Chomsky on Socialism

[RGacky3]

K4Tq4VE8eHQ

This should be required watching for any pro-Capitalist before they argue with socialists, so that we can avoid all the rediculous strawmen.

[Baseball]

K4Tq4VE8eHQ

This should be required watching for any pro-Capitalist before they argue with socialists, so that we can avoid all the rediculous strawmen.

Why? Chomsky said nothing. Oh sure, he spoke about "true" socialism which, happily, coincides with his own views of socialism. But that can hardly be considered insightful, unless Chomsky believes there are socialists who believe in "false" socialism, which would mean a situation of socialists who don't believe in socialism.

The correct way to look a this is that all socialists are "true" socialists; the "false" one is the other fellow who incorrectly claims to be a "true" socialist.
The USSR called itself socialist because it saw itself as "true" socialist. That Chomsky disagrees is simply par for the course.

It is 2011 folks, not 1848.

[Revolution starts with U]

He just knows he secretly agrees with everything we say and feels it is the most moral position too hold. But his ego has gotten the better of him. So in order to make up for his insecurities he falls back on the "ya but if we tried it, we'd get the USSR."

Chomsky was describing what he supports, and describing how his position matches far better with classical socialism rather than post-lenin socialism. Like it or not, it's true.

[Baseball]

He just knows he secretly agrees with everything we say and feels it is the most moral position too hold. But his ego has gotten the better of him. So in order to make up for his insecurities he falls back on the "ya but if we tried it, we'd get the USSR."

Chomsky was describing what he supports, and describing how his position matches far better with classical socialism rather than post-lenin socialism. Like it or not, it's true.


Chomsky was praising the world of the 1820s, while taking a slap at a man who worked a century later. say whatever you want about Lenin, but he had to figure out how to actually place socialist theories into action. Socialism for him was far more than being erudite. It is a responsibility and a challenge for which Chomsky will never face.

[RGacky3]

Errr, no, they wern't socialist theories in action, socialist theories have traditionally ALWAYS been what what he said they were. YOur building up the same idiotic nonsense strawman.

[Jose Gracchus]

Except Lenin did not 'implement' socialism, and he was not at the head of some hive-mind of the social fabric of the entire interior of the Russian Empire, locked in the grips of a pre-modern state, a collapsing economy, and a losing great war.

[Robert]

Chomsky was describing what he supports

Himself?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222

[RichardAWilson]

Lenin's Democratic Centralism was a contradiction to Socialism.

[tir1944]

^^
Cool story bro

[RGacky3]

Himself?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/h...t/article/6222 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222)

Because he makes money on his books and speaches ... Thats not hypocritical at all, and the same nonsence put out against Michael Moore, he's doing whats rational in a capitalist system, while at the same time arguing against that system, which is not contradictory at all.

[Revolution starts with U]

Again... we're not friggin primitivists. Anti-capitalism != anti-civilization

[Misanthrope]

Himself?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222

Oh my god, he is saving money for his progeny, what a capitalist pig!

Republicans who pay Obama's taxes are hypocrites as well, they speak out against him but they give him money, WTF?

......

How ridiculous a claim, you can't refute the man's ideas so you make personal attacks on him and his family. Stay classy right-wingers.

[Rafiq]

Why? Chomsky said nothing. Oh sure, he spoke about "true" socialism which, happily, coincides with his own views of socialism. But that can hardly be considered insightful, unless Chomsky believes there are socialists who believe in "false" socialism, which would mean a situation of socialists who don't believe in socialism.

The correct way to look a this is that all socialists are "true" socialists; the "false" one is the other fellow who incorrectly claims to be a "true" socialist.
The USSR called itself socialist because it saw itself as "true" socialist. That Chomsky disagrees is simply par for the course.

It is 2011 folks, not 1848.

Chomsky is wrong, he has no authority to decide what is socialist and what is not, what he should really be doing is providing a concrete material analysis as to why socialism failed in the 20th century, which has, at the least been done by a lot of Marxists.

However you cannot expcect much from psuedo liberals like Noam Chomsky.

[Revolution starts with U]

"Chomsky agrees with what I agree with, but differs on the methods. Therefore he is the enemy."

Your liberal paranoia is hilarious :lol:

[Rafiq]

say whatever you want about Lenin, but he had to figure out how to actually place socialist theories into action. Socialism for him was far more than being erudite. It is a responsibility and a challenge for which Chomsky will never face.

I don't know about that, Lenin had to figure out how to stabilize russia's economy and fight off the invaders coming, and he tried so with the NEP.

I don't think it was the goal of Lenin or Stalin to place socialist theories into action, because socialist theories themselves (at least in the Marxist sense) do not exist. Lenin had to deal with the material conditions manifested in Russia, part of which was non stop siege and sabotage. The failure of the revolution to spread to the industrialized countries (What Marx described as essential) caused the Soviet Union to be isolated and slowly degenerating. These were issues that Joseph Stalin had to deal with, with Khrushchev after him altogether accepting them and trying to adjust Russian society towards it (the degeneration).

[Rafiq]

Errr, no, they wern't socialist theories in action, socialist theories have traditionally ALWAYS been what what he said they were. YOur building up the same idiotic nonsense strawman.

Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. Socialist theories themselves do not exist. Blue prints to be layed down for socialism do not exist, and if some do, they are not to be taken seriously.

[Rafiq]

Lenin's Democratic Centralism was a contradiction to Socialism.

Actually it wasn't.

This was something that was described as the lower stages of Communism/Socialism.

[Rafiq]

Because he makes money on his books and speaches ... Thats not hypocritical at all, and the same nonsence put out against Michael Moore, he's doing whats rational in a capitalist system, while at the same time arguing against that system, which is not contradictory at all.

Yeah I know, but his books and speaches don't deserve all of that money. That old fool should pay me to watch his unsophisticated moralist crap.

$12,000 for every speech? Jesus.

[Misanthrope]

Yeah I know, but his books and speaches don't deserve all of that money. That old fool should pay me to watch his unsophisticated moralist crap.

$12,000 for every speech? Jesus.

Calling the father of modern linguistics an old fool is pretty ignorant.

[RGacky3]

He IS the most respected intellectual in the world ....

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Rafiq;2249677]I don't know about that, Lenin had to figure out how to stabilize russia's economy and fight off the invaders coming, and he tried so with the NEP.

But it would seem that any socialist will have to deal with capitalists and their flunkies, whether within the country/community or in other parts of the world. It has to be part of the plan for building socialism.


I don't think it was the goal of Lenin or Stalin to place socialist theories into action, because socialist theories themselves (at least in the Marxist sense) do not exist.

Yes, Marx didn't spend much time thinking about what an actual socialist community would look like. But somebody has to.


Lenin had to deal with the material conditions manifested in Russia, part of which was non stop siege and sabotage.

He had to deal with objections to socialism and/or objections to his particular brand of socialism. But, as above, that would seem to have to go with the territory.


The failure of the revolution to spread to the industrialized countries (What Marx described as essential) caused the Soviet Union to be isolated and slowly degenerating.

The USSR was not isolated. By 1933 all the western countries had recognized the USSR. They bankrolled the building projects across that country in the 30s.

True, the workers did not (have not) rebelled in industrialized countries and socialism took root in the 20th Century in the poorer, non-industrial countries (with the active support of the USSR). But to what extent does that disprove Marx on how socialism develops, as opposed to explaining why the USSR developed as it did?

[Jose Gracchus]

Himself?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222

So you're not allowed to advocate socialism unless you are a moralist who gives over your tax dollars most eagerly, which will subsequently largely be used to finance bank bailouts and wars?

Do you hold factory owners who beg for hand-outs from different possible locales for construction via tax write-offs, essentially demanding protection money from communities? Or is that just peachy by you?

[Book O'Dead]

Chomsky was praising the world of the 1820s, while taking a slap at a man who worked a century later. say whatever you want about Lenin, but he had to figure out how to actually place socialist theories into action. Socialism for him was far more than being erudite. It is a responsibility and a challenge for which Chomsky will never face.

You make it sound as if Lenin was the first guy ever to attempt a socialist revolution. You forget the Commune of 1871.

Wether or not Chomsky will ever face the same practical challenges that Lenin did is irrelevant as to his credibility regading socialism.

Some people (such as yourself, it seems) get defensive the moment alternate descriptions of socialism are counterposed; as if disproving one in favor of another were just an act of sectarianism or dogmatism. Fortunately Chomsky is neither.

[Jose Gracchus]

But it would seem that any socialist will have to deal with capitalists and their flunkies, whether within the country/community or in other parts of the world. It has to be part of the plan for building socialism.

Socialism presupposes the expansion of the revolution over a large area of the globe and its population, such that a reasonable self-sustaining political economy could begin construction.


Yes, Marx didn't spend much time thinking about what an actual socialist community would look like. But somebody has to.

Because the content of the American State, including the Constitution, was plotted in advance by blueprint by the leading liberals like Paine and Jefferson...oh wait, that's not at all how the liberal revolutions occurred and feudalism and absolutism came to be replaced by liberal capitalism. All you demonstrate here is your cluelessness as to the actual processes and tendencies by which history evolves.


He had to deal with objections to socialism and/or objections to his particular brand of socialism. But, as above, that would seem to have to go with the territory.

The soviet experiment (note I do not say "Soviet", since the workers' councils had long since ceased being the fount of power in the Russian state, as early as 1918, and certainly by 1921 -- Stalin constitutionally abolished them even on paper by 1936 to appeal to the West) was largely crushed beneath the social weight of the imploding Tsarist economy and society, and forced to make unacceptable concessions to German imperialism before the war came to an end.

Try reading an actual history book, none of you have a clue what you're talking about. The Russian Revolution was a popular event, driven largely by the bottom-up from social movements. This isn't in serious dispute among scholars. To harp on things like all liberals do, as if history is some kind master-control-board, and you just turn fuckin knobs to 'liberalism' or 'capitalism' like they make it sound in American education is pure stupidity. It wasn't a matter of Lenin 'implementing' or 'deciding' anything; that's not the important factor. Lenin spent most of 1917 in exile or in hiding from police. In 1918 the left wing of his own party considered joining their coalition partners (the Left SRs) and others in having Lenin expelled and placed under arrest.


The USSR was not isolated. By 1933 all the western countries had recognized the USSR. They bankrolled the building projects across that country in the 30s.

Some businesses did contract work, but none exported capital they could not see a return on. And if you do not see that 15 years is an exceptionally long time to treat a Great Power like Russia as a pariah worse than North Korea, you're out to lunch. It is not about intentful 'screwing' of Russia by some particular group, it is simply in the nature of capital by the 1920s to isolate peripheral economic regions and fail to develop them.


True, the workers did not (have not) rebelled in industrialized countries and socialism took root in the 20th Century in the poorer, non-industrial countries (with the active support of the USSR). But to what extent does that disprove Marx on how socialism develops, as opposed to explaining why the USSR developed as it did?

They most certainly did rebel in most countries in the 1917-1921 period. There was a workers' soviet which took control of public services in Seattle, Washington State during 1919. All power nearly passed to the workers' councils in Germany in 1918-1919. Marx never said that the workers were certain to take power soon, and that the revolution would come easily. His analyses (if you actually read them, which I am sure you have not) stand up quite well as to the social relations dominant in society and describing the tendencies in the circuits of capital which continue (greatly expanded in fact) from just as he observed in his day.

[Robert]

So you're not allowed to advocate socialism unless ...Not at all. Do anything you want.

Just don't ask me to take you seriously if you are denouncing capitalism and calling for the emancipation of the working class while stuffing your pockets with what little bit of discretionary income they have.

And I'll bet you a beer he invests the money in Microsoft, Halliburton, McDonalds, DuPont, Merck and Bank of America.

Nicely diversified, see?

NB -- I SWEAR I wrote the above as a joke before finding this:

But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.
Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.
When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a “what else can I do?” defense: “Should I live in a cabin in Montana?” he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in “green” or “socially responsible” enterprises. They just don’t yield the maximum available return.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222



Honestly, now military contractors? :laugh:

Just admit it, the guy is a fucking fraud.

[RGacky3]

Chomsky is wrong, he has no authority to decide what is socialist and what is not, what he should really be doing is providing a concrete material analysis as to why socialism failed in the 20th century, which has, at the least been done by a lot of Marxists.


He's not deciding what socialism is, he's just saying what every socialist, almost every socialist has traditionally believed in.

[RGacky3]

Maybe I should change, this should be required watching for capitalists here who want to debate with everyone other than a couple stalinists like Rafiq who have automatic reactions to red flags and people deemed as "liberals." If you want to argue with them go right ahead and argue against stalin.

[RGacky3]

Honestly, now military contractors? http://www.revleft.com/vb/chomsky-socialism-t161961/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

Just admit it, the guy is a fucking fraud.

... Why would'nt you put your money in the smartest investments if you live in a Capitalist economy?

What moral point are you making by making a bad investment???

[Robert]

Heads up, guys ...Chomsky is coming on Bloomberg in a minute with his "Hot Stock of the Week" segment.

Now, where's my pencil ...?

[RGacky3]

Funny how no one can EVER argue against actual points CHomsky makes, all they do is point out he has stocks, or call him a liberal, pretty pathetic.

[Jose Gracchus]

Okay, Chomsky is a hypocritical capitalist and windbag.

Now what, have you disreputed socialism and the content of every text the man has produced?

Kiddies and their 6th grade debating tactics get pretty tiresome. What if you cheat on women, should I consider you a liar and refuse to discuss with you anonymously on the Internet? Get real, grow up.

[Robert]

Okay, Chomsky is a hypocritical capitalist and windbag.

Okay, Chomsky is a hypocritical capitalist and windbag.

Okay, Chomsky is a hypocritical capitalist and windbag.

Okay, Chomsky is a hypocritical capitalist and windbag.

Okay, Chomsky is a hypocritical capitalist and windbag.

Jose Gracchus for President!!!

Market's down today. I wonder if the Chomsker shorted Bank of America.
Wish I had.:(

[Rafiq]

[QUOTE]

But it would seem that any socialist will have to deal with capitalists and their flunkies, whether within the country/community or in other parts of the world. It has to be part of the plan for building socialism.

Correct, however it wasn't just the reactionaries of the Russian empire that he had to deal with. It was some of the most powerful countries in the world, the industrialized countries that Marx and Engels stressed were necessary for a world revolution. It didn't happen.




Yes, Marx didn't spend much time thinking about what an actual socialist community would look like. But somebody has to.

He didn't think about it because he viewed it as a waste of time, and rightfully so. Someone has to, I don't think so, Socialism is something that would emerge from the rule of the proletariat, and leaving the blueprints for one man is pretty ridiculous. Capitalism was never 'thought about' during feudalism, it was a result of the merchant class's dictatorial uprising.




He had to deal with objections to socialism and/or objections to his particular brand of socialism. But, as above, that would seem to have to go with the territory.

Again, he had to deal with the reactionaries and the Bourgeois resistance. This is something you would expect from a socialist revolution, however the problem was that, like I already mentioned, the industrialized countries did not experience a proletarian revolution, and therefore aided, and fought alongside the bourgeois resistance.



The USSR was not isolated. By 1933 all the western countries had recognized the USSR. They bankrolled the building projects across that country in the 30s.

Again, you are forgetting the countless times the USSR was under sabotage by Britain in the 20's. The USSR's involvement with foreign business, particularly building projects, were a result of the Isolation of socialism, which degenerated slowly into capitalism. The USSR even, was not able to pass the capitalist mode of production, someone mentioned David Harvey calling it "Lenin's great failure". I don';t think that's accurate, I believe "The International proletariat's great failure" would be much more suitable.


True, the workers did not (have not) rebelled in industrialized countries and socialism took root in the 20th Century in the poorer, non-industrial countries (with the active support of the USSR).

The USSR acted as an Imperialist power in bringing about or hijacking those "Socialist" revolutions. As an example the Tudeh party in Iran was a so-called socialist party, however it sold out communists to the Islamist ruling class on behalf of the USSR.


But to what extent does that disprove Marx on how socialism develops, as opposed to explaining why the USSR developed as it did?

It does not disprove Marx on "How socialism developed" because Marx and Engels knew a proletarian revolution must occur in the Industrialized countries, a failure to do so would bring the country degenerating back to capitalism. All of the so-called socialist nations after the USSR were mere puppet states to Soviet Imperialism, not a result of the development of a proletarian revolution. China was not the result of Soviet Imperialism, or Yugoslavia, but none of those were proletarian revolutions.

There is a concrete Materialist explanation for why the USSR developed as it did, and it fits the reality of the situation much better than as the Bourgeois idealists accounted it as (Human Nature, Greed, Lack of religion or Morals).

[Rafiq]

He's not deciding what socialism is, he's just saying what every socialist, almost every socialist has traditionally believed in.

Except Marxists and Revolutionary Proletariat Anarchists.

Chomsky is basically just telling us what Utopia he likes best.

[Rafiq]

other than a couple stalinists like Rafiq who have automatic reactions to red flags and people deemed as "liberals." .

:laugh: So I'm a Stalinist because I'm not a Bourgeois ethical socialist like you? I'm less of a Stalinist than you are actually, Stalinism is a Bourgeois Ideology and So is Chomsky's Socialism. Now you have something in common.

2. Automatic Reactions to red flags? Your head is so far up your ass it's unbelievable. I've not resorted to ethical criticisms of the USSR and China, however I categorize them as just as much of enemies to the Proletariat as the U.S. and it's allies. Shows how much you know.

[Rafiq]

Funny how no one can EVER argue against actual points CHomsky makes, all they do is point out he has stocks, or call him a liberal, pretty pathetic.

I can, actually, it's pretty easy, especially his segment Where he calls Adam smith and Thomas Jefferson 'Anti Capitalists'.

It's not hard arguing with the points he makes, but I can't quote sections of the YouTube video as

1. I am too lazy

2. I have no time.

If you want to quote them and have me refute them I will be pleased to do so, though.

[RGacky3]

Except Marxists and Revolutionary Proletariat Anarchists.

Chomsky is basically just telling us what Utopia he likes best.

So Marxists and revolutionary proletariat anarchists don't call socialism a system where workers control the means of production and there is a workers control over the economy (i.e. a democratic control)?

He's saying the EXACT thing that Marxists, anarchists, democratic socialists and so on say socialism is.

[Rafiq]

So Marxists and revolutionary proletariat anarchists don't call socialism a system where workers control the means of production and there is a workers control over the economy (i.e. a democratic control)?

He's saying the EXACT thing that Marxists, anarchists, democratic socialists and so on say socialism is.

Don't group Marxists and Revolutionary Anarchists with 'Democratic Socialism', which is completely Bourgeois.

Socialism is something that will arise out of the rule of the proletariat (Mob rule). Socialism is something that will naturally be rationalized by human beings and they will adjust to it and that is how it will look like. We don't propose what Socialism will look like, because that isn't just our goal. Our goal is to serve our class interests in bringing the proletariat to class dictatorship, we expect no rainbows and sunshine, no Utopia like the one you describe.

Socialism is not for us Marxists some kind of thing we have to achieve. Socialism is a movement we recognize that will abolish the present state of things. That movement is dead, however whether it is revived or another comes to replace it we will support whatever that is. Socialism is a weapon, not a fantasy.

[Tim Cornelis]

I can, actually, it's pretty easy, especially his segment Where he calls Adam smith and Thomas Jefferson 'Anti Capitalists'.

I don't know for Adam Smith but Thomas Jefferson argued:


It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land.... By an universal law, ... whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

Proposing common ownership sounds pretty "anti capitalist" to me.

[Rafiq]

I don't know for Adam Smith but Thomas Jefferson argued:



Proposing common ownership sounds pretty "anti capitalist" to me.

Well his actual methods prove otherwise.

Jefferson was a Free Marketer. he wasn't proposing common ownership, he was arguing against feudalism. It is free market rhetoric, that everyone owns the land and has the opportunity to own any land they like.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Jose Gracchus;2250067]Socialism presupposes the expansion of the revolution over a large area of the globe and its population, such that a reasonable self-sustaining political economy could begin construction.

OK. So socialism is NOT about a revolution. That's something else, apparently. Socialism is all about picking up the rubble and constructing the new society. However, the problem still remains re: the effectiveness of socialism as a system.
Sorry- but you cannot dodge dealing with that problem.




Because the content of the American State, including the Constitution, was plotted in advance by blueprint by the leading liberals like Paine and Jefferson...oh wait, that's not at all how the liberal revolutions occurred and feudalism and absolutism came to be replaced by liberal capitalism. All you demonstrate here is your cluelessness as to the actual processes and tendencies by which history evolves.

Perhaps that argument would work with socialists who take an evolutionary view on things. But for revolutionary socialists...?



The soviet experiment (note I do not say "Soviet", since the workers' councils had long since ceased being the fount of power in the Russian state, as early as 1918, and certainly by 1921 -- Stalin constitutionally abolished them even on paper by 1936 to appeal to the West) was largely crushed beneath the social weight of the imploding Tsarist economy and society, and forced to make unacceptable concessions to German imperialism before the war came to an end.

OK. So socialism developed differently in the USSR than perhaps you would have favored. So what?


Try reading an actual history book, none of you have a clue what you're talking about. The Russian Revolution was a popular event, driven largely by the bottom-up from social movements. This isn't in serious dispute among scholars. To harp on things like all liberals do, as if history is some kind master-control-board, and you just turn fuckin knobs to 'liberalism' or 'capitalism' like they make it sound in American education is pure stupidity. It wasn't a matter of Lenin 'implementing' or 'deciding' anything; that's not the important factor. Lenin spent most of 1917 in exile or in hiding from police. In 1918 the left wing of his own party considered joining their coalition partners (the Left SRs) and others in having Lenin expelled and placed under arrest.

Again so what? Are you seriously stating that socialists do not need political parties to push their agenda forward? How about websites and message boards?




Some businesses did contract work, but none exported capital they could not see a return on.

And the USSR took nothing they would not benefit by.


And if you do not see that 15 years is an exceptionally long time to treat a Great Power like Russia as a pariah worse than North Korea,

So what is the complaint here? That capitalist west did not treat the USSR like any other country? I thought socialism was against that kind of stuff.


it is simply in the nature of capital by the 1920s to isolate peripheral economic regions and fail to develop them.

Except they didn't. The sold the USSR the rope.




They most certainly did rebel in most countries in the 1917-1921 period.

"Successfully" I should have added.

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

I haven't thought about Chomsky in years, thanks for the reminder why.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well his actual methods prove otherwise.

Jefferson was a Free Marketer. he wasn't proposing common ownership, he was arguing against feudalism. It is free market rhetoric, that everyone owns the land and has the opportunity to own any land they like.

He is clearly arguing for "use & occupancy" rather than exclusive ownership, i.e. possession versus property, i.e. common ownership versus private ownership.

[Baseball]

Correct, however it wasn't just the reactionaries of the Russian empire that he had to deal with. It was some of the most powerful countries in the world, the industrialized countries that Marx and Engels stressed were necessary for a world revolution. It didn't happen.

Yes, but the claim was that it was in those industrialised from where the revolution would occur. Marx was wrong about that.
Lenin also had to deal with other differing ideas of building and constructing socialism in Russia.



He didn't think about it because he viewed it as a waste of time, and rightfully so. Someone has to, I don't think so, Socialism is something that would emerge from the rule of the proletariat,

There is nothing uncapitalist about worker ownership of industry. Perhaps I am being unnecessarily concerned...



Again, he had to deal with the reactionaries and the Bourgeois resistance. This is something you would expect from a socialist revolution, however the problem was that, like I already mentioned, the industrialized countries did not experience a proletarian revolution, and therefore aided, and fought alongside the bourgeois resistance.

And he won. So what's the point?


Again, you are forgetting the countless times the USSR was under sabotage by Britain in the 20's. The USSR's involvement with foreign business, particularly building projects, were a result of the Isolation of socialism,

But again, so what? The socialist community is going to have accept the inevitability of existing side by side a capitalist one. They will have to make do with what they can.



The USSR acted as an Imperialist power in bringing about or hijacking those "Socialist" revolutions.

OK. So what is a socialist community supposed to do? Sit back patiently and wait for the revolution to break out elsewhere? They are to deprive themselves of the fruits of what they can do themselves within their community? Seems kind of hard-hearted.


It does not disprove Marx on "How socialism developed" because Marx and Engels knew a proletarian revolution must occur in the Industrialized countries, a failure to do so would bring the country degenerating back to capitalism.

But it didn't happen this way.

[Yuppie Grinder]

... Why would'nt you put your money in the smartest investments if you live in a Capitalist economy?

What moral point are you making by making a bad investment???
If your going to participate in and reinforce the stock market, an integral part of the preservation of late capitalism, at least do it in the least shitty way possible. Not investing in some shady military contractors is a decent thing to do.

[Robert]

I went to hear the guru maharaji give a speech on the colonic and spiritual benefits of vegetarianism. They brought him a double cheeseburger and he ate it right in front of the audience. Licked his fingers. Said it was "finger lickin' good."
Didn't undermine his message, not really, so I stayed and bought one if his CD's. Expensive, but I didn't mind.

[Rafiq]

Yes, but the claim was that it was in those industrialised from where the revolution would occur. Marx was wrong about that.
Lenin also had to deal with other differing ideas of building and constructing socialism in Russia.

1. No, Marx said that a successful revolution had to take place in one of the industrialized countries. He didn't say attempts at a socialist revolution would not exist outside of them

2. Lenin had to deal with the circumstances Russia was going to. Whether he did that rationally is debatable.



There is nothing uncapitalist about worker ownership of industry. Perhaps I am being unnecessarily concerned...

You are right, however it has little to do with my post. The proletariat must occupy both the State and Private property. It is not just workers control. It is about abolishing capitalism all together, including Markets and Private Property.



And he won. So what's the point?


he won, and Russia experienced famine in 1922 as a result. He may have horded off the Bourgeois invaders, however the impact it made and the constant sabotage is something he never managed to get rid of. Also, it could be noted Marx said socialism in one country isn't even possible, so, again, this is no argument against Marx, is it.



But again, so what? The socialist community is going to have accept the inevitability of existing side by side a capitalist one. They will have to make do with what they can.


You make it as if Britain itself is a country filled with only Bourgeois humans. The point was is that we (the proletariat) do not accept, nor recognize the legitimacy of the 'capitalist side'. They are sending workers to fight on their behalf, something we won't tolerate. We understand that there exists a Bourgeois enemy that will do all it can to attack us, we are not trying to reason with it or rationalize with it. We are merely pointing out that in doing so, the proletariat of those countries will do it's best to overthrow it's class antagonism.

The point was for the revolution to spread to countries like Britain so they wouldn't be attacking in the first place. it didn't. Therefore the USSR was isolated and slowly degenerated into capitalism.


OK. So what is a socialist community supposed to do? Sit back patiently and wait for the revolution to break out elsewhere? They are to deprive themselves of the fruits of what they can do themselves within their community? Seems kind of hard-hearted.


Many Maoists and Stalinists have mentioned the same point you have made, and I will respond to you in the same manner: the goal of the proletariat should be for the revolution to spread. In the third world, where we see revolutionary potential sometimes, Trotskyists offered permanent revolution until the revolution would break out in the Industrialized countries, however I think a better solution is possible. DNZ, a user here, offers an interesting solution that should be looked into, if you wish.

The point is, is that a 'socialist community' in the third world would last long any way, Cuba tried that and they resorted to asking Russia for help, and the Soviet Union is gone. The only way to end Imperialism is for the revolution to occur in the belly of the beast.



But it didn't happen this way.

perhaps you should see my quote:
because Marx and Engels knew a proletarian revolution must occur in the Industrialized countries, a failure to do so would bring the country degenerating back to capitalism.

Russia couldn't even surpass the capitalist mode of production.

Actually, every so-called socialist nation is now a capitalist country. Even North Korea is shifting in that direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Economic_Zone#North_Korea

[Bud Struggle]

I went to hear the guru maharaji give a speech on the colonic and spiritual benefits of vegetarianism. They brought him a double cheeseburger and he ate it right in front of the audience. Licked his fingers. Said it was "finger lickin' good."
Didn't undermine his message, not really, so I stayed and bought one if his CD's. Expensive, but I didn't mind.

Nailed it, Robert. :D

One of the best posts ever.

And Rafiq--I always look forward to you insights. Good posts "Comrade."