SOCIALISM CAN NEVER WORK!

[uth1984]

Its been almost a year since my last post, a time in which I seen the way real life and the real world works. I have also become a member, and then resigned from, the socialist party. I have read Marx and engels, trotsky and Lenin. I therfore feel that I can be a more objective critic of this site than others. My experience is that this party is itself a microcosm of why socialism will never work. All over the free world the
loony left are divided and sub-divided into countless tiny parties unable to form a union, unable to agree on anything.

This is itself evidence of the failure of Marxism. A communist society requires everyone to look in the same direction, everyone to reach a complete consensus. The fact is that we never will. Therefore, the state apperatus of terror present in all socialist states (albeit to a varying degree) is therefore fundamentally implicit in Marxism. Any socialist state will, and must imprison and oppress its people.

[Xvall]

My experience is that this party is itself a microcosm of why socialism will never work.

I'm curious as to exactly which party you are talking about. Why do you believe it is a microcosm of why socialism will never work, and how can you base the entire concept of socialism on one party? With this logic, I can go to any of the millions of peace organizations, and claim that it is a microcosm of why peace will never work if I dislike the organization I joined. It is fallacious to claim that from your experience from a single party you can deduce that the entire system will never work. I know someone who has parents that are divorced. That doesn't mean that it is a microcosm of why marriage will never work. So if something fails once, it means that it is useless? So I suppose after the first attempt to free the slaves, everyone should have given up and said that it would never work? Nonsense. Socialism, to many, is seen as a science. It must be tested and perfected in order to achieve the best results.


All over the free world the loony left are divided and sub-divided into countless tiny parties unable to form a union, unable to agree on anything.

Yeah. I'll agree with you on that.


This is itself evidence of the failure of Marxism.

No. Absolutely wrong. Once again, you are judging an entire concept on one single instance. So, because the 'loony left' (In this case, I will assume you are talking about the socialistic/communistic left) are divided, Marxism is a failure? So, humanity is a failure too then, no? Look at this, I'll modify your sentence, and it will still be true:

All over the free world the humans are divided and sub-divided into countless tiny factions unable to form a union, unable to agree on anything.

That is true as well. I can put a lot of things in that sentence. Humans are just as divided up as the left, if not more; are you suggesting we abandon humanity?


A communist society requires everyone to look in the same direction, everyone to reach a complete consensus. The fact is that we never will.

Of course not. Not every single individual will reach the same conclusion. It is for the reason that there is a democratic process that we are to follow.


Therefore, the state apparatus of terror present in all socialist states (albeit to a varying degree) is therefore fundamentally implicit in Marxism. Any socialist state will, and must imprison and oppress its people.

This is your own speculation. It does not mean that it is true. I do not see how something will revert to an apparatus of terror simply because everyone does not agree on every single think. I can name some socialistic nations that have not become apparati of terror.

[uth1984]

Good answer. For pure marxists, the only way to achieve a proletarian state is when all workers are united. It is class unity which is the greatest weapon. So, imagine my surprise, upon joining the Socialst Party, and attending Socialist Worker's Party and Socialist Alliance meetings that all spent as much time biting each other, not well, uniting.

"I think we should work with the labour party"
"No, I dont think we can work with the labour party."
"We should co-operate with anti-globalisationists"
"no, we shouldn't"

These petty things were enough to splinter and sub-splinter groups. The famous "90% that we agree on, 10% we don't".

In Marxism, a great deal rests on consensus. How can the revolution -- if and when it comes -- progress toward socialism is we don't all agree? "From each according to his abilty" -- exaltly how much ability? "to each, according to his need" -- what if I think my needs are greater than yours?

[Xvall]

I agree with you in that most socialist parties nowadays are a horrible horrible mess. They can parely decide on their party slogan, let alone any serious decisions. However, I do believe that it is quite possible to unite the parties. I will not give up on socialism simply because it is going through very difficult and hard times. If you no longer wish to take part with socialist parties, then I respect your decision. However, I am likely going to remain 'optimistic', at least a little.

[FistFullOfSteel]

:angry: fucking cappies

[uth1984]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 26 2003, 05:22 PM

My experience is that this party is itself a microcosm of why socialism will never work.

I'm curious as to exactly which party you are talking about. Why do you believe it is a microcosm of why socialism will never work, and how can you base the entire concept of socialism on one party? With this logic, I can go to any of the millions of peace organizations, and claim that it is a microcosm of why peace will never work if I dislike the organization I joined. It is fallacious to claim that from your experience from a single party you can deduce that the entire system will never work. I know someone who has parents that are divorced. That doesn't mean that it is a microcosm of why marriage will never work. So if something fails once, it means that it is useless? So I suppose after the first attempt to free the slaves, everyone should have given up and said that it would never work? Nonsense. Socialism, to many, is seen as a science. It must be tested and perfected in order to achieve the best results.


All over the free world the loony left are divided and sub-divided into countless tiny parties unable to form a union, unable to agree on anything.

Yeah. I'll agree with you on that.


This is itself evidence of the failure of Marxism.

No. Absolutely wrong. Once again, you are judging an entire concept on one single instance. So, because the 'loony left' (In this case, I will assume you are talking about the socialistic/communistic left) are divided, Marxism is a failure? So, humanity is a failure too then, no? Look at this, I'll modify your sentence, and it will still be true:

All over the free world the humans are divided and sub-divided into countless tiny factions unable to form a union, unable to agree on anything.

That is true as well. I can put a lot of things in that sentence. Humans are just as divided up as the left, if not more; are you suggesting we abandon humanity?


A communist society requires everyone to look in the same direction, everyone to reach a complete consensus. The fact is that we never will.

Of course not. Not every single individual will reach the same conclusion. It is for the reason that there is a democratic process that we are to follow.


Therefore, the state apparatus of terror present in all socialist states (albeit to a varying degree) is therefore fundamentally implicit in Marxism. Any socialist state will, and must imprison and oppress its people.

This is your own speculation. It does not mean that it is true. I do not see how something will revert to an apparatus of terror simply because everyone does not agree on every single think. I can name some socialistic nations that have not become apparati of terror.
[QUOTE]So I suppose after the first attempt to free the slaves, everyone should have given up and said that it would never work? Nonsense.

There is a difference between freeing the slaves and abolishing capitalism. The British empire abolished the slave trade in 1804, remarkably quickly and easily. Early attempts to implement Marx have left 100 million dead. Seen as vast numbers were killed and enslaved under communism, I am inclinded to give up.

Also, you think I am critising all of the left -- I am attacking the far left, socialists, Marxist, Communists. I personally will vote Labour till the day I die. The Labour party, whilist having its internal divisions, remains strong and relativly unifed.

Thirdly, Socialism is not a science. It is a political theory, and any attempt to dress it up as anything but is a little dangerous.

My belif is that internal spilts in parties of the far left have rendered them ineffectual unless consensus is forced. For example, Lenin's Proclamation on Party Unity.

[mentalbunny]

I think the best way to move towards socialism is to tackle the problems you see around you. I reckon you should prioritise and try to sort one out, don'
t spread yourself too thin or you'll never really achieve anything, at elast that's what I think.

[Sabocat]

Early attempts to implement Marx have left 100 million dead. Seen as vast numbers were killed and enslaved under communism, I am inclinded to give up.

100 million? Maybe half a billion, hell why not say 1 billion?

What smelly dark hole did you pull that number from?

[uth1984]

"I think the best way to move towards socialism is to tackle the problems you see around you. I reckon you should prioritise and try to sort one out, don'
t spread yourself too thin or you'll never really achieve anything, at elast that's what I think."

Fuckin A! Exactly! The ony way to create a better world is slowly but surely. We should all try to tackle the problems we see all around us: thats the way to progress. Not waiting for some far off, messainic upotian revoluton to arrive.

My only beef with you is that this kind of action is most achievable in a capitalist society. To use the example of slavery, a small group of concerned parishioner from Aldershot managed to make the worlds largest slave-owning nation (Britain) to the most activly abolisionist.

[uth1984]

Sorry for not referencing that source -- I should have known better!

Stephane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism
Victims of Communism only: 85-100M

Rudolph J. Rummel, Death By Government
"Democides" - Government inflicted deaths (1900-87)
169,198,000
Including:
Communist Oppression: 110,286,000

From: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

Obviously, these figures are open to interpretation, and suffer from a lack of hardcore evidence: rulers did not like to keep records of how many they murdered! Because of this, such figures are estimates, but very educated ones. However, when you add the famines in Russia, China etc etc, the Purges in Russia, China, Cambodia etc etc etc together, it starts to be believable.

Also, thanks for the links about hunger and the rainforests, guy.

[elijahcraig]

Early attempts to implement Marx have left 100 million dead.

Wow, that's just pathetic. No, you are in no position to judge communism if you believe that nonsense.

FOr, "unity", I see nothing wrong with debate, but democratic centralism is the answer to the acting as a unified force.

[Som]

This is itself evidence of the failure of Marxism. A communist society requires everyone to look in the same direction, everyone to reach a complete consensus. The fact is that we never will. Therefore, the state apperatus of terror present in all socialist states (albeit to a varying degree) is therefore fundamentally implicit in Marxism. Any socialist state will, and must imprison and oppress its people.

Thats a bit of a presumptious assertion don't you think?

You ran right back into the agreeable drone that leninists and capitalists alike insist on, but what practicle purpose does it serve to have everyone agree on everything? Especially in a socialist society.

Beyond some osbcure calls for unity, strength, guidance and other such fascist ideals, socialism with a single opinion of the masses is hardly a necesity.

You're going to have to come up with something better than a baseless assertion about that because I see it as the opposite, debate and dissagreement is more than just an appendage to a free society, since thats what it seems you're aiming for, its inherent and necesary. Hell, its half the point. You argue and debate untill you find the best way, socialism can be an association of free people, and how do free people make descisions? they debate, and then they vote and organize. Why somehow applying this process to your boss, and even extending it to all positions of authority means the demise of society is something you're going to have to make a better case for. 'Democracy doesn't work' is a line that gets repeated alot, and it keeps getting proven wrong the more its implemented.
Socialism provides the foundations for a genuine democracy when its created by a democratic action, a mass revolution being an institution of popular rule.


In Marxism, a great deal rests on consensus. How can the revolution -- if and when it comes -- progress toward socialism is we don't all agree? "From each according to his abilty" -- exaltly how much ability? "to each, according to his need" -- what if I think my needs are greater than yours?

Its not that hard that a people will agree to disagree, indeed thats the very right theyre fighting for.

If you're needs are greater, you'll get more, how much ability, how much can you do?


Early attempts to implement Marx have left 100 million dead. Seen as vast numbers were killed and enslaved under communism, I am inclinded to give up.

Another trapping of the right, besides the fact that the 100 million number is horseshit, even for the bastards those governments were, that book is more slander than objective analysis.
All of those revolutions and governments followed the same basic patterns, the same ideology, and the same results. They started as authoritarian actions, and finished as them, nothing more.

Have you considered just doing something different?

[Invader Zim]

I would agree that fake socialists have killed a fair few people. Definatly well into the 10's of millions, but I think that the 100 million figure is highly exagurated. I dont know maybe its being around CC and RAF to long their lies are poisoning my mind but the capitalist propaganda line is definatly seaming more likley the more I see the 100 million figure. Then it comes down to the fact that dictators such as Stalin and Polpot were not remotly socialist, they practiced policy which ranged into fascism as well as plain old insanity. But such regimes cannot be considered socialist, as they simply were not. They created class systems not unlike feudalistic monarchys.

Well thats my belief, of course some totalitarian will turn roud and say its all lie's, I will then produse a source with documents from the Soviet archives. These will then be called capitalists fabrications or "one offs" by the totalitarians. I will call them paranoid, and that will be the end of it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

glad you're back, comarde, but I'm sorry you have been led to such reformism, or at least that is what it seems to be. Think of the people, lad, think of the people and the exploitation they are subject to. How can these people truly wield power while their class enemy is the one in power? A proletarian revolution is the key, comarde. Think about it.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 04:57 PM
Its been almost a year since my last post, a time in which I seen the way real life and the real world works. I have also become a member, and then resigned from, the socialist party. I have read Marx and engels, trotsky and Lenin. I therfore feel that I can be a more objective critic of this site than others. My experience is that this party is itself a microcosm of why socialism will never work. All over the free world the
loony left are divided and sub-divided into countless tiny parties unable to form a union, unable to agree on anything.

This is itself evidence of the failure of Marxism. A communist society requires everyone to look in the same direction, everyone to reach a complete consensus. The fact is that we never will. Therefore, the state apperatus of terror present in all socialist states (albeit to a varying degree) is therefore fundamentally implicit in Marxism. Any socialist state will, and must imprison and oppress its people.
Oh dear. It apears that capitalism wont work (numerous factions). Liberalism wont work (millions of branches and factions); Fascism wont wotk (many sects). Religion wont work (ditto).

Will anyuthing work in your vast experience ?

[Rastafari]

be easy on the man. He has presented a valid point that the members of this board would be wise to take heed at. Socialism is clearly not about ONE PERSON's fucking difficulties and arguments, its about the problems of an international working party's.

Oh, and subtract quite a few from that 100 Million for Pol Pot, who was nothing near a Socialist.

[elijahcraig]

I'd like you to show me some sort of proof that shows Stalin, Mao, or anyone else murdered this many people. You can't count dying of disease as a "communist murder" RUmmel. :lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

coming from a former communist and currently a capitalist, reading your signature made me cringe with dusgust, uth1984. How can you possibly say that?! I don't know what sick reactionary mind gave you these horribly innacurate ideas that communism leads to oppression? Do you not understand the oppressive class realtions created by bourgeois society? Oh dear. I am in a state of absolute and unbelievable horror. I never thought I would see the day that one of our own would turn their backs on the revolution. :(

[Xvall]

There is a difference between freeing the slaves and abolishing capitalism.

Not to me.


The British empire abolished the slave trade in 1804, remarkably quickly and easily. Early attempts to implement Marx have left 100 million dead. Seen as vast numbers were killed and enslaved under communism, I am inclinded to give up.

Actually, considering that we do not know how the world would have turned out without socialism and communism, we really can't base that on anything. For all we know, were it not for attempts to achieve socialism, there could be 200,000,000 dead. Were it not for the Soviet Union, although it is not something I particularly admire, the second world war could have been easilly lost, and over a billion could have been liquidated under the Reich. On top of this, I really think people are stretching things quite a bit when they claim that 100,000,000 people died as a result of communism and socialism.


Also, you think I am critising all of the left -- I am attacking the far left, socialists, Marxist, Communists. I personally will vote Labour till the day I die. The Labour party, whilist having its internal divisions, remains strong and relativly unifed.

That is fine by me, and I know you are criticizing the socialists and communists. I am simply saying that I do not believe that socialism or communism are to be abandoned on the basis of not having achieved perfection yet.


Thirdly, Socialism is not a science. It is a political theory, and any attempt to dress it up as anything but is a little dangerous.

Of course it is not a science, but many people see it as one. (Hence, subjects such as Political Science (http://www.apsanet.org/)) I stated that it was 'like a science', in that it is a fairly 'new' discovery that just came into existance recently.

[Xvall]

By the way, don't expect anyone here to take 'The Black Book of Communism' or books written by McCarthyists seriously.

[mentalbunny]

OK uth, we agree with tackling the problems in the capitalist system (and I don't care what the rest of you guys think of me for saying that), but I don't think that will work everywhere. I think that's great as far as the "West" is concerned, especially Europe (by the way, where are you?), but in some places I think that revolution, or something similar is more likely to be succesful and they'll get much closer to socialism in a shorter period of time than us westerners. I'm talking mainly about Latin America, that place has a lot of promise from what I can see. the main problem with revolution is the US, it'll squash anything that happens if it manages to get of the ground, but I also fear that if it startts the left will soon splinter and there will be horrific in-fighting, you can see it all over this board, in basically all the pig leftist parties, unity is not something we're good at when we're talking about big things, huge concepts and complex systems don't make for agreement between a lot of people. That's why looking at something a bit smaller, like sweatshop labour or GM food is much easier for people to agree on. This can be extended to raising the minimum wage, incresing tax for the richest, better public transport, etc. You create an organisation with specific aims, you get a couple of politicians you feel the same interested in your organisation, you get ordinary people interested. Political parties have to do everything, organisations can be more selective about what they wnat to deal with, selective parties are always too small to really get anywhere.

Another thing is decentralised systems, if you've read NO LOGO you'll knwo what [email protected] talking about, if you haven't, I suggest you read it. Yes, things clearly split up into factions, we know that, what you must do is work in a local area when that happens, don't construct big organisations, but do link all the little ones together. That means you don't all have to feel the same aobut everything but you can still work together to get things done.

[Comrade Mathew]

Where the books you read written by cappies?

Socialism needs unity same as Capitalism does... what you think happens in capitalism every one wants something else? do you think it will not cause problems?

[uth1984]

OK, I seem to have sparked off a little anger. Surprise surprise! You seem to have two major quarrells, firstly with figure of 100 million. As I said that is little more than an estimate, but an educated one. This figure includes the famines which occured in China and the Soviet Union -- famines caused by stupid economic policies. As I souced and refenced these figures, I hope you can go along with them. As a mark of respect to those countless millions that died, perhaps you could believe them -- to deny a holocaust is not a good thing. Stop it. Please

Secondly, no-one seems to think that socialism will need a certain about of unity to suceed, that the rights of the individual will will secondary to the rights of the class. Marx himself said "workers of the world unite!"

I have read NO LOGO (good book) but the consensus of Socialists (one of the few things that they agreed on) was the uselessness of the anti-globisationist in achieving class goals, as it was an attempt to reform a sick system.

[mentalbunny]

Well if the systems are split into much smaller ones it will be easier to change them to socialism, won't it?

[Som]

As a mark of respect to those countless millions that died, perhaps you could believe them -- to deny a holocaust is not a good thing. Stop it. Please

emotional pleas don't excuse shoddy historical work.

The numbers were pulled up to potray it as negatively as possible, even among the different numbers put forth by anti-communist historians, the authors of the black book almost invariably chose the larger numbers.
Their eagerness to lump pol pot in there is just an example.

Yes, a lot people died, the amount killed is bad enough when its not hyper inflated, no need to fan the propaganda.


Secondly, no-one seems to think that socialism will need a certain about of unity to suceed, that the rights of the individual will will secondary to the rights of the class. Marx himself said "workers of the world unite!"

Given any context to this statement, or is repeating it going to make it right?

You might as well come out and say democracy simply cant work, because what your implying.

[Organic Revolution]

so uth.. you say attempts to reach communism left 100,000,000 dead... WRONG it is a smaller figure.. mostly done by fake marxists. and you accually READ the black book of communism :lol: :lol: :lol: that is such a joke. but you now support capitalism? which have left upwards to 500,000,000 dead eh?