Question about counter argument I hear often

[Geiseric]

Something i've noticed among members of the left is that whenever a leftist government is criticized I.e. Stalin era U.S.S.R. Or North Korea, people who defend these countries always compare those to western capitalist countries, for example,

Person 1: ''Mao killed thousands of political dissidents in china.''
Person 2: ''Well Chiang Kai-Shek did the same in the areas he controlled, so it's ok.''

Personally, this annoys me since the reason I consider myself of the left is because our politics are supposed to be the opposite of the right, so we shouldn't be doing what they are doing. I was wondering about others opinions on these kinda of arguments.

[thesadmafioso]

In unstable political and economic conditions, it is not uncommon to see groups of varied ideologies make use of the same tactics for the purpose of effectiveness. It isn't necessarily an argument either way, and the point is one of that matter not being of particular relevance often times.

To go along with the theme of political violence, I am fairly sure that all facets of the political spectrum are guilty of engaging in such action at some point or another. Is that to say that the ideology which they represent is necessarily compromised? Of course when questions of necessity and extent arise there is always going to be room for discussion, but my point is simply that this sort of argument is one which should generally be of little concern. When you start to dwell on measures of enactment the actual nature of the conflicting ideologies can sometimes become lost in the fray, and it just makes for a mess of a situation.

[Widerstand]

"Well, 'socialist' X lives off the surplus value of the workers."
"Yes, but capitalist Y does the same!"

These arguments are really, really, really poor, and it's a shame they often stand in the way of proper analysis of leftist mistakes/successes/actions in general. At any rate, what capitalists do or do not should not be a criteria for what we do or don't, except in an abstracted sense (understanding how capitalism works helps us overcome it, obviously). The main criteria for what do or don't should be our goals, and what is compatible with them.

[Sir Comradical]

We support political terror so long as it's our terror. Is that hypocritical? No, I think it's on point.

[Geiseric]

I don't support political terror, I support Democracy. What i'm also thinking is that if we keep having mass purges leftist govs are known for, wouldn't that make us just as bad in that aspect? And also does the end justify the means?

[thesadmafioso]

I don't support political terror, I support Democracy. What i'm also thinking is that if we keep having mass purges leftist govs are known for, wouldn't that make us just as bad in that aspect? And also does the end justify the means?

Political gains are often times not capable of being won in a democratic and bloodless fashion. Of course the varied context of history determines what sort of means are to be the most effective at any time, but the point is simply that one needs to be flexible with their view of what is and is not acceptable.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Political gains are often times not capable of being won in a democratic and bloodless fashion. Of course the varied context of history determines what sort of means are to be the most effective at any time, but the point is simply that one needs to be flexible with their view of what is and is not acceptable.

Peaceful whenever possible, violent when it becomes necessary

[pranabjyoti]

Man, this is class struggle. Not a picnic party or college debate. Here either you have to destroy the enemy or the enemy will destroy you. This kind of argument seems same kind of idiotic like "if they fight with guns, why do we have to fight with guns too".
Basically, the only democratic society is a classless society and crying for democracy before that means handover the struggle to petty-bourgeoisie class and ideology.

[Geiseric]

Hmm, you have a point. But if we have mass approval, won't we not need to have purges? If we're doing stuff right, we won't need to hunt down dissidents, other then members of the other classes who are actively fighting us. But we shouldn't be the first to draw swords in my opinion, we'll retaliate if we're struck at however. Being first to strike will make us lose support from the working class i'm thinking, it's just from my study of politics. Mark Antony had mass support after the senators sent assassins to kill him after the Ides of March, and everything he did to fuck them up was justified after that. That principle of being attacked then justifiable retaliation is the only thing which garners political support for violent actions I.e. War or assassinations. Such as the Lustiania and 9/11 gained support for WW1 and the Iraq War, we should wait until we're attacked to retaliate is what i'm thinking, otherwise stay as peaceful as possible.

[Sir Comradical]

I don't support political terror, I support Democracy. What i'm also thinking is that if we keep having mass purges leftist govs are known for, wouldn't that make us just as bad in that aspect? And also does the end justify the means?

Violence really isn't my cup of tea, but when you've been a part of a movement that has managed to overthrow the capitalists only to find your struggling nation facing a counter-revolution financed by the major imperialist powers, then you'll support political terror. The antagonism between capital and labour can only be decided by force, either we shoot them, or they shoot us. Take your pick. After all as Marx wrote "Violence is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one".

"Wouldn't that make us just as bad?" No because violence is an ideologically neutral instrument. What defines the bourgeoisie is that they own the 'means of production', not that they're violent. We can be violent too. lulz.

[Geiseric]

Does political terror equate to imprisoning people who simply talk bad about the government, I.e. ''Fucking (government officials name) is messing things up... Can't get shit done!'' or does it mean looking for capitalist saboteurs and infiltrators looking to undermine the nation? I guess i'm alright with the later, but the first one is just freedom of speech.

[Sir Comradical]

Does political terror equate to imprisoning people who simply talk bad about the government, I.e. ''Fucking (government officials name) is messing things up... Can't get shit done!'' or does it mean looking for capitalist saboteurs and infiltrators looking to undermine the nation? I guess i'm alright with the later, but the first one is just freedom of speech.

I'm all for freedom of speech (after all, if you ban free-speech your enemies will just take their business underground), but yeah the latter group.

[Savage]

Only an ultra-leftist, petty-bourgeois scum bag would reject revolutionary democide in the name of communism.

[KC]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2021369#post2021369) Does political terror equate to imprisoning people who simply talk bad about the government, I.e. ''Fucking (government officials name) is messing things up... Can't get shit done!'' or does it mean looking for capitalist saboteurs and infiltrators looking to undermine the nation? I guess i'm alright with the later, but the first one is just freedom of speech.Freedom of speech in any society is a conditional privilege based one's ability to threaten the state's power.

[Os Cangaceiros]

re: the OP

I think it's valid in conversations where people make the claim that a lot of people dying is somehow unique to "communism" (IE, "Communism killed 100 million people!")

However, I think that it's ridiculous to use as a defense in an argument in which someone with a leftist POV is criticizing a regime based on living standards, or working conditions, or what have you (IE, "Socialist regime X suppressed such-and-such amount of workers during a strike" "Oh yeah? Well how many did capitalist regime Y suppress?" etc)

[pranabjyoti]

Hmm, you have a point. But if we have mass approval, won't we not need to have purges? If we're doing stuff right, we won't need to hunt down dissidents, other then members of the other classes who are actively fighting us. But we shouldn't be the first to draw swords in my opinion, we'll retaliate if we're struck at however. Being first to strike will make us lose support from the working class i'm thinking, it's just from my study of politics. Mark Antony had mass support after the senators sent assassins to kill him after the Ides of March, and everything he did to fuck them up was justified after that. That principle of being attacked then justifiable retaliation is the only thing which garners political support for violent actions I.e. War or assassinations. Such as the Lustiania and 9/11 gained support for WW1 and the Iraq War, we should wait until we're attacked to retaliate is what i'm thinking, otherwise stay as peaceful as possible.
Actually, it can be defined by what you can call a "mass". If the mass is comprised of class conscious working class (very rare), then you are right. But, if this is a messy mass of directionless petty-bourgeoisie (in most cases), then you are totally wrong. The cornerstone of Marxism is the evolution of human society is a natural process i.e. beyond human intervention. So, in case of relying on "mass", we better rely on social science in a proper scientific way.
Moreover, I want to say that Freedom of speech ≠ Freedom to lie. Freedom of speech is certainly desirable for anyone who speaks the truth, BUT NOT FOR ANY LIAR OR CHEAT.

[Geiseric]

Who's authority is it to determine what's false and what's true? Who's rightful authority I mean. My ideal system would be judges who were voted on, with term limits.

[pranabjyoti]

Who's authority is it to determine what's false and what's true? Who's rightful authority I mean. My ideal system would be judges who were voted on, with term limits.
The authority appointed by the working class and who work in favor of the working class. Do you think "truth" is totally subjective? Nothing like any kind of "objective truth" exists in the real world?
Judges may be voted on, but by WHOM? I don't want to depend on petty-bourgeoisie "mass" to vote the appointment of judges. THAT WOULD BE SUICIDAL FOR WORKING CLASS.

[Geiseric]

I mean of course the working class would vote for the judicial appointants, the petty bourguase would most likely be on trial for things they've done. However, I do think that depending on the government in power, truth is not entirely subjective, it never has been. For example, some people in america accept it as truth that Obama is a marxist muslim terrorist. In North Korea, people accept it as truth that Kim Jong Il is the demi god responsible for everything they have. I just don't want a nation I fight for to become one of these police states built off paranoia.

[pranabjyoti]

I mean of course the working class would vote for the judicial appointants, the petty bourguase would most likely be on trial for things they've done. However, I do think that depending on the government in power, truth is not entirely subjective, it never has been. For example, some people in america accept it as truth that Obama is a marxist muslim terrorist. In North Korea, people accept it as truth that Kim Jong Il is the demi god responsible for everything they have. I just don't want a nation I fight for to become one of these police states built off paranoia.
Petty-bourgeoisie in trial = "Mass" in trial. In most of the countries today, petty-bourgeoisie consists of the "mass" and putting them on trial means a huge bloodshed on the end.

[Geiseric]

Wouldn't it be more productive to have them fix their crimes rather than just be executed? Btw, when did Mass ever mean petit bourgouase? By masses I mean the class conscious workers who hold sway over their peers, who are also in the masses. Most people would agree that having the criminals fix their evil deeds would be a better solution then just killing them, and just wasting a good brain.

[Robocommie]

Basically, the only democratic society is a classless society and crying for democracy before that means handover the struggle to petty-bourgeoisie class and ideology.

So then who ensures the development of democracy? Who gets to decide when this vague struggle is ended?

[Robocommie]

Something i've noticed among members of the left is that whenever a leftist government is criticized I.e. Stalin era U.S.S.R. Or North Korea, people who defend these countries always compare those to western capitalist countries, for example,

Person 1: ''Mao killed thousands of political dissidents in china.''
Person 2: ''Well Chiang Kai-Shek did the same in the areas he controlled, so it's ok.''

Personally, this annoys me since the reason I consider myself of the left is because our politics are supposed to be the opposite of the right, so we shouldn't be doing what they are doing. I was wondering about others opinions on these kinda of arguments.

I've frequently run into these kinds of arguments, and you're right, they are not good arguments for demonstrating the progressive nature of a socialist government. They're actually best used against capitalists who themselves assume that Marxist governments are somehow uniquely bloodthirsty or prone to violence and atrocity. It can be worth making a "tu quoque" argument to point out the hypocrisy and illegitimate moral authority of someone making accusations.

However, the "tu quoque" argument does not invalidate the ideal you're pushing for, and it doesn't justify failing to live up to those standards. That said, and this is crucial, there is no society on Earth that has yet to entirely eliminate injustice, racism, discrimination, and needless violence. That's a sad fact but it is a fact. What you have to do is decide for your own self whether or not a given society is at least accomplishing something worth defending.

For example, for all of the Soviet Union's many faults and flaws, I still uphold it in many respects because right up until Gorbachev's reforms, even in the days of Brezhnevite stagnation and corruption, the Soviet Union provided universal healthcare to it's citizens, gave people access to higher education who would never be able to afford it otherwise, made genuine efforts to provide everyone with affordable consumer goods and luxuries, and what's more, provided military and developmental aid to socialist and anti-colonial struggles all over the world. When the Soviet Union collapsed, all of that went away, and human suffering has objectively increased in all the places the Soviets were helping. That's a fact. Was the Soviet Union perfect? No, far from it, but it was worth defending and fighting for, to hope that it would overcome it's flaws from within.

I'm not a Trotskyist, but Leon Trotsky had an interesting quote. "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."

You have to ask yourself whether it's better to go with the lesser of two evils for the greater good, or make a principled stand that may leave you waiting forever. It's good to have principles, it's essential really, but nothing human is ever going to live up to all of your principles.

[pranabjyoti]

Wouldn't it be more productive to have them fix their crimes rather than just be executed? Btw, when did Mass ever mean petit bourgouase? By masses I mean the class conscious workers who hold sway over their peers, who are also in the masses. Most people would agree that having the criminals fix their evil deeds would be a better solution then just killing them, and just wasting a good brain.
Both in "Stalinist" USSR and in China during the Cultural Revolution, most were executed after their crimes had been proved. I thing you need some study regarding that matter. In USSR, trials, specially the Moscow trials and other trials were held on open court and before the eyes of witnesses around the world and most are from West European and other "democratic" nations. But, so far, no eyewitness account in the fallacy of trials or proofs that the "accused" persons were NOT GUILTY.
Problem with people from first world (like you) is that your brains were just full of trash that you were taught in your history classes and other academic institutions. You are so much filled with such rubbish that those ideas were deep rooted in your minds and you just can't overcome them.
WHILE THE ACTUAL REALITY IS TOTALLY OPPOSITE.

[pranabjyoti]

So then who ensures the development of democracy? Who gets to decide when this vague struggle is ended?
Which democracy are you advocating on a class based society? If you have faith in the working class, then let it decide when this "vague" struggle will stop.
The way you are calling the struggles "vague" clearly indicates how your ideology is deviated from real working class ideology.

[NecroCommie]

I have to agree with the OP. To go with the "capitalists do it too"-argument is to admit the validity of the argument if capitalists did not do those things. That, ofcourse, is utter bollocks.

I don't need to defend that which I do not want to create. If the accuser cannot find any faults in my personal politics then I don't see why attacking the policies of completely different movements can be seen as valid. I don't want to kill people by the thousands, so why mention anything about people who did? Do these cappies assume that because I carry the name "communist" I simply must somehow mystically kill people even against my own will? If not, then what is that argument about?

[Robocommie]

Both in "Stalinist" USSR and in China during the Cultural Revolution, most were executed after their crimes had been proved. I thing you need some study regarding that matter. In USSR, trials, specially the Moscow trials and other trials were held on open court and before the eyes of witnesses around the world and most are from West European and other "democratic" nations. But, so far, no eyewitness account in the fallacy of trials or proofs that the "accused" persons were NOT GUILTY.
Problem with people from first world (like you) is that your brains were just full of trash that you were taught in your history classes and other academic institutions. You are so much filled with such rubbish that those ideas were deep rooted in your minds and you just can't overcome them.
WHILE THE ACTUAL REALITY IS TOTALLY OPPOSITE.

What you said just now had almost nothing to do with what Syd had asked you. He asked you a question about sentencing, and then you went on a weird rant about the Moscow trials and told him his head was full of trash and how apparently, westerners cannot think and overcome their brainwashing.

It's as if all you have is a set of programmed talking points.

[pranabjyoti]

What you said just now had almost nothing to do with what Syd had asked you. He asked you a question about sentencing, and then you went on a weird rant about the Moscow trials and told him his head was full of trash and how apparently, westerners cannot think and overcome their brainwashing.

It's as if all you have is a set of programmed talking points.
Syd clearly mentioned about "fixing their crimes". Like many brainwashed, he probably also believe that a huge amount of people had been executed in Russia just for "opposing the authority".

[Geiseric]

That's not what i'm asking, the moscow trials are irrelevant here. It happened a while ago, many regret it but many also regret the cuban purges of batistaists. I'm asking, if a bourgouase guy wants to reform and take part in the revolution, stripped of his power in all aspects, will we let him? Will we give a chance to redeem himself?

Btw if I was brainwashed completely, I wouldn't be here. I'd be on my couch, watching jersey shore (retarted reality show).

[Zav]

Person 1: ''Mao killed thousands of political dissidents in china.''
Person 2: ''Well Chiang Kai-Shek did the same in the areas he controlled, so it's ok.''

I think that while it is important to make the point that Capitalists committed their own atrocities, that should not be considered justification for them. Don't we Commies want to be better than the Capies rather than equal to them?

[Geiseric]

Exactly what i'm saying.

[Wanted Man]

I don't support political terror, I support Democracy. What i'm also thinking is that if we keep having mass purges leftist govs are known for, wouldn't that make us just as bad in that aspect? And also does the end justify the means?

So you oppose Trotsky now?

[pranabjyoti]

I think that while it is important to make the point that Capitalists committed their own atrocities, that should not be considered justification for them. Don't we Commies want to be better than the Capies rather than equal to them?
We are on the opposite side and that's enough for us to differentiate us from them. NOTHING MORE IS NECESSARY.

[Geiseric]

Nobody's perfect, I like most of trotsky's ideas, there's nothing in trot pamphlets or books about killing members of the old bourguase order :p also it might have the same principle as when Stalin purged the officer corps of old tsarist officers who reformed, Red Army effectiveness dropped like a stone.

[Wanted Man]

Nobody's perfect, I like most of trotsky's ideas, there's nothing in trot pamphlets or books about killing members of the old bourguase order :p also it might have the same principle as when Stalin purged the officer corps of old tsarist officers who reformed, Red Army effectiveness dropped like a stone.

:confused::confused::confused:

There is not a single socialist organisation whose pamphlets say anything about killing anybody, because otherwise they would get banned. There might be something abstract about fighting counterrevolutionaries, or pointing out that counterrevolutionary violence necessitates revolutionary violence. But please show me a single pamphlet by a socialist organisation that explicitly states that the old bourgeoisie should be physically eliminated.

Anyway, Trotsky supported, and was often personally responsible for mass terror, forced labour camps, execution of striking workers, use of "blocking squads" to shoot retreating soldiers, the repression of Kronstadt, etc. As did Lenin and many other Bolsheviks in that period. You can look this up anywhere.

Many victims of the red terror were not even "bourgeois guys who just wanted reform" (LOL) but just workers who had a different view of socialism. Its executioners had almost unlimited power and no democratic checks on their power, not by the state and certainly not by the organised working-class.

So what do you think of that? Was it acceptable because the people responsible in this case were your favourite historical figures? Or do you agree that these measures are sometimes necessary against counterrevolution? Then obviously you don't oppose political terror on principle at all. That's fine, but then don't pretend to be some principled supporter of human rights, and that any atrocities committed by non-Stalinists were just "mistakes" (a typical Stalin-apologist argument, incidentally).

[Geiseric]

Was Trotsky in charge of the Terror? I always thought Lenin had the Cheka and others do it, and Trotsky was in charge of the military, not necessarily the authority on the Forced Labor camps, or the propaganda stuff. Like I said, nobody's perfect, but most of his political stuff, the perminant revolution, the need for democracy to have socialism survive, all of those I agree with. The need for a vanguard party as well, however the "Blocking Squads," and the killing of mass deserters I think can be blamed on independent generals, right?

In summary, I like on his political theories, the military ruthlessness and stuff I obviously don't like. I've never read anything in my trotskyist pamphlets saying about the need to suppress counter-revolutionaries, most of the things i have at least has to do with managing the revolution and political stuff. Most says about the need for Freedom of Expression, and the theory that if we're right people will go along with us.

[Wanted Man]

Was Trotsky in charge of the Terror? I always thought Lenin had the Cheka and others do it, and Trotsky was in charge of the military, not necessarily the authority on the Forced Labor camps, or the propaganda stuff. Like I said, nobody's perfect, but most of his political stuff, the perminant revolution, the need for democracy to have socialism survive, all of those I agree with. The need for a vanguard party as well, however the "Blocking Squads," and the killing of mass deserters I think can be blamed on independent generals, right?

In summary, I like on his political theories, the military ruthlessness and stuff I obviously don't like. I've never read anything in my trotskyist pamphlets saying about the need to suppress counter-revolutionaries, most of the things i have at least has to do with managing the revolution and political stuff. Most says about the need for Freedom of Expression, and the theory that if we're right people will go along with us.

So Trotsky was just a victim of bad old Lenin and nasty generals? The former is pretty funny because Trotskyists claim direct continuity with Lenin and Leninism. Anyway, trying to argue that Trotsky had nothing at all to do with the Terror is even funnier than people who claim that Stalin was unaware of the purges later on. And if Trotsky was such a cuddly humanist, why didn't he go into opposition to the time of the Terror? Instead, he was part of the government, he built the Red Army with blocking squads and all, and he ordered the crushing of Kronstadt.

I mean, if you want to support Trotsky's theories without approving of what the good man did in practice at all, then just say that. But I'd say 90% of Trotskyists also support and celebrate Trotsky's life, warts and all, except that they often see a perfect, unblemished face instead of warts. If you say "Long live Trotsky!" in your sig, if you pick yourself a hero, then be prepared to defend that person just like someone with a Stalin avatar or something like that.

I already told you that no socialist pamphlets (Trotskyist or otherwise) say anything about the need to suppress anyone. After all, it's not the best PR that you can make when you introduce your organisation. Religious pamphlets also say a bit more about salvation than they do about the need to stone adulterous women. That part usually comes a bit later, when the converted have started to feel a bit more comfortable. When you've had some more experience in your trotskyist organisation, maybe they will also start showing you their material about how it's only OK to order the shooting of striking workers when your name is Leon Trotsky and you're in a civil war. But maybe not, perhaps it's a bit more forward-looking organisation.

I mean, there's nothing necessarily wrong with any of this. Most people who call themselves "Leninists" of any kind will argue that all the harsh measures of the Bolsheviks early on were necessary. Also, there is the fact that the disowned bourgeoisie is unlikely to play nice, and nowhere was this more the case than in Russia, and that communists should be game if that's the case. There's nothing surprising there. But then don't go and pretend to be all libertarian and human-rights, or at least don't pretend that you're following Trotsky in this.

[Geiseric]

I mean, from what I understand, Trotsky had his plate full with the armed forces. I don't think he was directly involved with the killing strikers. Can you show a history page that backs your claim however? I'm not trying to be a prick, I just wanna see if this is true for sure.

[MarxistMan]

Many people in USA and in many other countries hate socialism, because they think that USSR under Stalin was a pure socialist system. And they always raise the Joseph Stalin card when ever, they are debating about socialism. It's like zionist israelis who always raise the anti-semitism card when ever you are critisizing the criminal actions of the government of Israel.

.



Something i've noticed among members of the left is that whenever a leftist government is criticized I.e. Stalin era U.S.S.R. Or North Korea, people who defend these countries always compare those to western capitalist countries, for example,

Person 1: ''Mao killed thousands of political dissidents in china.''
Person 2: ''Well Chiang Kai-Shek did the same in the areas he controlled, so it's ok.''

Personally, this annoys me since the reason I consider myself of the left is because our politics are supposed to be the opposite of the right, so we shouldn't be doing what they are doing. I was wondering about others opinions on these kinda of arguments.

[MarxistMan]

All you gotta do to be a good socialist, is be pure like Jesus Christ, one of the first founders of revolutionary socialism. Stalin was satanic and evil. I don't understand how can leftists be fans of Stalin.

.


I mean, from what I understand, Trotsky had his plate full with the armed forces. I don't think he was directly involved with the killing strikers. Can you show a history page that backs your claim however? I'm not trying to be a prick, I just wanna see if this is true for sure.

[Geiseric]

not even be totally pure, just don't execute possible political dissidents by the thousands...