No one is equal in communism

[commieboy]

today while i was "Helping" the cheerleaders stretch after spending an hour in the weightroom. (yes, i've become a jock) some kid asked, "WHos sherman?" and he was referring to my "free sherman" pin, and i get this question atleast three times a day so i explained to him who he was, and all this kid had to say was, "Damn this kid is so anti-government" and he and i began debating about communism.

I consider this kid my friend he knows almost as much about communist history as me, and even wears a CCCP joggin suit at track. But we got to the issue of the whole country eats bread and water and barley live, when the leaders live in mansions and eat steak. I brought up Che, who he knew and told him about his modesty, like not wearing extravagant suits, and smoking cheap cigars, and walking on the sidewalk rather than red carpet. But then he said, "What about the other hundred leaders that let people die so they can have silk pajamas?"

and i was left speechless, i think everyone of those leaders are fuckin' sell outs....is there any other leaders that were like che?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the people

[redstar2000]

It's the Leninist heritage...even people who know next to nothing about what actually happened in the USSR, China, etc. are aware that the leaders lived in relative luxury regardless of the poverty of the country as a whole.

Of course, that's the case here too. How many ordinary people have any idea what it really costs to live like Bill Gates or Ken Lay or George Bush?

But, of course, it's the hypocrisy that really grates on people. Here's a bunch of guys promising "equality" while grabbing all the goodies themselves. At least under capitalism, the greedy bastards are honest about their intentions.

It won't be easy, but we will have to slowly convince people that communism in the 21st century is going to be a very different phenomenon.

I know...tough job!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[marxstudent]

It's human nature- once someone gets an inch he wants a mile.

That's what troubles me about communism. It's so easy for it to become totalitarian so how would it ever work? Would it be safe to say that the leaders turn corrupt and that's communism's ultimate downfall?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No.
Leaders have become corrupt in the past, but in the future they'll be more closely bound to the will of the people... hopefuly.

[marxstudent]

Yeah but that's the problem... hopfully. Studying the past, leader after leader would become corrupt.

[BuyOurEverything]

That's what troubles me about communism. It's so easy for it to become totalitarian so how would it ever work? Would it be safe to say that the leaders turn corrupt and that's communism's ultimate downfall?

The trouble with that is that generally when people look at 'communist' countries, they look at countries that had horrible dictators and poverty and inequality before the communist revolution and before they even recovered were punished with blockades, terrorist attacks and even war. In thost situations it's not that difficult for one person to seize absolute power, so people often view this as the fault of communism. When people think of capitalism, they think of the rich western countries, like the US and think, oh capitalism is good. But really this is only a small portion of the capitalist countries worldwide. There are tons or countries under capitalism and even 'democracy' in which one person has taken absolute power and oppressed the people, people just don't tend to see those.

[(*]

and i was left speechless, i think everyone of those leaders are fuckin' sell outs....is there any other leaders that were like che?

The world has a myriad of people in positions of authority, but none of them are leaders. They do not deserve the title. A leader has integrity, and can inspire and motivate people to do great things. I know only one person who fits that profile, Nelson Mandela.

I'm speaking in larger terms, of course there are people in certain cities, or communities that have yet to gain wider support and recongnition.

Until then...

[crazy comie]

A socialist world would not be run by a singal person it should be run by the pepole.

[commieboy]

well that's what i try and say, but i could never give them an example of a true socialists society where someone didn't take power and then exploite it....think of all the communist countries in history and how their leaders lived compared to the peasants...i say courruption is the enemy of the revolution.

[crazy comie]

They wern't communist they were most of them stalinist from the begining.

[commieboy]

first off, i dont want to diss fidel, he is one of my heros...but i know he isnt living in a shitty apartment or a shantie and driving a car made in 1955.....and i know for a FACT Mao didn't only eat two grains of rice a day...infact he was a little fat....now....what other countries in history have had good leaders?

[crazy comie]

Mao is a stalinist and fidel as great as he is still runs a deformed workers state

[commieboy]

was mao before stalins time...i forgot....when did mao become chairman?

i know stalin ruled from like 1924-1953...i think.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Lenin himself.

A true revolutionary hero - surpassing Che himself.

He was leader of Russia (well, President of the 'Society of People’s Commissars') until his untimely death on January 21, 1924. (How sad, I actually know the exact day!!) And in that time, he lived and worked in a small office, planning the future of the great Socialist state which he had created.

He was incredibly modest, lived poorly, worked tremendously hard; it would not be an overstatement to say that he gave his life to the revolution.

All Hail, Lenin!

[redstar2000]

He was incredibly modest, lived poorly, worked tremendously hard; it would not be an overstatement to say that he gave his life to the revolution.

All Hail, Lenin!

An appropriately religious response from a believer.

It's difficult to see how a Lenin-cult, or any other kind, has anything to do with proletarian revolution.

Difficult for me, anyway.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

Long live Lenins memoary

[RedAnarchist]

How do you know noone is equal in Communism?

No country has ever evolved into a Communist state. The so called "communist" countries likle cuba are socialist at the moment.

[The Children of the Revolution]

An appropriately religious response from a believer.

It's difficult to see how a Lenin-cult, or any other kind, has anything to do with proletarian revolution.

Difficult for me, anyway.


Please, keep this to the Philosophy Forum!

I don't belong to a Lenin cult.

However, he is (or rather, was :( ) the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus.

Lenin is the inspiration! The ultimate revolutionary! How can you say he has nothing to do with the impending Revolution? (Well, "impending" cosmically speaking)

All Hail, Jesus and Lenin!

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 14 2003, 10:31 PM


An appropriately religious response from a believer.

It's difficult to see how a Lenin-cult, or any other kind, has anything to do with proletarian revolution.

Difficult for me, anyway.


Please, keep this to the Philosophy Forum!

I don't belong to a Lenin cult.

However, he is (or rather, was :( ) the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus.

Lenin is the inspiration! The ultimate revolutionary! How can you say he has nothing to do with the impending Revolution? (Well, "impending" cosmically speaking)

All Hail, Jesus and Lenin!
first off, i dont see how the man(Jesus) thats beliefs caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people could be considered one of the greatest men ever
and second, i can name ALOT of men and women that can be considered greater than Lenin
of course, in my own opinion though

what Im trying to say is dont try to make your opinions make like facts, please :)

[Se7en]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 02:39 AM
first off, i dont see how the man(Jesus) thats beliefs caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people could be considered one of the greatest men ever


how do beliefs such as "love your neighbor as yourself" and "turn the other cheek" cause the deaths of millions of people? you can't blame a man for the injustices that were committed in his name centuries after his death. he had nothing to do with them.

with regard to the original post, it seems like no 'communist' dictator has ever been benevolent. mao, stalin, pol pot...from what i know of them, they weren't very nice people. of course the general public doesn't know that these guys weren't true communists, but since that's what they've always been labeled the ideology has been tainted.

[Soviet power supreme]

Oh come on

How much does it cost to cuban goverment to buy Fidel a new BMW?

The car is also used in diplomatic issues.

or how many contracts would fidel make if he rides leaders from other countries in horse carts?

Look at the pictures.

Did Stalin,Mao,Lenin,Che,Fidel use armani suits?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Stalin lived simply.As did Ho Chi Minh.

[Bolshevika]

Redstar your Anarchist idealism is far from reality.


It's the Leninist heritage...even people who know next to nothing about what actually happened in the USSR, China, etc. are aware that the leaders lived in relative luxury regardless of the poverty of the country as a whole.

What is this "Leninist heritage" you speak of? China and the Soviet Union were corrupted by antagonistic foreign superpowers.

I agree that the leaders that came after great comrade Lenin, comrade Chairman Mao, and great comrade Stalin lived in luxury, but the above did not. Lenin, Mao, and Stalin lived very simply. If you expect all world leaders to live exactly like the poorest of their country, than you are ridiculous. These three geniuses all built socialism (well, except for Lenin, although Stalin built socialism following Marx and Lenin's theories in their countries) and had free, democratic, and egalitarian societies. The good they did far far outweighs the bad. No human is perfect, to think so is idealist and ignorant to materialist view on humanity (you claim to be a "Marxist")


Of course, that's the case here too. How many ordinary people have any idea what it really costs to live like Bill Gates or Ken Lay or George Bush?

None of the great five (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao) lived like Bill Gates or George Bush. What relevance do these capitalist oppressors have to Leninists? Where does Lenin say "in order to be a Leninist you must live in luxury and starve your people" this is the same rhetoric the bourgeois propagandists use to put out the fire of socialist revolution. They even use it with Fidel (I assume you support Fidel?).


But, of course, it's the hypocrisy that really grates on people. Here's a bunch of guys promising "equality" while grabbing all the goodies themselves. At least under capitalism, the greedy bastards are honest about their intentions.

Huh? When did Lenin, Stalin or Mao drive fancy cars? When did they wear fancy clothing? When did they have billions of dollars in their banks? When did they live in mansions?

It is blatantly false to compare Lenin and Stalin's wealth to Bill Gates and Bush.


It won't be easy, but we will have to slowly convince people that communism in the 21st century is going to be a very different phenomenon.

Communism has never existed. And you are not a communist. I have read many of your essays and they are anarchist and idealist, against what Engels wrote. Marx and Engels were not federalists, they were centralists.

Also, what would you have done in the situations Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were met with (underdeveloped feudalist superstittious nations with illiterate peasantry and oppressed masses of people)?

[Blibblob]

What is this "Leninist heritage" you speak of? China and the Soviet Union were corrupted by antagonistic foreign superpowers.
The theory behind it was all wrong. A centralized government with a leader or chairman was a method that showed mass disproval from thinkers ranging from Marx to Bakuinin. The only way for a communist society to thrive correctly is in an anarchist state. Not discluding Proudhon's federation, that might work also. A leader in a "communist" society leaves way too much power to that person. And from what I heard, Stalin killed the entire council when he stole power. Ho Chi Min died before the revolution ended and didn't get to carry it out, thus it failed in the aftermath. We seem to have a problem with leaders, everywhere. Human's appear to beleive they need them, and can't survive without them, and then they try and say anarchism is impossible.

When did they live in mansions?
Oh, I thought Stalin and Mao did, it would have been in their theiving nature.

Also, what would you have done in the situations Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were met with (underdeveloped feudalist superstittious nations with illiterate peasantry and oppressed masses of people)?
And in comes the process of communism. Feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism. A socialist democracy would have been far better than a totaltarian capitalist(as how it was basically a capitalist buisness, Stalin the CEO and the rest the starving workers) society.

[crazy comie]

lenin was still a prety great man long live lenins memory

[Bolshevika]

The theory behind it was all wrong. A centralized government with a leader or chairman was a method that showed mass disproval from thinkers ranging from Marx to Bakuinin. The only way for a communist society to thrive correctly is in an anarchist state. Not discluding Proudhon's federation, that might work also. A leader in a "communist" society leaves way too much power to that person. And from what I heard, Stalin killed the entire council when he stole power. Ho Chi Min died before the revolution ended and didn't get to carry it out, thus it failed in the aftermath. We seem to have a problem with leaders, everywhere. Human's appear to beleive they need them, and can't survive without them, and then they try and say anarchism is impossible.

You know, the USSR was a socialist republic. They held elections to elect CC members who then engaged in criticism/self-criticism. This is centralized democracy.

The lies against Stalin being propagated on this board are atrocious. Stalin was just as "authoritarian" as Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel, Che etc.

Human's do need leaders, because that is what is civilized. Human's have become used to having government, to get them out of this stage a long period of Socialist democracy will have to take place (IE, Dictatorship of the proletariat). Marx says the Proletariat must be made into the ruling class, and how will they be made into the ruling class if the bourgeois has things like: doctors, literacy, property, etc. Who will provide for the helpless proletariat during class struggle? Who will educate and collectivize them?

I seriously doubt that when Marx says "dictatorship of the proletariat" he means "Anarchist federalist utopian ideology"

If you abolish government right after capitalism then a new class system will arise. How will the proletariat find employment? Where would they live? Will they become the same as nomadic man?


Oh, I thought Stalin and Mao did, it would have been in their theiving nature.

Thieving nature? Who did they steal from ? Did anyone ever find 'secret banks' containing money from the USSR and China? Of course not, there is no basis for this argument, just idealist rhetoric against Marxists.

Stalin did not live in a mansion (even though some high ranking leaders like Beria did), Mao did not live in a mansion either. They lived in regular houses with proper heating, running water, etc etc. Although Stalin did have a summer home that was similar to his regular home, but that is it. Who told you this garbage? RedStar?


And in comes the process of communism. Feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism. A socialist democracy would have been far better than a totaltarian capitalist(as how it was basically a capitalist buisness, Stalin the CEO and the rest the starving workers) society.

This statement is just moronic. How was Stalin a "CEO" and how was the USSR a "capitalist business"? Please explain how a vibrant, industrialized socialist nation could be led by a CEO? What CEO would provide extensive social programs, education, health care, workers rights, democracy, etc for the masses?

I do not understand where this assumption that the Soviet Union was a "totalitarian capitalist" state. In the Soviet Union under Stalin we had egalitarianism. How much did you Anarchists accomplish with your "theory" ? Have you Anarchists ever practiced theory with immense unindustrialized feudal nations? Of course not, so until the day you Anarchists come up with something better for industrializing a nation (like it or not, certain capitalist practices are good for getting a socialist economy moving, the important thing is to not have any private property/private organization, that is it). I'm a student in Marxist theory, and the Soviet Union is the closest thing I've ever seen.

The whole theory of Marxist socialism is based on the equal distribution of labour . The USSR and China both had this.

But you see, people like you and Redstar are dogmatic. You do not take into consideration the situations these men were in in building socialism. You simply insult and make up things about them and go on about Anarchism. But to tell you the truth, I don't know of any sucessful Anarchist nations (unless you count Somalia :lol: )

[redstar2000]

I don't belong to a Lenin cult.

However, he is (or rather, was) the greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus.

Lenin is the inspiration! The ultimate revolutionary! How can you say he has nothing to do with the impending Revolution? (Well, "impending" cosmically speaking)

All Hail, Jesus and Lenin!

Utterly ludicrous!

This is a marvelous example of what you get when you try to mix communism and religion...instead of an understanding of Lenin's actual ideas, you have him "elevated" to "super-saint" and, no doubt, sitting at the right-hand of "Christ" in "Heaven".

Lenin himself utterly despised religion, of course, and would be outraged to have his name linked with a first-century country preacher.

But he's dead (if not buried) and unable to voice his objections.


China and the Soviet Union were corrupted by antagonistic foreign superpowers.

And why did that happen? Bad luck?

If you want to claim that they "built socialism", how is it that their "socialism" utterly collapsed following their deaths?


If you expect all world leaders to live exactly like the poorest of their country, then you are ridiculous.

Why was there a "poorest" in the first place? Why was there not at least a reasonable amount of equality?

Lenin and Stalin may have lived modestly, but their colleagues "at the top" lived very luxurously...even in their own lifetimes.

And I like that bit about "all world leaders". What you're really implying is that since capitalist leaders live luxuriously then it's "ok" for "socialist" leaders to do the same.

Doing a little advance "career planning"?


These three geniuses all built socialism...and had free, democratic, and egalitarian societies.

You know better than that!

Their version of "socialism" was not free, not democratic, and not egalitarian.


The good they did far far outweighs the bad. No human is perfect, to think so is idealist and ignorant...

Let's assume that your evaluation is correct. The question is not what they did that was "right" but what they did that was clearly wrong.

To have "leaders" living in luxury while most people are poor is clearly wrong and makes a total hash of communist principles.

To say that "no human is perfect" is not a defense; Hitler could have said the same.


Huh? When did Lenin, Stalin or Mao drive fancy cars? When did they wear fancy clothing? When did they have billions of dollars in their banks? When did they live in mansions?

We are speaking of relative differences here...although, as it happens, Mao did have his own private train that was decorated quite luxuriously and crewed with a substantial number of servants. (So did Trotsky, by the way.)

What is quite indisputable is that even those who, like Lenin and Stalin, lived quite simply by western standards nevertheless lived better than all but a tiny minority of their countrymen. And that tiny minority that did live better than Lenin and Stalin were all "big dogs" in their respective Parties.


And you are not a communist. I have read many of your essays and they are anarchist and idealist, against what Engels wrote. Marx and Engels were not federalists, they were centralists.

Evidently your knowledge of communism is co-equal with your knowledge of rheumatism.

The "best" argument that you can make along those lines is that Marx and Engels thought that the early "transitional" stage would be centralized. They clearly regarded communist society as lacking a state altogether...hence the concept of centralization would be irrelevant.

To suggest that my posts have not been based on a materialist analysis simply reveals that you are unable to read with comprehension.


Also, what would you have done in the situations Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were met with (underdeveloped feudalist superstitious nations with illiterate peasantry and oppressed masses of people)?

How the hell would I know? I wasn't there and my advice was not requested.

From a materialist standpoint, those countries were due for bourgeois revolutions...and, in the end, that's exactly what happened.

Is there anything that anyone could have done that would have changed that outcome? I don't think so.

In fact, that's why I assert that Leninism and its derivatives are idealist perversions of Marxism. You can't make a proletarian revolution and a communist society in a pre-capitalist country by act of will.

Lenin's NEP essentially admitted this...and probably the most humane approach would have been to keep the NEP in force indefinitely...until conditions permitted the gradual introduction of communist economic practices. I'm not asserting that such a strategy would have worked...but it probably would have had a slightly better chance of success than Stalin's policies.

In any event, we don't live in 1917 or 1921 or 1949...and talk about what we "would have done" is useless.

What will we do?

Some very different things.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

If stalins u.s.s.r was so equal then why did he live in a country dutche.

[The Children of the Revolution]

"no human is perfect"


EXCEPT LENIN!!!

ALL HAIL LENIN!!!

Stalin lived in corrupt luxary...
Capitalist society creates millionaires left right and centre...
Decadence is everywhere...

SET AGAINST ALL THIS IS LENIN!
HE DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO THE REVOLUTION...
AND WHEN HE BECAME LEADER OF THIS NEW SOCIALIST STATE, HE LIVED IN RELATIVE POVERTY...
ALL HAIL LENIN!!!

And as for Trotsky's private train, it was primarily a military vehicle. He used it to great effect in the Russian Civil War; travelling round the country rallying the troups... ALL HAIL TROTSKY AND LENIN!!!

[Pete]

Originally posted by Se7en+Nov 15 2003, 08:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Se7en @ Nov 15 2003, 08:24 PM)
[email protected] 15 2003, 02:39 AM
first off, i dont see how the man(Jesus) thats beliefs caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people could be considered one of the greatest men ever


how do beliefs such as "love your neighbor as yourself" and "turn the other cheek" cause the deaths of millions of people? you can&#39;t blame a man for the injustices that were committed in his name centuries after his death. he had nothing to do with them.

with regard to the original post, it seems like no &#39;communist&#39; dictator has ever been benevolent. mao, stalin, pol pot...from what i know of them, they weren&#39;t very nice people. of course the general public doesn&#39;t know that these guys weren&#39;t true communists, but since that&#39;s what they&#39;ve always been labeled the ideology has been tainted. [/b]
This makes me remember what my one prof said on the first day of class. "By the end of this year and next year you will be able to prove all those Christians who quote &#39;good ole christian morals&#39; in the bible wrong."

The bible is a flag waver for genocide. Yes we put them ALL to the sword&#33; Woot woot&#33;

That is but one example.

[Bolshevika]

Mao and Stalin were revolutionaries, not reactionary agents of Christianity. They were heroic to say they were "dictators" is simply misinformation due to the fact that PRC under Mao and USSR under Stalin were both republics.

Pol Pot you can make an argument for (Pol Pot&#39;s Cambodia was not a republic, more like a Trotskyite Anarchistic stateless economyless situation). Who says abolishment of government doesn&#39;t breed "dictators"?

[redstar2000]

Mao and Stalin were revolutionaries, not reactionary agents of Christianity. They were heroic; to say they were "dictators" is simply misinformation due to the fact that PRC under Mao and USSR under Stalin were both republics.

It&#39;s almost unfair, isn&#39;t it?

Stuff like this must make real Leninists squirm with embarrassment.

Can a country that is formally a "republic" actually be a dictatorship? Are you aware of the fact that the Nazis never formally dissolved the Weimar Republic? It&#39;s true, the Third Reich was an organic continuation of the Weimar Republic and Hitler was technically a "chancellor" (prime minister) right up to the moment he killed himself.

The answer is that it does not matter whether a country is "formally" a republic or not, but where is power actually located.

The evidence is clear that the Political Bureaus of the Central Committees of, respectively, the CPSU(B) and the CPPRC actually made the day-to-day policy decisions in those countries without any regard whatsoever for the wishes of the working classes. As the leaders of those bodies, Stalin and Mao had the most influential voice in those decisions.

And I&#39;m afraid that Stalin was "a reactionary agent of Christianity"...at least indirectly. Russian Orthodox priests were all on the government payroll in the USSR and government funds were even used to maintain a couple of seminaries to train new priests.

Go figure.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bolshevika]

And why did that happen? Bad luck?

If you want to claim that they "built socialism", how is it that their "socialism" utterly collapsed following their deaths?

Because of party infiltration backed by the imperialists.

Your theory isn&#39;t always true though, when Lenin died Stalin came into power and built Russia on the ideas of Lenin and his own theories on agrarian reform, etc.

You do not see that capitalist countries will not tolerate a large scale communist revolution without them getting a piece of the pie. They will do what they can to destroy socialism, whether it be by starvation or party infiltration.

Remember, Yeltsin was once a powerful member of the communist party. The way to combat this contradiction is by constant criticism and self-criticism. If your party becomes idle in the sense of criticism and become&#39;s bureaucratic (as the last few years of Mao&#39;s China was) then of course there will be much corruption. There will alway&#39;s be corruption in any government, and there will definetly be corruption in your utopian Anarchist ideals.


Why was there a "poorest" in the first place? Why was there not at least a reasonable amount of equality?

Lenin and Stalin may have lived modestly, but their colleagues "at the top" lived very luxurously...even in their own lifetimes.

The reason there were "poorest of people" is evident. In Russia there were many isolated places, Siberia, the Urals (although later they industrialized) etc etc. You are pretty unMarxist in the sense that you do not acknowlege class contradiction even in the government. Of course there will be contradiction, the way to destroy these contradictions is through industrialization, and then mass class struggle.

Their colleagues? As in who? Beria? Well, I agree, Beria was a scumbag. Even though he didn&#39;t show it, Stalin didn&#39;t really supprot Beria much (although they consider Beria a "close ally" of Stalin) he simply left him alone out of fear. Beria hadmuch influence in the Politburo and could easily eliminate Stalin whenever he wished.


And I like that bit about "all world leaders". What you&#39;re really implying is that since capitalist leaders live luxuriously then it&#39;s "ok" for "socialist" leaders to do the same.

Actually Socialist leaders live nothing like the feudal/capitalist leaders. Your dogmatism and opportunistic idealism is too unforgiving and impatient. You simplify the contradictions people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc were met with.


Their version of "socialism" was not free, not democratic, and not egalitarian.

For someone who claims to "fight" the bourgeoisie, you sure believe many of their anti-communist propaganda.

The USSR and China were both socialist free republics, with democratic centralist policies. Please do not say you have an absolute form of democracy (like the America/western bougeois claims they do).

For the situations they were met with, they were extremely egalitarian. Most members of government got workers pay, the people democratically ran their collectives and factories, etc etc..


Let&#39;s assume that your evaluation is correct. The question is not what they did that was "right" but what they did that was clearly wrong.

To have "leaders" living in luxury while most people are poor is clearly wrong and makes a total hash of communist principles.

I agree with the latter. However, it is a contradiction that comes with the Soviet Union&#39;s material conditions. To not be forgiving is again idealist and unMarxist. I agree that it should be criticized and that it was wrong.



We are speaking of relative differences here...although, as it happens, Mao did have his own private train that was decorated quite luxuriously and crewed with a substantial number of servants. (So did Trotsky, by the way.)

This "private train" was an item owned by the government, not Chairman Mao. Just like state limousines, etc, they are used for safety reasons. The reason he had numbers of servents (probably secret service agents) is also for safety reasons.


What is quite indisputable is that even those who, like Lenin and Stalin, lived quite simply by western standards nevertheless lived better than all but a tiny minority of their countrymen. And that tiny minority that did live better than Lenin and Stalin were all "big dogs" in their respective Parties.

I disagree. I believe there were many workers who lived like Lenin and Stalin, however I believe most of them lived either in Moscow or Leningrad. It wasn&#39;t a question of inequality, it was a question of industrialized cities in comparison to unindustrialized cities.

However, I agree with the latter, that those who lived in luxury were garbage. You know, Mao and Stalin both fought corruption in their parties (Stalin is often criticized for this)


Evidently your knowledge of communism is co-equal with your knowledge of rheumatism.

The "best" argument that you can make along those lines is that Marx and Engels thought that the early "transitional" stage would be centralized. They clearly regarded communist society as lacking a state altogether...hence the concept of centralization would be irrelevant.

To suggest that my posts have not been based on a materialist analysis simply reveals that you are unable to read with comprehension.

Yes, I agree, and Leninists also believe communist society lacks a state. However, we believe in industrialization, spread of revolution, resolvement of the contradictions amongst the people, a standing army/public schooling/universal healthcare/ agrarian reform/police etc.

I suggest you read Marx&#39;s analysis of the Paris Commune and the French civil war. It will show you that Marx, at that point in his life, was a centralist and praised centralism in the French government (at that time).


How the hell would I know? I wasn&#39;t there and my advice was not requested.

From a materialist standpoint, those countries were due for bourgeois revolutions...and, in the end, that&#39;s exactly what happened.

You are sort of right. The bourgeois coup happened about 10 years ago in Eastern Europe. The Bolshevik revolution surely was not a bourgeois one, many of the Bolshevik ideas were influenced by the experiences in the Paris Commune along with Marx and Engels. Lenin, like Marx and Engels, praised the Communards, and they acknowleged some bourgeois-esque attitudes in the communards as well (Bourgeois social-democrats etc). This is just another contradiction that comes with the abolisment of the old bourgeois state machinary and the installment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.


In fact, that&#39;s why I assert that Leninism and its derivatives are idealist perversions of Marxism. You can&#39;t make a proletarian revolution and a communist society in a pre-capitalist country by act of will.

Lenin&#39;s NEP essentially admitted this...and probably the most humane approach would have been to keep the NEP in force indefinitely...until conditions permitted the gradual introduction of communist economic practices. I&#39;m not asserting that such a strategy would have worked...but it probably would have had a slightly better chance of success than Stalin&#39;s policies.

I agree with you to an extent, Lenin however showed his anti-idealism and Marxist influence when he started the NEP.

However, I disagree with what you claim is "Communist economics". I think the NEP had created sufficient material conditions for socialism. Lenin simply instated the NEP to create socialism, Stalin continued what Lenin started.

In fact, I believe you are the revisionist when you go on about the immediate abolishment of state machinary in a post capitalist. You do not purpose any substitutions for the dictatorship of the proletariat, hence making it idealism.


What will we do?

Some very different things.

I disagree.

I believe Marxism-Leninism-Maoism would infact be extremely sucessful in the true capitalist countries (neo-liberal nations in Latin America, Africa, Asia etc).

You can dream on about revolution in America and the other developed capitalist nations , but we know nothing on how to resolve the contradictions within America and have trouble observing the material conditions in America due to the fact that it is a quasi-capitalist mixed economy.

The industrial nations will be the hardest to overcome. I believe Marx and Engels did not predict the imperialism and trickery the capitalists in the developed nations would use. America has become a pseudo-welfare state which exploits the masses in the third world. We communists must reach out to those who are really oppressed, for they are the most revolutionary.

[crazy comie]

Mao was mad he tried to make peasents prouduce steal wich turned out impure and made them neglect farm work wich caused a famine
Stalin was mad becuse he let the kulak class create itself and then tried to destroy them he also let the beaurocracy take command of the party.

Long live Marxes memoary
Long live Engles memoary
Long live Lenines memoary
LOng live TRotskyes memoary

[YKTMX]

Communism is NOT about making everyone the same. It is about freeing people from economic oppression so that human beings can fulfil there true potential.

[crazy comie]

It is also about providing pepole with as much as they need and having each acording to there abillaty and each acording to there needs.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 05:11 AM
When people think of capitalism, they think of the rich western countries, like the US and think, oh capitalism is good. But really this is only a small portion of the capitalist countries worldwide. There are tons or countries under capitalism and even &#39;democracy&#39; in which one person has taken absolute power and oppressed the people, people just don&#39;t tend to see those.
Sorry to dig up an early post from page 1 of this topic, but I&#39;m just curious.

Can you elaborate which countries you are referring to when you say that there are &#39;tons&#39; of capitalist countries that have one person taking power and oppressing the people?

Because I think you are talking about forms of Government. Government is essentially anti-capitalist in that it&#39;s based on force and collective power to determine society&#39;s outcomes.

How could someone take power and oppress people under a truly capitalist system? Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange of goods and services. No one is forced to secede to the demands of businesses. If you don&#39;t like the company, you can choose not to buy from them. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Government.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 25 2003, 04:28 PM
It is also about providing pepole with as much as they need and having each acording to there abillaty and each acording to there needs.
Very well but who is to determine this?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 06:21 PM
I do not understand where this assumption that the Soviet Union was a "totalitarian capitalist" state. In the Soviet Union under Stalin we had egalitarianism.
The Soviet Union was the sole producer of goods and services. It was well and truly a monopoly, being the only organisation to produce because of their monopoly on force (except for the black market of course).

So the Soviet Union was in fact the worse form of capitalism. Imagine being forced to shop with only one business, who makes inferior products, for the rest of your life. :angry:

[Bolshevika]

Having a state monopoly for things like electricity, clothing, phone, etc is a Marxist idea, I don&#39;t know where you get your definition of state capitalism. Capitalism is when you produce something solely for profit, that is not what happened in the Soviet Union. State capitalism is an oxymoron, it is impossible to have true capitalism if it is completely regulated by the state. Where do Trotskyists get this "state capitalism" from?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 10:10 PM
Having a state monopoly for things like electricity, clothing, phone, etc is a Marxist idea, I don&#39;t know where you get your definition of state capitalism. Capitalism is when you produce something solely for profit, that is not what happened in the Soviet Union. State capitalism is an oxymoron, it is impossible to have true capitalism if it is completely regulated by the state. Where do Trotskyists get this "state capitalism" from?
Actually, the proper term is "state-monopoly capitalism".

This describes a situation in which the means of production are entirely owned by the state and, although there is a market, there is no competition except among workers trying to sell their labor power to the state.

The capitalist is "Socialism, Inc." and the surplus value produced by the workers is appropriated collectively by state officials. Part of that surplus is reinvested in the means of production; part of it goes to pay for various social benefits (like free education or heavily-subsidized health care); and part of it is appropriated to support an elevated standard-of-living for state officials.

As the gap grows between the "leaders" and the workers, the "leaders" eventually begin to think of themselves as "owners". Then, of course, they arrange matters in such a way as to become owners--a new capitalist class.

By the way, the Trotskyist formula is "degenerated workers&#39; state", not "state capitalism"--Trotsky rejected the latter formulation on a number of occasions. Not that it really matters, of course.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[opie]

I think my sig has to do with this topic, no one is really ever "equal"

[commieboy]

i just heard that last night when i was watching enemy at the gates...and its that thats making me start to question Marxism..

[crazy comie]

What does opie mean.

[opie]

Absolutely Nothing, its a nickname

[YKTMX]

As the gap grows between the "leaders" and the workers, the "leaders" eventually begin to think of themselves as "owners". Then, of course, they arrange matters in such a way as to become owners--a new capitalist class.

As exhibited by the fact that many of todays Russian oil barons are just former state buearecrates left over in their priveliged postion from the collaspe of the Eastern Bloc.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

If you want an example of socialism that has worked near enough perfectly just look at the coconut revolution, for those who dont know what im talking about.......why the hell not????

In 1987 the people of the South Pacific island of Bougainville began an armed rebellion against a susidiary of the British based multinational Rio Tinto Zinc. Conzinc Riotinto Australia (CRA), with the approval of the Papa New Guinean government, had sliced off the top of a hill hitherto known to the locals as a rich traditional hunting ground, and had turned it into the biggest open cast copper mine in the world.

The Panguna mine started production in 1974, and the untreated tailings from it caused devastating environmental damage. When talks about compensation broke down, the PNG governement sent in first the riot police and then the Papa New Guinean Defence Force (PNGDF)- assisted and trained by Australian military personnel. But starting with crossbows and home-made guns, Bougainvilleans fought back. An illegal military blockade of the island was imposed, depriving the local population access to medicines, food and any contact with the outside world. Hence this conflict went largely unreported for many years.

The Coconut Revolution tells the amazing and uplifting story of how the islanders re-discovered and developed a self-sufficient and ecologically sound way of life, in order to survive their 10 year long isolation from the rest of the world.

[Se7en]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 04:06 PM
This makes me remember what my one prof said on the first day of class. "By the end of this year and next year you will be able to prove all those Christians who quote &#39;good ole christian morals&#39; in the bible wrong."

The bible is a flag waver for genocide. Yes we put them ALL to the sword&#33; Woot woot&#33;

That is but one example.
Well, I&#39;m not a Christian. One must be willing to separate the Jesus of history from the Jesus of Roman Christianity. Unconditional love is not a flag waver for genocide.

I was also watching Enemy at the Gates the other night and found that quote compelling. It raises an interesting point that people will never be emotionally or psychologically equal. I don&#39;t think entirely discredits Marx though. I think equal opportunity is something that is necessary for a peaceful society and capitalism is not providing this. perhaps the solution lies in Social Democracy or some other form of "mild" or "medium" socialism. time will tell.

[crazy comie]

There will be fair system in communism of all acording to there means and there needs. WHen a true socialist revoulotion truley comes about.