Corruption In Socialistic States!

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

All socialist countries are very corrupted why is this happening?

for starters North korea this is for me one of the worlds most fucked up state.

and in all socialist countries there are few rich and then millions of starving people.

Eastern Germany that was connected to the Russian Empire they needed to built a fucking wall that people wount run away to western germany.


if no one cant tell me why there are alway dictators ,corruption,... in socialistic countires i'm joining the anarchistic ideas.

[Tim Cornelis]

Firstly, anarchism is socialist.
Secondly, corruption and despotism were the result of Bolshevism and Marxism-Leninism, thus joining us, the anarchists, based solely on the failure of Marxism-Leninism and Bolshevism is flawed as you can still be a Marxist--of the classical, orthodox, Luxemburgist, councilist variant--who criticises the former USSR.

[Hivemind]

First off, it's arguable that none of the countries that were "socialist" were actually socialist, much less NK. Secondly, the corruption that happened in countries like that happened because of centralizing power and a shitty bureaucracy.

But yeah, as stated above, anarchism is socialist.

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

but also look at kuba that country is super corrupted fidel castro and some other guys live just fine when the rest of the country is slowly dyeing.
I think if che would see what have bee come of that place what would he say?

[Nox]

Many of the so-called 'Socialist' countries are just corrupt state-capitalist regimes.

[tir1944]

Do you have a real source for that "corruption",or are you talking out of your...head?

[thefinalmarch]

Tags for this thread: anarchy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=anarchy), corrupted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=corrupted), corruption (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=corruption), korea (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=korea), socialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=socialism), socialistic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=socialistic), state (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=state), states (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=states), you are a cock (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=you+are+a+cock)

Stay classy :cool:

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

Do you have a real source for that "corruption",or are you talking out of your...head?

well for starters that fucking korean dictator doenst let their people back to Korea if they have been in Libya cuz he fears that they are going to make a revolution against them.

Second in all i meen all socialistic states there is millions of poor people and 100 very reach people

There are always dictators in such states,...

and more

[Hivemind]

Socialism is when the means of production are owned and operated by the workers, and in all of the "socialist" countries, the means of production were in the hands of the state, which was a centralized source, and perpetuated a top-down style of ruling, unlike the necessary bottom-up style of ruling (think dictatorship of the proletariat, free association between individuals, unions, soviets, etc) needed for socialism, and eventually communism.

So yeah, don't think that the socialist countries that have existed thus far are actually socialist, they're not.

[Misanthrope]

You might get your question answered if you stop making homophobic insults and use grammar.

[Lunatic Concept]

I smell a troll.

[thriller]

First off don't call people, even the upper class, 'fa*ots'. Secondly, countries are fucked up, socialist or otherwise, because they are countries. States are the idea of a centralized power in a specific geographic area. This almost always results in a centralized power force in that country to maintain power. Breaking down boarders is essential to anarchist and socialist societies. If a socialist state remains a state for long enough, it just becomes another country that divides the working class into national segments.

[The Jay]

Are you trolling or just learning about the propaganda spread about socialism? Juche is not socialism in the least and people in Russia are arguably worse off now than in the authoritarian USSR. By the way, you should take the word "faggot" out of your post before you get an infraction.

[Nox]

Tags for this thread: anarchy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=anarchy), corrupted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=corrupted), corruption (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=corruption), korea (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=korea), socialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=socialism), socialistic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=socialistic), state (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=state), states (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=states), you are a cock (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tags.php?tag=you+are+a+cock)

Stay classy :cool:

Hahahahahha I just noticed that :laugh:

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

Are you trolling or just learning about the propaganda spread about socialism? Juche is not socialism in the least and people in Russia are arguably worse off now than in the authoritarian USSR. By the way, you should take the word "faggot" out of your post before you get an infraction.

no dude i just want to learn as much as possible and no im not trolling

[The Jay]

If you want to learn about libertarian socialism, check out this channel http://www.youtube.com/user/MsSexySocialist . She collected a couple of good playlists.

[Rafiq]

Firstly, anarchism is socialist.
Secondly, corruption and despotism were the result of Bolshevism and Marxism-Leninism, thus joining us, the anarchists, based solely on the failure of Marxism-Leninism and Bolshevism is flawed as you can still be a Marxist--of the classical, orthodox, Luxemburgist, councilist variant--who criticises the former USSR.

How disgustingly Idealist of you. A failed economy is a result of ideas? Jesus this is why we (Marxists) called you (proudhonists) idealist.

You ARE an Idealist. This post was proof.

[Thirsty Crow]

How disgustingly Idealist of you. A failed economy is a result of ideas? Jesus this is why we (Marxists) called you (proudhonists) idealist.

You ARE an Idealist. This post was proof.
If Goti were indeed talking about the economy, I'd have to agree with you. But the issue of despotism - meaning, subordination of organs of working class rule to the state, and fusion between the party and the state - is not something which can so easily be resolved by mere reference to the primacy of material conditions. Sure, this primacy is something understandable, and desirable in analysis, but it has to be complemented by a political analysis of Bolshevik politics and their historical shifts - and rpecisely here one can argue that a strand or a current inherent to Bolshevism (also remeber that other one - all power to the soviets, The State and Revolution) did in fact play a major role in strenghtening and reinforcing the tendencies towards counter-revolution.

Instead of foaming at the mouth, you might at one occassion start contemplating the option of engaging in a debate of this sort (and recognize the grain of truth in what is a very dubious statement otherwise).

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

ok thanks for taking time for a noob here

[Rafiq]

If Goti were indeed talking about the economy, I'd have to agree with you. But the issue of despotism - meaning, subordination of organs of working class rule to the state, and fusion between the party and the state - is not something which can so easily be resolved by mere reference to the primacy of material conditions. Sure, this primacy is something understandable, and desirable in analysis, but it has to be complemented by a political analysis of Bolshevik politics and their historical shifts - and rpecisely here one can argue that a strand or a current inherent to Bolshevism (also remeber that other one - all power to the soviets, The State and Revolution) did in fact play a major role in strenghtening and reinforcing the tendencies towards counter-revolution.

Instead of foaming at the mouth, you might at one occassion start contemplating the option of engaging in a debate of this sort (and recognize the grain of truth in what is a very dubious statement otherwise).


Those socialist states would have "corrupted" even if their founders were Anarchists. The point is, is that you can't blame Bolshevism or even Marxism Leninism for the failure of those states, as the real problem was the material conditions which manifested earlier on.

"Stalinism" was a response to these conditions. Not a cause of them.

As for Bolshevism, the word is muddled and has several meanings. The Trotskyists like to call themselves Bolshevists but so do the Stalinists. "Stalinist Bolshevism", if you will, was also merely a response to the material conditions in Russia.

There is nothing wrong with Bolshevism. In fact, the Bolshevik method helped successfully organized the world's first proletarian revolution, something Anarchists have never been able to achieve. It's downfall came as soon as the failure of the German revolution was in place.

In fact, had the German proletariat used the Bolshevik method ( Tactic, not ideology), perhaps we would be living in Socialism today, maybe.

[Rafiq]

[QUOTE=Menocchio;2285737 But the issue of despotism - meaning, subordination of organs of working class rule to the state, and fusion between the party and the state - is not something which can so easily be resolved by mere reference to the primacy of material conditions [/QUOTE]

Of course it was a result of the material conditions. The fusion of the party and the state was an absolute necessity for even the crumb of proletarian dictatorship that was left to survive a little longer and not spin out into chaos. Like I said, had the revolution spread to the industrialized countries, not only would people like Stalin not have been able to seize power, the party itself would have vanished.

There is a reason Marx and Engels stressed it had to spread to the Industrialized nations, or else it would end up where it started.

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course it was a result of the material conditions. The fusion of the party and the state was an absolute necessity for even the crumb of proletarian dictatorship that was left to survive a little longer and not spin out into chaos. Like I said, had the revolution spread to the industrialized countries, not only would people like Stalin not have been able to seize power, the party itself would have vanished.

There is a reason Marx and Engels stressed it had to spread to the Industrialized nations, or else it would end up where it started.
I'm ot saying that this tragic process wasn't a result of material conditions. I also fully agree that the international dimension is very important here. But you simply cannot neglect all the other factors - most prominently, the shifts and changes in Bolshevik policies and the party's functions. And here all the sweet talk of absolute necessity means jack shit, to be frank, since everything, almost every possible course of action can be defended on these grounds. This cop out is even less relevant when it comes to the period close to the effective end of the war.

And I simply can't agree that political organizations would've vanished (why would they do so?) immediately after the proletarian conquest of political power in advanced, industrialized countries.

[thefinalmarch]

the "you are a cock" tag disappeared.

oh you pesky BA, you.

[Rafiq]

I'm ot saying that this tragic process wasn't a result of material conditions. I also fully agree that the international dimension is very important here.

Good, then.


But you simply cannot neglect all the other factors - most prominently, the shifts and changes in Bolshevik policies and the party's functions. And here all the sweet talk of absolute necessity means jack shit, to be frank, since everything, almost every possible course of action can be defended on these grounds.

I know it's nice to think that material conditions is just some kind of side-line with other factors at hand. But the sad truth is that the material conditions determine all the other factors. The Bolshevik policies were a direct concequence to the material conditions that were set earlier on.

And the Bolshevik State Terror during the periods of the civil war were an absolute necessity, to be quite frank, and so was the NEP.

Stalin's actions, on the other hand, were an absolute necessity to secure the position of the Soviet Bourgeoisie. But here is where we disagree.

I say that the Soviet Bourgeoisie and it's representative, Stalin, came to power as a direct response to the Material conditions brought about before them. The class antagonism formed not out of irresponsible or immoral choices, but as a direct result of the isolation and degeneration of the Bolshevik Revolution.



And I simply can't agree that political organizations would've vanished (why would they do so?) immediately after the proletarian conquest of political power in advanced, industrialized countries.

The Bolshevik party as a "ruling party" would have vanished, and probably would have had to intergrate with other parties and all together. What I am trying to say is that the Party as something with a separate interest to the Proletariat and the Soviets that represented their interests wouldn't have come into place.

I know I was wrong in that I said the party would vanish, and for that I apologize, I worded it wrong.