, competition, unemployment and inequality with a ratio 1:100 is either a clinical idiot or a provocateur.Of course,I can't prove them anything and there is no point to argue with them.

[Thirsty Crow]

A persone who asserts that the USSR had a market economy, competition, unemployment and inequality with a ratio 1:100 is either a clinical idiot or a provocateur.Of course,I can't prove them anything and there is no point to argue with them.
Of course you can't since this person's argument rests upon a empirical study (even if the ratio of inequality is exaggerated, I don't know if it is), The Soviet Union Yearbook, and a clear theoretical understanding of what constitutes market transactions and the core of the capitalist mode of production - sure, yaou cannot prove them wrong. But that does not mean that this person is a clinical idiot (and sure as hell someone here is, you guess who could that be).

[NKVD]

A persone who asserts that the USSR had a market economy, competition, unemployment and inequality with a ratio 1:100 is either a clinical idiot or a provocateur.Of course,I can't prove them anything and there is no point to argue with them.

Welcome to Western leftism. The ideology where every real communist government is criticized by armchair revolutionaries who think that real communism is a hippy state. :thumbup1:

[Usui]

Welcome to Western leftism. The ideology where every real communist government is criticized by armchair revolutionaries who think that real communism is a hippy state. :thumbup1:

Indeed.

If you want good examples of socialist governance, OP, I can point you at Stalin, Hoxha, Sankara, and Mao (though he is a bit revisionist for me). There can't be any communist governments, because it's oxymoronic.

[Pretty Flaco]

Some of you are throwing around arguments and assertions without even backing it up with data.
shit, I could say Lenin was a cowboy from Siberia who wrestled bears in his freetime when he wasn't beating women and children and it would still be as solid as your arguments because yours lack proof.
Now can someone actually find something that accurately portrays the level of inequality in the soviet union?

[robbo203]

A persone who asserts that the USSR had a market economy, competition, unemployment and inequality with a ratio 1:100 is either a clinical idiot or a provocateur.Of course,I can't prove them anything and there is no point to argue with them.

So thats it huh? No argument. No counter evidence. Nothing. Is there any supporter of the soviet state capitalist regime out there who would want to defend it without resorting to drearily predictable ad hominens

[La Comédie Noire]

No, but there have been instances where we've come close.

Paris Commune
Russian Revolution
Spanish Civil War
May 68

^ These would be good places to start.

[NKVD]

So thats it huh? No argument. No counter evidence. Nothing. Is there any supporter of the soviet state capitalist regime out there who would want to defend it without resorting to drearily predictable ad hominens

Some people deny the holocaust. I don't bother arguing with them, because they will simply deny the reality. I think Born in the USSR feels the same about arguing with you.

[robbo203]

Some people deny the holocaust. I don't bother arguing with them, because they will simply deny the reality. I think Born in the USSR feels the same about arguing with you.

Odd that. Because I rather feel that about him - and you for that matter. But unlike you and him, I am willing to argue my corner rather than behave like some kind of religious fundamentalist trying to square the circle

[Revolutionair]

Odd that. Because I rather feel that about him - and you for that matter. But unlike you and him, I am willing to argue my corner rather than behave like some kind of religious fundamentalist trying to square the circle

Imagine these people actually being in power. I have no troubles believing the the things that were stated in the Cheka thread, if the Cheka was filled with people like NKVD and Born in USSR.

Proof or evidence? I was born in the USSR so I know you are guilty of being a counter-revolutionary.
Striking? But we have a workers state. Striking means that you are bourgeoisie!
Independent unions? But we already have unions sponsored by our beautiful party leader.

[Born in the USSR]

So thats it huh? No argument. No counter evidence. Nothing. Is there any supporter of the soviet state capitalist regime out there who would want to defend it without resorting to drearily predictable ad hominens

I know perfectly well that all the Spanish Trotskyists have horns and tail.I know it although I have never seen them.
Can you prove that it is not true?You can't. No argument. No counter evidence. Nothing.
I also want to add that everyone who deny this fact is a Spanish bourgeois nationalist.

[Born in the USSR]

Proof or evidence? I was born in the USSR so I know you are guilty of being a counter-revolutionary.
Striking? But we have a workers state. Striking means that you are bourgeoisie!
Independent unions? But we already have unions sponsored by our beautiful party leader.

Trot's method of dispute - to invent some crap,to ascribe it opponent and to denounce it heroically.

[robbo203]

I know perfectly well that all the Spanish Trotskyists have horns and tail.I know it although I have never seen them.
Can you prove that it is not true?You can't. No argument. No counter evidence. Nothing.
I also want to add that everyone who deny this fact is a Spanish bourgeois nationalist.


I tell you what - if you want to embark on a career in satirical writing you are going to have to be a little more - well, how can I put it? - dextrous and creative than this. You dont want just go parodying what the other person is saying. Show a little more imagination, for heavens sake! We want something that entertains. Anyone can fire off insults . They are two-a-penny. Boring.

Oh and by the way I am not a trot. Whatever gave you the idea that I was, eh?