Khrushchev - Marxist or no?

[Akshay!]

So I've never read anything about Khrushchev but I'm curious to know

Why does everybody hate him?
Was he a Marxist/socialist?
Was he a capitalist?
Was he against imperialism?
What were the good things about him and what were the bad things about him?

Thanks.

[Sea]

Care to add a "revisionist" option?

[Akshay!]

Care to add a "revisionist" option?

What's revisionism? Again, I've read these words at a lot of places but don't quite understand them.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I don't know a lot about him either, but at the endof the game, I would say that he wasn't. He was intimately involved in Stalin's brutal regime (although he eventually condemned it) and crushed the Hungarian Revolution with a horrendous level of violence. He maintained an illegitimate Soviet police state that failed to fight for the Marxist society it claimed to have become. He really did think that he was doing the right thing, but ultimately, many of his actions were foolish and misguided.

SOURCE:
PBS Biography: Nikita Krushchev

[Red Nightmare]

What's revisionism? Again, I've read these words at a lot of places but don't quite understand them.

Revisionism is basically revising Marxist theory so that it is no longer revolutionary, reformism basically.

[Akshay!]

Revisionism is basically revising Marxist theory so that it is no longer revolutionary, reformism basically.

Isn't that capitalist though?

[Sudsy]

He was not a Marxist at all because in 1965 he implemented very capitalist economic reforms which further regressed the country away from socialism. He is not against imperialism, he is a social imperialist. He invaded Hungary for his own ends and installed an equally revisionist authority and for many other reasons. He also very insidiously withdrew planning aid and equipment from China which severely hurt China during their famine. He was a revisionist, imperialist and capitalist in my opinion.

[Let's Get Free]

He was a capitalist politician. Just like the every Soviet leader before him, and every Soviet leader after him.

[Akshay!]

He was a capitalist politician. Just like the every Soviet leader before him, and every Soviet leader after him.

Surely you can't be serious about calling Lenin a capitalist?

[hashem]

Khrushchevism is a form of revisionism which is based on 3 thesis:

1- peaceful coexistence
2- peaceful competition
3- peaceful transition

these thesis put aside class struggle of proletariat against its class enemies, are against teachings of scientific socialism and reflect bourgeoisie influence on government of USSR. bourgeoisie influence was growing during Stalins period but its official success was delayed until twentieth congress of CPSU in 1956. after that USSR became a capitalist and social-imperialist world power, similar to western imperialists. it oppressed the workers and toilers in its borders and supported anti-worker bourgeoisie dictatorships which followed its interests abroad.

[RATMfan1992]

I've not read much on him but i know for a fact that he wanted to help support Fidel Castro on his way to making a socialist Cuba and was against American intervention in Cuba, and imperialism.

[Theophys]

Khrushchev was not by ANY means a Capitalist, he was a Communist, albeit a more liberal one that tried to reform the existent harsh measures imposed by Stalin and the World War.

I've always understood the claims of Khrushchev being a Capitalist as a complete No True Scotsman fallacy, a complete cop-out. I for once actually like what Khrushchev made and attempted to make, albeit no on everything. He attempted to compete with the West, he attempted to put forward more progressive measures such as on the question of housing, he saw the bountifulness of the West and attempted to emulate it, he won the Space Race for the USSR, and so on. As for Hungary, he did the right thing by suppressing dissent within the USSR which if done the same in the later stages of the USSR would have prevented its collapse.

I also do not see the justification behind the claims of "revisionism". This generally comes from Stalinists, Hoxhaists, and so on who forget that Stalin's policies, Hoxha's, Lenin's, and so on are all revisionism as soon as power is asserted by the proletariat and their party in a country.

On the issue of peaceful coexistence, he didn't want to lead to a third World War that would have led to extinction, that is understandable. This is also justified by the fact that the Western proletariat were being alienated by starting to believe that the USSR was their enemy on the basis of bourgeois nationalism. The USSR was targeting and threatening the US, and this included all the proletariat of all the NATO nations. If he reversed this policy and appeared more "friendly", he would attract popularity and support.

Some of his other policies I do not agree with and do not see justifiable.

[hashem]

He attempted to compete with the West

what kind of system exists in the "West"? capitalism. which class is ruling? bourgeoisie. what is the purpose of bourgeoisie? gaining profit by exploitation of workers. so how can one compete with the "West"? by gaining more profit from workers. example? China.


he attempted to put forward more progressive measures such as on the question of housing

one can only talk about progress from a Marxist point of view, when old and reactionary systems are being replaced by a new system which creates better conditions for development of society. progress means destruction of social relationships which are based on exploitation.

for example when Indian or Nepalese peasants seize the buildings which were formerly used by landlords or the government and use them for common interests of people, this is a social progress. but when skyscrapers are being build in Dubai, this is not a progress from a proletarian point of view.


he saw the bountifulness of the West and attempted to emulate it

a true communists should explain to people that "bountifulness" of "West" is based on exploitation of workers (inside their country and abroad). bountifulness is just for the ruling class, there is only poverty for workers and toilers, and if sometimes a minor privilege is given to workers, the purpose is pacifying them. one can only talk about emulation with such system only if he/she has completely given up the struggle to build a better system.


he won the Space Race for the USSR

sure, he ruined the life of ordinary people on earth in order to conquer space for the ruling class of USSR!


As for Hungary, he did the right thing by suppressing dissent within the USSR which if done the same in the later stages of the USSR would have prevented its collapse.

i agree. killing people in order to maintain a corrupt system is a right thing to do and completely logical from bourgeoisie point of view. Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, Khamenei, Kim, Assad and ... have killed and are killing, imprisoning, torturing and censoring in order to prevent their collapse.


I also do not see the justification behind the claims of "revisionism". This generally comes from Stalinists, Hoxhaists, and so on who forget that Stalin's policies, Hoxha's, Lenin's, and so on are all revisionism as soon as power is asserted by the proletariat and their party in a country.

Khrushchev abandoned the class struggle and formulated the collaboration with bourgeoisie, just like what Bernstein and Kautsky had done earlier. its real disgusting to see someone is so desperate that he is attempting to libel Lenin in order to save revisionism! Lenin never revised his former believes after the revolution, he did what he had promised earlier, he did what was required by proletariat of Russia and other countries.


On the issue of peaceful coexistence, he didn't want to lead to a third World War that would have led to extinction, that is understandable

Khrushchevism understanding of peaceful coexistence is not about the actual peace. USSR always supported peace and had peaceful (and even friendly) relationships with capitalist countries before Khrushchev. Khrushchevs "peaceful coexistence" included withdrawing support from class struggle of workers and toilers and also anti colonial and anti imperialist wars of oppressed nations for liberation against the governments which USSR had good relationships with them. for example Nasser banned the "communist" party of Egypt and imprisoned its members. but what did USSR did? not even verbal support for the "communist" party, but military and financial support for Nasser.

[Theophys]

what kind of system exists in the "West"? capitalism. which class is ruling? bourgeoisie. what is the purpose of bourgeoisie? gaining profit by exploitation of workers. so how can one compete with the "West"? by gaining more profit from workers. example? China.
What the hell are you even talking about? Are you seriously attempting to claim that Socialism cannot compete with Capitalism and ergo that Capitalism is superior? In such a case let's all abandon Socialism and by extension Communism in favor of Capitalism. Listen here, I do not care if the West has Capitalism, Capitalism was found to be SUPERIOR to Soviet Socialism in the East. That is what Khrushchev wanted to reverse after the Kitchen Debate. He is right in attempting to provide a superior system to Capitalism as was theoretically desired and practically desired by Socialists and others who wanted to see exactly which system was superior during the Cold War. He acted correctly. Oh and by the way, as you seem completely oblivious to this fact, you do not need to exploit workers for private and personal profits in order to compete with Capitalism. Just keep that in mind.


one can only talk about progress from a Marxist point of view, when old and reactionary systems are being replaced by a new system which creates better conditions for development of society. progress means destruction of social relationships which are based on exploitation.

for example when Indian or Nepalese peasants seize the buildings which were formerly used by landlords or the government and use them for common interests of people, this is a social progress. but when skyscrapers are being build in Dubai, this is not a progress from a proletarian point of view.
Actually no, you have no idea what progress means from any point of view. Progress on the question of the historical process takes the form of progressive versus reactionary nations, but progress on the question of development has nothing to do with Marxism and has much more to do with improving living standards as in the case of the housing question above. I am not discussing the change of systems, I am discussing the changes WITHIN systems that have already went through a Marxist revolutionary progressive change. The USSR went through this change after 1917 and was solidified after the Civil War. What we have seen, though, is that better conditions were not automatically created with the revolution, they needed to be created AFTER the revolution as in the case of Khrushchev attempting to implement various measures to develop what was already existent such as in the case of the housing question.

As for the second part, are you kidding me? What does the expropriation of buildings have to do with Khrushchev developing and building homes for the proletariat of the USSR? THAT is a progressive measure. The skyscrapers of Dubai you claim to not be progressive from a proletarian point of view? Really? Do you think something progressive from the proletarian point of view is to live in caves and gnaw on bones? Go read Marx and Engels on the question of the development of technologies and achievements of Capitalism. They praised these achievements and called them progressive under Capitalism. The skyscrapers created service the economy and advance and develop the country. Nevertheless, I do not see what the hell do these skyscrapers in Dubai have anything to do with Khrushchev building homes for the proletariat.


a true communists should explain to people that "bountifulness" of "West" is based on exploitation of workers (inside their country and abroad). bountifulness is just for the ruling class, there is only poverty for workers and toilers, and if sometimes a minor privilege is given to workers, the purpose is pacifying them. one can only talk about emulation with such system only if he/she has completely given up the struggle to build a better system.
Do not even dare speak of "true communists" because you are in no position to determine who is a true Communist and who isn't. And yes, the bountifulness of the West is due to exploitation, but do the Westerners actually care about that? No, they clearly do not. In fact, they want mroe exploitation for cheaper goods and more products. They do not care about the super-exploited proletariat of Third World countries because of the lack of existence of any semblence of relationship between the First World citizens and the Third World proletarians, this is what Marx called "commodity fetishism" which if you had read any works by Marx you would have understood. Nevertheless, this is also something that Marx and Engels praised that the actions of Capitalism have surpassed anything before. If a Socialist country cannot compete with Capitalism then it is NOT superior. The bountifulness of the West is not for the "ruling class", the bountifulness of the West goes to workers as well who are superior in economic and living standards to other workers in other countries. That is the very reason why the proletariat in the West are passive rather than active and revolutionary; it is because they are living comfortable life with high income and high living standards. The purpose of pacifying them has already been achieved in the West. It is only when the living standards degenerate and the economy falls into turmoil that the pacifism turns into activism. So no, your claim that in the West "there is only poverty for workers and toilers" is bullshit.

It is exactly because Khrushchev did not give up the struggle to build a better system that he literally challenged Capitalism by attempting to advance an develop the USSR in many sectors, even in space. Your argument is thus destroyed in every way, next.


sure, he ruined the life of ordinary people on earth in order to conquer space for the ruling class of USSR!
How the hell did he ruin the life of ordinary people? By building thousands of complexes and homes for them? By improving their living standards? By putting them to the fore of the world? By achieving numerous firsts in space? And are you fucking kidding me? Conquering space for the ruling class of the USSR? First of all, there was no ruling class in the USSR. In fact, I highly doubt you even know what "class" is when it comes to Marxist class theory. I shall quote myself on this issue:

"Nonsense. Classes in Marxist theory are determined by their social relations of production, nor by their social status or income levels. There is a reason why the politicians are not considered a class even when nationalized industry exists (no, ruling class is something entirely different). There is no such thing as "under-class". Oh and do tell what "exactly happened in the Soviet Union," the bureaucracy became a new class? Nice one. Read on. The "bureaucracy" and conversely the "state" are not classes, they is an organ of legislation and executive function that act on behalf of the class they represent in order to suppress the opposing class, run, manage, maintain, study, and address the issues of the country.

The bureaucracy taking hold of the state FOR the proletariat is nothing to be scared of nor is it something by any means comparable to the bourgeoisie taking over the means of production. How is this so, you ask? Simple. The bureaucracy, when they appropriate the means of production as determined by the proletariat or its representatives (the Communists), do not act and can by no means act in their own personal and private interests on an open and free market as in the case of the bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy is forced to act for the interests of the proletariat as a class to ensure its continued existence and eventually advancement. When classes are done way with, the bureaucracy acts in the interest of the Socialist nation attempting to ensure its existence against Capitalist nations. The bureaucracy would be acting in the public interest. The bureaucracy can only manage and hold on to the means of production for the proletariat, they can never own them privately nor personally as the bourgeoisie do. Even the "little Stalins", the factory managers of the Soviet apparatus, had to bow down to the demands of the workers at the expense of productivity and efficiency. Workers in the USSR took part in sending letters to the bureaucracy, the party, the state, which in turn took action on behalf of the workers against the managers and others.

Now, the bourgeoisie, when they own the means of production, act in their own personal and private interests. The surplus value that they extract they use not for the good of the people, the running of their government, their nations, etc. but purely for those personal and private interests that they so covet. The bourgeoisie are not accountable for their actions to to the public as they are private entities.

When the bureaucracy extracts surplus value from the workers, it does so not in the interests of greedy self-enrichment at the expense of the workers, it does so in order to the run the country of the workers, feed them, dress them, educate them, shower them, medicate them, and further their own country. The bureaucracy does not own the state nor does it own the means of production. The Communist Party, the proletariat and eventually the rest of the citizens own the state and the means of production but merely placing the bureaucracy to "manage" and "run" that society for them. They have no real power that allows them to be entrenched as in the case of the bourgeoisie. The bureaucrats are held accountable and susceptible to recall by the public, the state, and the Party.

This is something crucial that many individuals fail to understand.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a bureaucracy "as is", especially if it acts in the interests of the proletariat. Seriously, stop playing at Freedom Fighters here and instead examine this shit properly.

If you covet direct democracy then remember that the most popular decision isn't always the best decision."

"Do you even KNOW what State Capitalism and a dictatorship are? State Capitalism pertains a private sector, private ownership of the means of production, corporations for private profit, competing markets, production for private profit and interests, etc.

Oh please stop spouting nonsense you know little about. The Soviet Union was NOT by ANY means a class society as I have already explained. It is based upon the extraction of surplus value not for private interests but for the interests of those that had their surplus value extracted for them. You need to continue and stop using bullshit superficial slogan throwing, context is everything. A bureaucratic elite? Oh boohoo, they must be evil. No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bureaucratic elite as long as they function according to Socialist and Communist ideals and Democratic Centralism exists. Generalized commodity production? I'd like to see you propose an alternative for a Socialist economy. Go ahead, I'll be waiting, just try to stay on Earth whilst you're daydreaming. Wage-labor will always be the norm as long as money exists, Capitalism exists, and humanity exists. The only instance where wage-labor is no longer necessary if we reach superabundance, and that's never going to happen.

State managed capital is not by any means State Capitalism. State Capitalism would necessitate the existence of "Capitalism" in the first place which is defined by private property, the existence of the bourgeoisie, the existence of financial markets, the existence of competing markets, AND the existence of commodity production for PRIVATE PROFIT, the existence of wage-labor for PRIVATE profit, etc. State Capitalism, when used on the USSR, is nothing more than a "bad word" to use in an attempt to distance one's self from that specific system for ideological reasons. That is nothing short of a cop-out. Whether you will understand it or not, the USSR was by every means Socialist, albeit "State Socialist" or more specifically Soviet Socialist.

All of your "analysis" of wage-labor, classes, commodity production, and bureaucracy in the USSR are nothing but brief nonsense that is only a superficial and ignorant analysis. You need to know the "why", "where", "how", and "when" for them, you need to know the proper context, you need to know the justifications, you need to properly analyze them, you need to stop throwing around labels and instead properly analyze that shit.""


i agree. killing people in order to maintain a corrupt system is a right thing to do and completely logical from bourgeoisie point of view. Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, Khamenei, Kim, Assad and ... have killed and are killing, imprisoning, torturing and censoring in order to prevent their collapse.
Wait, wait, wait, a bourgeois point of view is kidding peopel in order to maintain a system? First of all, "corrupt" in this sense is entirely subjective according to what YOU deem to be corrupt, it is not factual nor objective.
Secondly, have you EVER heard of something referring to as a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", as "authoritarianism", as the necessity of force by the proletariat on the bourgeoisie, Fascists, Nazis, etc.? Have you ever read anything by Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Killing people is inevitable and even a necessity. The same goes for imprisoning, torturing, and censoring in order to prevent their collapse, the collapse of the proletariat revolution and their acheivements even. Have you learned absolutely nothing from the Bolshevik revolution, the Russian Civil War, the Red Terror, the comments of Marx and Engels on the Paris Commune, the experience of the Paris Commune, and so on? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Thirdly, lol? Hitler was not a Capitalist, he was a Fascist Nazi. His system was considered a Third Way in that he opopsed both teh bourgeoisie and the proletariat in favor of the petit-bourgeoisie.
Mussolini? Mussolini was FAR from a Capitalist, he was an Italian Fascist with extreme nationalization of industry.
Saddam? Saddam was an Arabian Ba'ath Socialist with nationalized industry and Leftist views on certain things.
Kim Jong-Il? He had NOTHING to do with Capitalist, he had a fully nationalized and socialized Soviet Socialist country with his own variation on it.
Assad? Assad has a secular Syrian Ba'athist Socialism with a centrally planned economy and nationalized industry.

Saddam, Kim, Assad, Nasser, Gaddafi (the best of them all which you did not even bother to mention) extremely benefited their countries, they nationalized industry, suppressed the bourgeoisie in multiple instances, implemented universal healthcare, increased living standards drastically, put forward women's rights, etc.

In the case of Saddam:
After the Ba'athists took power in 1968, Saddam focused on attaining stability in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant.[30] The desire for stable rule in a country rife with factionalism led Saddam to pursue both massive repression and the improvement of living standards.[30]
Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.
At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On 1 June 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).[31][32]
With the help of increasing oil revenues, Saddam diversified the largely oil-based Iraqi economy. Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign helped Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas. Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside and roughly two-thirds were peasants. This number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as global oil prices helped revenues to rise from less than a half billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars and the country invested into industrial expansion.
Saddam was lucky for the revenue.[33] According to The Economist, "Much as Adolf Hitler won early praise for galvanising German industry, ending mass unemployment and building autobahns, Saddam earned admiration abroad for his deeds. He had a good instinct for what the "Arab street" demanded, following the decline in Egyptian leadership brought about by the trauma of Israel's six-day victory in the 1967 war, the death of the pan-Arabist hero, Gamal Abdul Nasser, in 1970, and the "traitorous" drive by his successor, Anwar Sadat, to sue for peace with the Jewish state. Saddam's self-aggrandising propaganda, with himself posing as the defender of Arabism against Jewish or Persian intruders, was heavy-handed, but consistent as a drumbeat. It helped, of course, that his mukhabarat (secret police) put dozens of Arab news editors, writers and artists on the payroll."[33]

In 1972, Saddam signed a 15-year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union. According to historian Charles R. H. Tripp, the Ba'athist coup of 1968 upset "the US-sponsored security system established as part of the Cold War in the Middle East. It appeared that any enemy of the Baghdad regime was a potential ally of the United States."[34] From 1973-5, the CIA colluded with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran to finance and arm Kurdish rebels in the Second Kurdish–Iraqi War in an attempt to weaken al-Bakr. When Iran and Iraq signed the Algiers Agreement in 1975, the support ceased.[34]

In the case of Kim: Purely for continuing Soviet Socialism, central planning, and keeping Socialist measures such as universal healthcare, the lack of unemployment, women's rights, free education, etc.

In the case of Assad: Central planning, nationalization, Socialist measures such as healthcare: "In 2010, spending on healthcare accounted for 3.41% of the country's GDP. In 2008, there were 14.92 physicians and 18.50 nurses per 10,000 inhabitants.[132] The life expectancy at birth was 75.70 years in 2010, or 74.19 years for males and 77.30 years for females.[133]", education: "Education is free and compulsory from ages 6 to 12. Schooling consists of 6 years of primary education followed by a 3-year general or vocational training period and a 3-year academic or vocational program. The second 3-year period of academic training is required for university admission. Total enrollment at post-secondary schools is over 150,000. The literacy rate of Syrians aged 15 and older is 90.7% for males and 82.2% for females.[123][124]", a secular government, and so on.

In the case of Nasser:
In 1962 Nasser began a series of major socialist measures in Egypt, among other modernization reforms, ranging from education, family law and the al-Azhar Mosque.

Nasser introduced a new constitution in November 1964, establishing universal health care and expanding women's rights, family planning programs and housing provisions.

By the end of 1957, Nasser nationalized all remaining British and French assets in Egypt, including the tobacco, cement, pharmaceutical, and phosphate industries. Because the previous opening to outside investment and the offering of tax incentives had yielded no results, he nationalized more companies and made them a part of his economic development organization. He stopped short of total government control: two-thirds of the economy was still in private hands. Yet, this effort did achieve a measure of success, with agricultural production increasing and investment in industrialization rising. Nasser initiated the Helwan steelworks, which were on their way to becoming Egypt's largest enterprise, providing the country with product and the employment of tens of thousands of people. Nasser also decided to cooperate with the USSR in the construction of the Aswan High Dam since the US withdrew its offer following the nationalization of the Suez Canal.

In order to organize and solidify his popular base with Egypt's citizens to counter the influence of the army, Nasser introduced a new constitution and the National Charter in 1964. The latter called for universal health care, the provision of housing, building of vocational schools, widening of the Suez Canal, expanding women's rights, and developing a program for family planning. In addition, he attempted to maintain oversight of the country's civil service to prevent it from inflating and consequently becoming a burden to the state.[104]

Efforts were made during Nasser's time in office to realise the social goals of the National Charter. After 1952, women were granted both the right to vote and to stand in elections, together with wider access to employment and education. Laws were also passed which provided workers with a minimum wage, profit shares, and free education and health care, reduced working hours, and encouraged worker participation in management. Land reforms guaranteed the security of tenant farmers,[105] promoted agricultural growth and reduced rural poverty. The rural poor not only benefited from new tenure relations and land redistribution, but also benefited from improved welfare security and price and crop guarantees.[106] In addition, electrification of villages was carried out, together with the construction of housing for workers.[107]

In the case of Gaddafi:

http://www.countercurrents.org/chengu120113.htm

http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/147 ... __17995247

http://www.revleft.com/vb/libya-doing-u ... ?p=2034487

http://www.nairaland.com/728459/libyans ... ive-better

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-884508

http://topics.nytime...ibya/index.html

http://www.marxist.c...on-in-libya.htm

"The country of Libya enjoys large natural resources,[274] which Gaddafi utilized to help develop the country. Under Gaddafi's Jamahiriya "direct democracy" state,[62] the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people,employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing.[275] In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.[276] Gaddafi also initiated development of the Great Manmade River,[275] in order to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country.[275] The country was developed without taking any foreign loans, and, as a result, Libya was debt-free.[14]"

"The Economy of Libya was centrally planned and followed Gaddafi's socialist ideals. It benefited greatly from revenues from the petroleum sector, which contributed most export earnings and 30% of its GDP. These oil revenues, combined with a small population and by far Africa's highest Education Index gave Libya the highest nominal GDP per capita inAfrica. Between 2000 and 2011, Libya recorded favourable growth rates with an estimated 10.6 percent growth of GDP in 2010, the highest of any state in Africa. Gaddafi had promised "a home for all Libyans" and during his rule, new residential areas rose in empty Saharan regions. Entire populations living in mud-brick caravan towns were moved into modern homes with running water, electricity, and satellite TV.[11]

At the time Gaddafi died, some of the worst economic conditions were in eastern Libya.[278][279] 97% of urban dwellers have access to "improved sanitation facilities" in Libya, this was 2% points lower than theOECD average, or 21% points above the world average.[283] During Gaddafi's rule, infant mortality rates went from 125 per 1000 live births, about average for Africa at the time, to 15 per 1000, the best rate in Africa."

"A national vote on Gaddafi's plan to disband the government and give oil money directly to the people was held in 2009, where Libya's people's congresses, the country's highest authority, voted to delay implementation. The General People's Congress announced that, out of 468 Basic People's Congresses, 64 chose immediate implementation while 251 endorsed implementation "but asked for (it) to be delayed until appropriate measures were put in place." This plan led to dissent from top government officials, who claimed it would "wreak havoc" in the economy by "fanning inflation and spurring capital flight." Gaddafi acknowledged that the scheme, which promised up to 30,000 Libyan dinars ($23,000) annually to about a million of Libya's poorest, may "cause chaos before it brought about prosperity," but claimed that "Do not be afraid to experiment with a new form of government" and that "This plan is to offer a better future for Libya's children."[63][291]"

"In December 2009, Gaddafi personally told government officials that Libya would soon experience a "new political period" and would have elections for important positions such as minister-level roles and the National Security Advisor position (a Prime Minister equivalent). He also promised to include international monitors to ensure fair elections. His speech was said to have caused quite a stir. These elections were planned to coincide with the Jamahiriya's usual periodic elections for members of the Popular Committees, Basic People's Committees, Basic People's Congresses, and General People's Congress, in 2011[292] 2012."


Stop kidding yourself, go read some books then come back here.


Khrushchev abandoned the class struggle and formulated the collaboration with bourgeoisie, just like what Bernstein and Kautsky had done earlier. its real disgusting to see someone is so desperate that he is attempting to libel Lenin in order to save revisionism! Lenin never revised his former believes after the revolution, he did what he had promised earlier, he did what was required by proletariat of Russia and other countries.
The class struggle in the USSR was long defeated before Khrushchev was even voted into power. There were NO BOURGEOISIE in the USSR at that time. He didn't abandon anything, the class struggle in the USSR no longer existed. The collaboration with the bourgeoisie? Like Bernstein and Kautsky? Are you seriously fucking kidding me here again? There were NO bourgeoisie in the USSR. Bernstein called for collaboration with the bourgeoisie and the abandonment of almost everything Marxist. Kautsky OPPOSED Bernsteinism and then turned into Kautsky the renegade (not even his final form) and supported parliamentary democracy. These have NOTHING to do with each other. Khrushchev did not call for parliamentary collaboration or any form of collaboration with nay bourgeoisie within the nation. He merely took part in discussions with the Capitalist COUNTRIES. Lenin also DID revise his former beliefs after the revolution, are you even being serious here? Lenin abandoned the direct path to Socialism and adopted in HIS OWN WORDS State Capitalism BEFORE Socialism and then implemented the New Economic Policy. He also created a standing army, the Red Army, which he previously criticized in "The State and Revolution". He went back on numerous things he spoke of in "The State and Revolution" in favor of pragmatism over Utopianism. What was required by the proletariat of Russia and other countries conflicted with what Lenin had earlier envisioned about Socialism in "The State and Revolution".


Khrushchevism understanding of peaceful coexistence is not about the actual peace. USSR always supported peace and had peaceful (and even friendly) relationships with capitalist countries before Khrushchev.
Actually no they did not, it was a fight to the death following Stalin's policy on the "final victory of Socialism". They had already before Khrushchev almost completely severed relationships with the West, especially before and after World War 2 between the USSR and the rest of the Allies. Do you even know what the Cold War was?


Khrushchevs "peaceful coexistence" included withdrawing support from class struggle of workers and toilers and also anti colonial and anti imperialist wars of oppressed nations for liberation against the governments which USSR had good relationships with them. for example Nasser banned the "communist" party of Egypt and imprisoned its members. but what did USSR did? not even verbal support for the "communist" party, but military and financial support for Nasser.
The peaceful coexistence of Khrushchev's was in the interests of the major and most prominent and dominant proletarian Socialist country in the world. Khrushchev could not, as Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, and Co. explained, risk the destruction of this marvel of history. He needed to prioritize the USSR over ANYTHING else, even revolutions in other countries if it meant extending the life of the USSR. Even Trotsky argued for this action in "Terrorism and Communism" against Kautsky who believed that the USSR should not have called for peace and abandoned the German proletariat, but Trotsky explained that the war was lost for the USSR and thus they had to sue for peace lest the USSR, the first truly proletarian victory, be destroyed as was the case with the Paris Commune and others. To safeguard the USSR was a priority. If the interests of the USSR was to resort to a peaceful coexistence to prevent a nuclear MAD scenario, then Khrushchev was completely justified in his actions. The last thing the USSR needed was a Third World War, one involving nuclear bombs.

As for the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist wars, I share little sentiment with them here as Engels did on the question of Irish independence, Slavic independence, and so on. Third World countries need to be developed by First World countries in order to move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism. As for national liberation, national liberation is not something that is always desirable as Engels had explained. Nasser was very popular, during the political war of influence between the US and the USSR, the USSR needed as many allies as it can get on its side. Pragmatism dominated over revolutionary Utopianism.

[Nevsky]

It appears that Khrushchev himself thought he was a marxist-leninist, while on the other hand revlefters say he was a capitalist. Dialectics suggest that he was somewhere in between. [Ironic part ends here]

First of all I'd like to emphasize that I'm highly opposed to many of Khrushchev's policies on all sorts of levels.

1. His revelation of "stalinist crimes" at the 20th congress of the CPSU forever cemented the ideological and political schism of global marxism.

2. As someone else already pointed out correctly, his line of "competition" with the west. The aim of surpassing the west's living standards at utopian pace lead to grave deformations of what should have been the only important purpose: Further building up socialism in the USSR. (Revisionism of marxist socialism)

3. Social imperialism. Khrushchev destroyed the USSR's credibility as stronghold of proletarian internationalism after having invaded Hungary. Hence many influential intellectuals, revolutionary youth etc. lost faith in soviet socialism, as Ulrike Meinhof noted in some of her articles.

That being said, even I - as stubborn hoxhaist "anti-khrushchevite" - must defend him against labels such as "capitalist politician". His goal was not to restore capitalism, he thought what he was doing helped developing socialim. It was a miserable failure in the long term but that doesn't make him a capitalist, it makes him a failed marxist politician.

[hashem]

Are you seriously attempting to claim that Socialism cannot compete with Capitalism and ergo that Capitalism is superior?

socialism cant compete with capitalism because it has different rules and different purposes. a successful capitalist country is not the one which the majority of its people enjoy high living standards and freedom, it’s the one which produces more profit for bourgeoisie. Purpose of socialism is not gaining profit, its abolishing the system which is based on exploitation for profit. In time, socialism can and will create higher living standards for people but not with methods which are used under capitalism.


Capitalism was found to be SUPERIOR to Soviet Socialism in the East.

Then how come workers of the world supported Soviet Socialism before Khrushchev and abandoned it after his rule? Despite all of its errors and deviations, Socialism was successful in USSR (before bourgeoisie influence lead to victory of revisionism), it improved living standards of people and reduced class differences.


The skyscrapers of Dubai you claim to not be progressive from a proletarian point of view? Really? Do you think something progressive from the proletarian point of view is to live in caves and gnaw on bones? Go read Marx and Engels on the question of the development of technologies and achievements of Capitalism.

For whom are The skyscrapers of Dubai? Workers who build them are mostly from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Philippines, Nepal and … they work very hard with low wages and have no right to protest. But when skyscrapers are build, billionaires use them.

Marx and Engels wrote that new technologies will serve a minority under capitalism and can lead to unemployment and worsening of work conditions for workers. but under socialism new technologies will lead to welfare of people.


What does the expropriation of buildings have to do with Khrushchev developing and building homes for the proletariat of the USSR?

it shows how different are the purposes, some people advocate construction of houses by the mean of exploitation of workers in order to benefit a minority of parasites, while others advocate confiscation of them for the majority who has worked for them and deserves them..


yes, the bountifulness of the West is due to exploitation, but do the Westerners actually care about that? No, they clearly do not.

"Westerners" have a class society. This opinion belongs to their ruling class. Proletariat of "Westerners" can also suffer from exploitation of foreign people. for example, when bourgeoisie moves its capital and means of production to undeveloped countries in order to utilize their cheap and suppressed work force, this leads to unemployment in the "West". "Westerner" workers must agree to lower wages, worsened work conditions and violation of their rights if they want to have a job.


If a Socialist country cannot compete with Capitalism then it is NOT superior.

Competition for what? Higher living standards? living standards are higher in Arabia or UAE than most of advanced countries, but that doesn’t mean the former’s system is superior, on the contrary, they are parasites of the world.

a superior system is the one which creates better conditions for all around development of its builders.


The bureaucracy taking hold of the state FOR the proletariat is nothing to be scared of nor is it something by any means comparable to the bourgeoisie taking over the means of production.

all of kings, queens, dictators and even presidents claim that they are holding the state FOR the people. But nobody is able (even if he/she is willing) to hold of the state FOR the people. majority of people which are proletariat and other toilers can only create their dictatorship over other classes if and when they are organized and class conscious and don’t need anyone who rules FOR them. In early years after the revolution, councils of representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers were the organs of the new Soviet government. when they were abolished and bureaucracy toke the hold of the state FOR the proletariat, bourgeoisie influence began to grow and there was no effective way to stop it without peoples intervention. That situation lead to Khrushchevism.

in essence there is not much difference for those whom are being exploited to be exploited by private sectors bourgeoisie or governmental bureaucracy (which claims to be ruling For them).


The bureaucracy can only manage and hold on to the means of production for the proletariat, they can never own them privately nor personally as the bourgeoisie do. Even the "little Stalins", the factory managers of the Soviet apparatus, had to bow down to the demands of the workers at the expense of productivity and efficiency. Workers in the USSR took part in sending letters to the bureaucracy, the party, the state, which in turn took action on behalf of the workers against the managers and others.

and what was supposed to stop the bureaucracy from taking an anti proletarian position? what could insure it will bow down to the demands of the workers? letters which workers sent to a party and a state, which were supposed to take action on their behalf?!

without an organized intervention, its impossible to direct or even affect a states policy. ruling on behalf of the workers its what all of populist bourgeoisie governments have claimed to be doing.

Besides, do you need a history lesson about the fate of a system which its “democracy” was based on the letters of workers to a party and a state which were supposed to rule For them?!


If you covet direct democracy then remember that the most popular decision isn't always the best decision.

What is the rule of communists? organizing and giving class consciousness to proletariat (and other sections of population as far as they are capable to pursue a proletarian line). when people are class conscious and organized, there is no reason to be afraid of their decisions. even if they make a mistake, they are able to correct it, fast and easy.

Thus, when someone is afraid of peoples decision (as was Khrushchev), while he/she has had the means and time to organize them and give them class consciousness, this means he/she is not struggling for a better system, he/she is trying to maintain a system which works against the interests of majority of people by taking away their freedom to choose.


Killing people is inevitable and even a necessity. The same goes for imprisoning, torturing, and censoring in order to prevent their collapse, the collapse of the proletariat revolution and their acheivements even.

What happened to peaceful coexistence? Oh, I get it, that only applies to bourgeoisie and imperialism. when people rise against the state which is ruling FOR them(!), the state answers with killing, imprisoning, torturing and censoring.

Yes, killing and imprisoning (but never torturing and censoring) are sometimes necessary. but they should be used against the enemies of proletariat. Khrushchevism advocates peaceful attitude towards exploiters and violent attitude towards workers.


Hitler was not a Capitalist, he was a Fascist Nazi. His system was considered a Third Way in that he opopsed both teh bourgeoisie and the proletariat in favor of the petit-bourgeoisie.

and you are the one who accuses the others of not reading works of Marx and Engels?! petit-bourgeoisie can never become the ruling class, they are always unstable between bourgeoisie and proletariat. they have no class policy of their own. when they apparently become rulers, they follow a bourgeoisie line and can sometimes serve to maintain the capitalist system better than traditional bourgeoisie politicians.


Saddam, Kim, Assad, Nasser, Gaddafi (the best of them all which you did not even bother to mention) extremely benefited their countries, they nationalized industry, suppressed the bourgeoisie in multiple instances, implemented universal healthcare, increased living standards drastically, put forward women's rights, etc.

praising criminal dictators and distortion of history suits you. do more of it.


The class struggle in the USSR was long defeated before Khrushchev was even voted into power. There were NO BOURGEOISIE in the USSR at that time.

The class struggle ends when communism has been reached globally. If class struggle had ended in USSR and there was NO BOURGEOISIE , where did Yeltsin came from? almost all of rulers of new “republics” were former members of the “communist” party. they were carrying bourgeoisie ideas all the time and were representing the bourgeoisie which was ruling the country through the governmental bureaucracy. when their own interests demanded the collapse of USSR , they welcomed it and created their own kingdoms.


it was a fight to the death following Stalin's policy on the "final victory of Socialism".

USSR (and later China) tried to remain in peace with other countries before they were corrupted with revisionism, but if other countries didn't respected this policy, this was not their fault.


The peaceful coexistence of Khrushchev's was in the interests of the major and most prominent and dominant proletarian Socialist country in the world. Khrushchev could not, as Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, and Co. explained, risk the destruction of this marvel of history. He needed to prioritize the USSR over ANYTHING else, even revolutions in other countries if it meant extending the life of the USSR. Even Trotsky argued for this action in "Terrorism and Communism" against Kautsky who believed that the USSR should not have called for peace and abandoned the German proletariat, but Trotsky explained that the war was lost for the USSR and thus they had to sue for peace lest the USSR, the first truly proletarian victory, be destroyed as was the case with the Paris Commune and others. To safeguard the USSR was a priority. If the interests of the USSR was to resort to a peaceful coexistence to prevent a nuclear MAD scenario, then Khrushchev was completely justified in his actions. The last thing the USSR needed was a Third World War, one involving nuclear bombs.

1- corrupted USSR was not a “marvel of history”. It was a bourgeoisie imperialist dictatorship.

2- if Khrushchev's regime was a proletarian government, there was no need to “prioritize the USSR over ANYTHING else, even revolutions” because revolutions in other countries were in favor of it. Progressive revolutions will only help the proletarian states in other countries. There was no need for USSR to risk its existence in order to support revolutions. sometimes even a verbal encouragement can help. for example USSR and its servant Tudeh party supported islamists in Iran against the communists while Iran was too weak to threaten anybody. They continued their support even after Tudeh party was repressed as well!

3- USSR sued for peace during the WWI not because “the war was lost for the USSR”, but because it didn’t want to participate in a dirty imperialist war.

4- have you forgotten the nuclear missiles crisis of Cuba which almost lead to a war?


As for the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist wars, I share little sentiment with them here as Engels did on the question of Irish independence, Slavic independence, and so on. Third World countries need to be developed by First World countries in order to move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism. As for national liberation, national liberation is not something that is always desirable as Engels had explained. Nasser was very popular, during the political war of influence between the US and the USSR, the USSR needed as many allies as it can get on its side. Pragmatism dominated over revolutionary Utopianism.

If you want to support colonialism and imperialism, go ahead. It will only exposes you further. But don’t drag Engels into your dirty game. If Engels disagreed with Slavic countries independence, it was because such “independence” was not a real one and could have only served to turn them to Tsarist Russia’s puppets.

First World countries have no reason to help the development of Third World countries. they will only use the raw materials and cheap work force of the latter in order to gain profit for their own ruling class and throwing the scraps to First Worlds worker to keep them silent.

[Nevsky]

Theophys, you are right about the dilemma that is the high living standard in the west. Especially before the rise of worldwide "Reagonomics"/"Thatcherism", european welfare states were obviously better places to live in than most of the Eastern block. Thus, many people then draw the false conclusion that capitalism beets socialism apriori. However, you are very wrong about Khrushchev, he didn't choose the right path to prove socialism's superiority. He buried that possibility when he decided to join an economic race with the west that the USSR simply couldn't win at that time, in that conditions. Under Stalin, socialism's actually existing potential to "bury the west" revealed itself through the means of socialist policies alone, i.e. five-year plans, collective ownership of land, full employment, equal rights to healthcare and education for every person regardless of race and culture etc., in times of grave financial crisis in the imperialist nations. Khrushchev should have focused on following the path of Lenin, not compromised with imperialism to make the living standards more "first worldy".

[Theophys]

socialism cant compete with capitalism because it has different rules and different purposes. a successful capitalist country is not the one which the majority of its people enjoy high living standards and freedom, it’s the one which produces more profit for bourgeoisie. Purpose of socialism is not gaining profit, its abolishing the system which is based on exploitation for profit. In time, socialism can and will create higher living standards for people but not with methods which are used under capitalism.
Bullshit, if your Socialism cannot compete with Capitalism then your Socialism is a disaster and must not be attempted at all. If your Socialism cannot compete with Capitalism then Capitalism is by every means preferable. Socialism must either be superior to Capitalism or it must not be achieved and another alternative, one that works, must be found. They do not have different rules and purposes, they both attempt to achieve a general well-being of people as their basis, how they do so differs. A successful Capitalist country depends on the various factors to be determined as such, it also requires a high GDP per capita, high standards of living, cheap products, and high income levels. Producing profit for the bourgeoisie leads to the bourgeoisie in turn producing more goods, investing, and create cheaper goods as we have seen in the case of the Capitalist countries. You can never do away with exploitation, not even under socialism nor communism. You can also never do away with the extraction of surplus value and the creation of profits. How, do you ask? Simple, a Socialist society appropriates the surplus value of the worker, the worker does not keep what he produces nor does he get paid for the actual value of his labor-power. The same applies to a communist society. Bukharin explained this in "ABC of Communism" when he contested the claim that everyone shall receive the full value of his labor. "In time" your Socialism can create high living standards, but those are already proven to be inferior to what other Capitalist countries such as those following the Nordic Model have shown. They provide high living standards with consumerism and a sustainable economy. I do not AT ALL see why a proper Socialism cannot compete and should not compete with Capitalism. If you claim that Capitalism is much more superior and thus Socialism cannot compete with it then you are to be sent to the dustbin of history and your ideas abandoned.


Then how come workers of the world supported Soviet Socialism before Khrushchev and abandoned it after his rule?
Prove it. Give me a citation NOW that workers of the world supported Soviet Socialism before Khrushchev and abandoned it after his rule. I'll be waiting.


Despite all of its errors and deviations, Socialism was successful in USSR (before bourgeoisie influence lead to victory of revisionism), it improved living standards of people and reduced class differences.
There was no bourgeois influence because there were NO bourgeoisie in the USSR and NO bourgeois influence in the USSR. All bourgeois sentiments were suppressed. Stop using cop-outs. Revisionism was not due to bourgeois influence but was due to the failure of Stalinism which forced the other figures within the party to look for alternatives that are more humane and liberal in an attempt to move towards commune and less statism.


For whom are The skyscrapers of Dubai? Workers who build them are mostly from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Philippines, Nepal and … they work very hard with low wages and have no right to protest. But when skyscrapers are build, billionaires use them.
What are you trying to say? That if workers build a building then they should own it? In that case the builders of our societies should own everything. That is ridiculous. Workers only own what they are paid under Capitalism and Socialism. The super-exploitation of foreign labor in Dubai is a NECESSITY for development for both the foreign workers and Dubai. They have no alternative because of the lack of a Socialist system as in the case of the USSR. Billionaires are not the only ones who use them, any person with money can use them, even the foreign worker if he wants to or can pay for access to it.


Marx and Engels wrote that new technologies will serve a minority under capitalism and can lead to unemployment and worsening of work conditions for workers. but under socialism new technologies will lead to welfare of people.
Yes, and they wrote that these technologies are a necessity for the development of Capitalism and industrialization BEFORE Socialism can take place. In the case of Dubai, the workers need to be invariably exploited and develop Capitalism and themselves before a shift to Socialism can take place.



it shows how different are the purposes, some people advocate construction of houses by the mean of exploitation of workers in order to benefit a minority of parasites, while others advocate confiscation of them for the majority who has worked for them and deserves them..
When houses are constructed, a "minority of parasites" are not the only ones who benefit, the exploited workers benefit, the house owners benefit, the house retailers benefit, the economy benefits, AND the bourgeoisie benefit. Stop using the terms "minority" and "majority" because this isn't an Occupy Wall Street "1% vs 99% bullshit rally. The proletariat are NOT the majority, if you claim they are I want to challenge you to prove that they are.


"Westerners" have a class society. This opinion belongs to their ruling class. Proletariat of "Westerners" can also suffer from exploitation of foreign people. for example, when bourgeoisie moves its capital and means of production to undeveloped countries in order to utilize their cheap and suppressed work force, this leads to unemployment in the "West". "Westerner" workers must agree to lower wages, worsened work conditions and violation of their rights if they want to have a job.
No, the opinions do not belong to their ruling class, but to everyone who can and wants to have an opinion. Yes indeed, the proletariat of First World countries can suffer from the lack of jobs due to outsourcing, but no. Outsourced jobs are generally cheap manual labor that are employed on the minimum wage. They are not skilled jobs that require higher paying jobs. Workers in the West without a job due to outsourcing cannot be paid less because of the minimum wage. The workers in the upper tiers of income are not affected because their jobs remain. Nevertheless, the "suffering" due to outsourcing is extremely minimal in comparison to the benefits of the super-exploitation of Third World labor for the First World proletariat. Cheap goods and mass production and availability easily tip the scales in their favor even if they are unemployed. Did I mention the existence of welfare? Look it up.



Competition for what? Higher living standards? living standards are higher in Arabia or UAE than most of advanced countries, but that doesn’t mean the former’s system is superior, on the contrary, they are parasites of the world.
You call them parasites and yet they still superior due to high living standards, thriving economies, no scarcities, existence of consumer products, etc.


a superior system is the one which creates better conditions for all around development of its builders.

You claim that is the case, but if so then the Nordic Models are far superior.


all of kings, queens, dictators and even presidents claim that they are holding the state FOR the people. But nobody is able (even if he/she is willing) to hold of the state FOR the people. majority of people which are proletariat and other toilers can only create their dictatorship over other classes if and when they are organized and class conscious and don’t need anyone who rules FOR them. In early years after the revolution, councils of representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers were the organs of the new Soviet government. when they were abolished and bureaucracy toke the hold of the state FOR the proletariat, bourgeoisie influence began to grow and there was no effective way to stop it without peoples intervention. That situation lead to Khrushchevism.
So many wrong in that paragraph, I do not know where to start. Firstly, yes the kings, queens, dictator, and presidents CAN hold the state FOR the people, we call that "representation". Look it up. You did not by any means defend your position or argue why they cannot hold the state for anyone even though they already do so. You skip that and go on ahead and speak of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the only way of proper representation with no justification whatsoever. The proletariat and other classes CANNOT ALL become class conscious, and if they do then that class consciousness is only TEMPORARY. That is exactly why you need a vanguard party of the most dedicated, revolutionary, and educated elements of the proletariat and the rest of society to manage society and guide it forwards.

Secondly, the Soviets were NOT abolished. What the fuck gave you that ridiculous idea? The Soviets persisted long after the revolution and even existed under Stalin. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets even banned purges after the Great Purge.

Thirdly, bureaucracy did not take hold of the state. The state WAS the bureaucracy. It was exactly because the Soviets were a legislative force that could not convene every single day that an executive organ such as the Central Executive Committee, the state, and so on were implemented.

Seriously, go read up on your Soviet history, it would do you good.


in essence there is not much difference for those whom are being exploited to be exploited by private sectors bourgeoisie or governmental bureaucracy (which claims to be ruling For them).
Actually there is, and I already explained this. Such an ignorant "analysis" only comes from philistinists who call themselves "Marxists" without actually reading anything by Marx or the rest. I already explained how this "analysis" is not by any means Marxist but also completely false in my previous post.


and what was supposed to stop the bureaucracy from taking an anti proletarian position? what could insure it will bow down to the demands of the workers? letters which workers sent to a party and a state, which were supposed to take action on their behalf?!
They did not take an anti-proletarian position because every position they took was in the interest of the extension of the proletariat's long run interests in the USSR. The demands of the workers are NOT always the best demands as we have seen with the reactionary proletariat in Poland with Solidarity and the other reactionary proletariat that led to the downfall of Soviet Socialism and the restoration of Capitalism. Letters did actually take place and were actually replied to and addressed.


without an organized intervention, its impossible to direct or even affect a states policy. ruling on behalf of the workers its what all of populist bourgeoisie governments have claimed to be doing.
Have you EVER heard of the Soviets? The Soviets were STILL existent in the USSR long after Lenin died and they had power. The populist bourgeois governments are NOT proletariat Socialist/Communist governments acting in the class interests of the proletariat but in the class interests of the bourgeoisie. Go read some Marx and Lenin because you don't know what you're talking about, at all.


Besides, do you need a history lesson about the fate of a system which its “democracy” was based on the letters of workers to a party and a state which were supposed to rule For them?!
Yes, I need a history lesson from you. When you do that, I'll show you how wrong your are on your assumptions and claims as being reasons for the fall of the USSR. The state and party of the USSR ruled for them indeed.


What is the rule of communists? organizing and giving class consciousness to proletariat (and other sections of population as far as they are capable to pursue a proletarian line). when people are class conscious and organized, there is no reason to be afraid of their decisions. even if they make a mistake, they are able to correct it, fast and easy.
What butchery! how you butchered Leninism and Marxism-Leninism is beyond me! Are you kidding me? First of all, when you organize and spread class consciousness, you do so under the veil of the vanguard party. When proletarians are class conscious and organized, they JOIN the vanguard party, they do NOT act outside of it. There is still every reason to be afraid of their decision as we have seen in the history of the USSR and the history of the world. The proletariat without a vanguard party and acting outside of that party WILL fuck up and destroy itself. It was the proletariat that restored Capitalism and destroyed Socialism. Remember this: The most popular decision is not the best decision. The workers, also, cannot correct a mistake AFTER it happens "fast and easy", where do you come from? When mistakes happen, they can destroy the entire nations. Due to something called the "socialization of costs", they do NOT learn from their mistakes and are thus unable to correct it. Fast and easy? Do you have ANY idea who the Soviets worked? They didn't organized on a daily basis, they only organized twice every year IIRC and the rest was left to the executive committees and organs. It would take those workers days, weeks, or even months to organize and the same amount of time just to know what the problem is and more time just to solve it as they depend on large-scale direct democracy, delegations, etc. of thousands.


Thus, when someone is afraid of peoples decision (as was Khrushchev), while he/she has had the means and time to organize them and give them class consciousness, this means he/she is not struggling for a better system, he/she is trying to maintain a system which works against the interests of majority of people by taking away their freedom to choose.
Do you think only Khrushchev was afraid of people's decisions? Khrushchev was not afraid of people's decisions. Khrushchev accepted the decision to take him out of power, Khrushchev made numerous public appearances, and so on. He did not resist. Nevertheless, unlike Khrushchev, we MUST be afraid of people's decisions, because people do not have enough information to make rational and logical correct decisions. The mos popular decision is not always the best decision. This can be seen in real-life with group preferences. In the case of your own life, go take a look at the country and see what system it has. Go to any grouping you know of and ask them of what they think of Communism, homosexuality, abortion, religion, etc. You'll slowly realize that people are idiots. If you try to claim that class consciousness would make them smart, no. Class consciousness can only make them ACTIVISTS towards their class interests, but only on a SUPERFICIAL level, they need a party of educated, dedicated, and devoted revolutionaries to do it for them. Class consciousness only allows the proletariat know that Capitalism is the problem and that an alternative is needed, but it DOES NOT tell them EXACTLY what to do, what's the BEST way to do it, and HOW to do it. They need people who have actually studied revolutionary theory to do this for them, people who have enough time and education to know what needs to be done as in the case of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In fact, EVERY SINGLE proletariat revolution had such a party, even the the Spanish Anarchists had the CNT-FAI to do this for them. Also you keep speaking of this "majority", FUCK the majority. The majority are not the proletariat. Now you say that "he/she is trying to maintain a system which works against the interests of the majority of people by taking away their freedom to choose"? Bullshit. Marx, Engels, and Lenin had no problem with delegation. They only cared that the proletariat be represented by a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a STATE acting on BEHALF of the CLASS INTERESTS of the PROLETARIAT. Nowhere did Marx, Engels, or Lenin speak of "freedom to choose", in fact they criticized the "freedom of choice" if it was not a Dictatorship of the Proletariat when they spoke of bourgeois parliamentarism which had the "freedom of choice". Now since people do not know what's the best for them, they automatically create and fall under a state. Under Socialism, this state is a Socialist state, a proletarian state, that acts in the class interests of the proletariat in order to suppress the bourgeoisie. The interests of the "majority" is not shown through the "freedom to choose" otherwise EVERY SINGLE ELECTION would be a COMMUNIST VICTORY. That is not the case. Communist Parties are not the victors today, it is the bourgeois parties that are the victors. As you can see, the most popular decision is not always the best decision. If you claim that they don't have class consciousness then I call bullshit and point out to enough parties, Communists, Socialists, and so on that are trying to spread class consciousness but the "majority" of yours are plugging their ears and instead abiding by the comforts of Capitalism.

When a party puts forward Socialism even if the majority do not want it, they are STILL acting in the CLASS interests of the proletariat or your "majority" whether they like it or not. They do not determine what their class interests are as class interests are NOT subjective, they are objective.


What happened to peaceful coexistence? Oh, I get it, that only applies to bourgeoisie and imperialism. when people rise against the state which is ruling FOR them(!), the state answers with killing, imprisoning, torturing and censoring.
Exactly. When a group of reactionaries rise AGAINST the state that represents the proletariat then they are acting AGAINST the proletariat and thus need to be answered with killing, imprisoning, torturing, and censoring in order to protect the proletariat's class interests from such harmful counte-revolutionary and reactionary elements.

[qutoe]Yes, killing and imprisoning (but never torturing and censoring) are sometimes necessary. but they should be used against the enemies of proletariat. Khrushchevism advocates peaceful attitude towards exploiters and violent attitude towards workers.[/quote]
The enemies of the proletariat are exactly those who oppose the proletarian state. Anyone who wants to overthrow that state is the enemy of the proletariat. And lol? I fucking dare you to show me how Khrushchevism "advocated peaceful attitude towards exploiters and violent attitudes towards workers". Before you even reply, do remember that the "workers" of Hungary OPPOSED the proletarian state and were acting AGAINST the interests of the USSR. The USSR being the largest and oldest proletariat state must be defended at WHATEVER The cost, even Trotsky himself explained this and this can be properly explained by Marx and Engels. When Khrushchev speaks of peaceful coexistence, that is what happens on the SURFACE in PUBLIC to prevent a nuclear apocalypse, but in reality he is still a Communist and still attempts to better the USSR in order to increase the influence and appeal of Socialism and the USSR. The "peaceful" attitude towards exploiters does not exist, but a peaceful attitude towards the Capitalist NATIONS did exist and there are many large differences between the two which you seem to be completely blind to. If the exploiters were attempting to oppose the Soviet State within the USSR and overthrow it, they would be crushed.


and you are the one who accuses the others of not reading works of Marx and Engels?! petit-bourgeoisie can never become the ruling class, they are always unstable between bourgeoisie and proletariat. they have no class policy of their own. when they apparently become rulers, they follow a bourgeoisie line and can sometimes serve to maintain the capitalist system better than traditional bourgeoisie politicians.
Are you fucking kidding me? The petit-bourgeoisie CAN become a ruling class if they are propped up by the state. The petit-bourgeoisie are self-employed, they only requrie self-ownership of hte means of production, handicrafts, etc. Marx and Engels stated that the petit-bourgeoisie are at risk because of CAPITALISM doing away with them, not that if a system based itself on them that they cannot become the ruling class. We have seen in history that they have become the ruling class as in the case of Nazi Germany. Under Capitalism, they have no class policy of their own, but not under other systems such as Nazism. Their class interests in Nazi Germany turned towards self-employment.


praising criminal dictators and distortion of history suits you. do more of it.
As long as I can justify them properly, then yes by every means they must be defended. Oh and dictators? Yes, dictators as much as Stalin was or Lenin was.


The class struggle ends when communism has been reached globally. If class struggle had ended in USSR and there was NO BOURGEOISIE , where did Yeltsin came from?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You do NOT need a class struggle in order to have bourgeois elements, Capitalists, Fascists, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, etc. can continue to exist WITHOUT a class struggle taking place in their country. They rise following IDEOLOGIES, not from what they had in their society. There was no class struggle in the USSR because there no longer were any classes. That does not, however, means that Capitalists cannot come into existence, that reformists cannot come into existence, and so on. Even AFTER communism becomes global and the class struggle ends globally, you will STILL have Capitalists, Fascists, Nazis, and a thousand and one ideologies. Yeltsin did NOT come from any bourgeoisie in the USSR, he came as a reaction to the failure of the Soviet Socialist system. He would have even came into existence even if there was no such thing as Capitalism in a world of Socialism/communism.


almost all of rulers of new “republics” were former members of the “communist” party. they were carrying bourgeoisie ideas all the time and were representing the bourgeoisie which was ruling the country through the governmental bureaucracy. when their own interests demanded the collapse of USSR , they welcomed it and created their own kingdoms.
Actually no, they were not carrying bourgeois ideas all the time, that is a stupid assertion. These individuals, the former members of the Communist parties, turned into a reaction after they have observed FOR THEMSELVES the failure of Soviet Socialism. If Soviet Socialism had been superior to Capitalism then Capitalism would not have been restored, instead people in Capitalist countries would have been inspired to replace their system with Soviet Socialism. Your stupid assertions make me facepalm. The bourgeoisie WERE NOT ruling the USSR. The bureaucracy had NOTHING to do with the bourgeoisie. Have you ever read a single book on anything? For the bourgeoisie to exist, they require Capitalism, specifically PRIVATE ownership of the means of production, competing markets, private profit, etc. Those were not existent in the USSR and thus no bourgeoisie could ever exist in the USSR unless those factors were allowed and put into place. They did not welcome the collapse of the USSR, in fact the hardliners started a COUP to prevent the collapse of the USSR.

Your butchery of history and Marxism is just appalling.


USSR (and later China) tried to remain in peace with other countries before they were corrupted with revisionism, but if other countries didn't respected this policy, this was not their fault.
They weren't corrupted with revisionism because there IS NO SUCH THING AS REVISIONISM. Leninism is revisionism. Stalinism is revisionism. Trotskyism is revision. Every single ideaology after Marxism is revisionism.


1- corrupted USSR was not a “marvel of history”. It was a bourgeoisie imperialist dictatorship.
What fucking bullshit. The USSR was indeed a marvel of history, but was by NO MEANS a bourgeois imperialist dictatorship. In fact, I challenge you to prove that it was so. I want you to prove that it had a bourgeoisie, that it was in any way imperialist in the sense of Lenin's imperialism or bourgeois imperialism, and that it was a dictatorship of ONE person rather than ONE class.

Go ahead.


2- if Khrushchev's regime was a proletarian government, there was no need to “prioritize the USSR over ANYTHING else, even revolutions” because revolutions in other countries were in favor of it. Progressive revolutions will only help the proletarian states in other countries. There was no need for USSR to risk its existence in order to support revolutions. sometimes even a verbal encouragement can help. for example USSR and its servant Tudeh party supported islamists in Iran against the communists while Iran was too weak to threaten anybody. They continued their support even after Tudeh party was repressed as well!
You really have no idea what you're talking about. There was every reason to prioritize the USSR over the rest even if other revolutions were in favor of it. If supporting a revolution in a country such as Greece threatened its existence with a war DIRECTLY after World War 2 then the USSR has every right not to support it. You are repeating what Kautsky criticized the USSR for when they signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty for dooming the international proletariat and the proletariat of Germany. A verbal encouragement would be considered a THREAT by the Allies, such as after World War 2, and would have led to a Third World War that would have risked destruction of the USSR with nukes and vice versa. In fact, such a situation can be observed in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR COULD NOT support the Cubans without risking itself and Cuba with a Third World War. A verbal encouragement does NOTHING. I know nothing about this "Tudeh" party, but if I did I'm pretty sure I'd easily show you how wrong you are as I have done with every other case above.


3- USSR sued for peace during the WWI not because “the war was lost for the USSR”, but because it didn’t want to participate in a dirty imperialist war.
Bullshit. The USSR sued for peace because it was LOSING the war, which led to lost territory, the revolution being threatened, and so on AS WELL as because it was an imperialist war. Nevertheless, it did not remain an imperialist war if the USSR had decided to continue the war to DEFEND the proletarian revolution. Go read the statements of the Lenin and Trotsky on the matter.


4- have you forgotten the nuclear missiles crisis of Cuba which almost lead to a war?
Yes, which is exactly why the USSR did not continue with it in order to not risk a war. The USSR had to protect itself as a stronghold for the world proletarian movement. The USSR takes priority over other countries.


If you want to support colonialism and imperialism, go ahead. It will only exposes you further. But don’t drag Engels into your dirty game. If Engels disagreed with Slavic countries independence, it was because such “independence” was not a real one and could have only served to turn them to Tsarist Russia’s puppets.
Expose me? Kid, you're the one being exposed for your nonsense. I have shown exactly how every single argument of yours is nonsense and will keep doing so until you realize that your No True Scotsman fallacies are nothing more than bullshit that call actually Communists "bourgeois imperialist dictators". Engels disagreed with Slavic countries not because their independence was not a real one, but because they wanted to SIDE with the Tsarists instead of be assimilated into Germany and Hungary, it was because they had NO HISTORY, they had NO STRONG STATE, and because they were siding with a REACTION. Just as Engels wanted the Slavs to be assimilated into Germany and Hungary should we support the USSR for having assimilated the Eastern European countries for siding with the progressive revolutionary proletarian countries rather than the reactionary bourgeois countries.

[Rusakov]

I would say he was indeed a Marxist of the Leninist school, if different than his predecessors.

[Q]

I'm slightly confused as the topic title is asking whether he was a Marxist (he wasn't), while the poll is asking whether he was a "Marxist-Leninist" (I guess you could call him that). The two are not the same at all, they rather form opposites which is somewhat obscured by the naming.

[Akshay!]

I'm slightly confused as the topic title is asking whether he was a Marxist (he wasn't), while the poll is asking whether he was a "Marxist-Leninist" (I guess you could call him that). The two are not the same at all, they rather form opposites which is somewhat obscured by the naming.

What's the difference? :confused:

[Q]

What's the difference? :confused:

"Marxism-Leninism" (more commonly known as Stalinism), an invention from 1924 onwards, is a degenerated form of "Marxism", theoretically adapted to the needs of a revolution that evolved into its opposite due to material circumstances. Sadly, this had a rather huge impact on the continued development of the communist left for decades to come and we still carry that legacy today.

But I suppose this drifts a little off topic.

[Goblin]

He liked to think of himself as a Marxist. But so did Stalin, Hoxha and Ceaucescu...

[Theophys]

"Marxism-Leninism" (more commonly known as Stalinism), an invention from 1924 onwards, is a degenerated form of "Marxism", theoretically adapted to the needs of a revolution that evolved into its opposite due to material circumstances. Sadly, this had a rather huge impact on the continued development of the communist left for decades to come and we still carry that legacy today.

But I suppose this drifts a little off topic.

Some of us identify as Marxist-Leninists in the sense of following the Marxist and Leninist line but not necessarily following the actions of Stalin, his theories, policies, or whatnot.

[Ismail]

He liked to think of himself as a Marxist. But so did Stalin, Hoxha and Ceaucescu...... and Trotsky, Bukharin, Tito, Gorbachev, Mao, Castro, and all sorts of people. What matters is if they actually lived up to their claims.

In which case no, Khrushchev was not only not a Marxist, but a renegade.

Leaving aside the restoration of capitalism which he presided over, what of his foreign policy?

Well first off, his bastardization of peaceful coexistence (http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm) is obvious, and his whole "peaceful competition with the West" thing was a part of that.

One of his "innovations" which was continued under his successors was "the path of non-capitalist development," wherein Soviet sources spoke of Ba'athist Iraq, Burma under Ne Win, Egypt under Nasser, India, and other bourgeois states as being oriented towards "socialism" even without a proletarian vanguard, let alone dictatorship, and even as these states persecuted communists. Considering that under Stalin the Egyptian officers were denounced as fascists, Nehru an anti-communist, etc. this was a clear break.

Khrushchev betrayed the Cuban people during the "missile crisis," of which Castro privately noted to Mikoyan the great disappointment this people had: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110955

He rehabilitated Tito and portrayed Yugoslavia as a "socialist" country, and promoted collaboration between West European "communists" and social-democrats as part of somehow achieving socialism through the ballot box. He revised the thesis of Lenin and Stalin that wars were inevitable under imperialism.

Those are just some of his right-wing measures in foreign policy. They alone cement his status as a revisionist.


Some of us identify as Marxist-Leninists in the sense of following the Marxist and Leninist line but not necessarily following the actions of Stalin, his theories, policies, or whatnot.The Soviet revisionists spoke of "returning to Leninist norms" after 1956, but in fact Marxism-Leninism is that which upholds the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and Soviet revisionism that which negates and slanders Stalin while pretending to uphold Marx, Engels and Lenin.

[human strike]

He may have been a shit Marxist but that doesn't mean he wasn't a Marxist. In my experience this is true of a lot of Marxists.

That seems kind of flamey but it honestly isn't meant as such.

Also, I would suggest that 'Marxist-Leninist' and 'Capitalist' and not mutually exclusive.

[Bostana]

I see no difference between Stalinist and capitalist, so yeah......

[Theophys]

... and Trotsky, Bukharin, Tito, Gorbachev, Mao, Castro, and all sorts of people. What matters is if they actually lived up to their claims.
I do not recall reading Marx speak of the killing of Communists, Communists expelled from the party, the extension of the state after the elimination of classes, and so on.


In which case no, Khrushchev was not only not a Marxist, but a renegade.
Little do names and labels matter here on Revleft, as I have so far seen.


Leaving aside the restoration of capitalism which he presided over, what of his foreign policy?
Do you even have the "slightest" idea what Capitalism is? The restoration of Capitalism would necessitate the restoration of private ownership of the means of production, private profits, private accumulation of capital, competing markets, wage-labor hired by private interests, and so on. None of those were implemented by Khrushchev. Your argument is thus false.


Khrushchev betrayed the Cuban people during the "missile crisis," of which Castro privately noted to Mikoyan the great disappointment this people had: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110955
This is not a betrayal as much as it is acting in the itnerests of the extension of the USSR as the first and greatest proletarian state in existence. He could not risk a destructive war (nuclear in this case) just as Trotsky, Lenin, and Co. explained that they could also not risk the destruction of that historically first proletarian state through the extension of the First World War. If Khrushchev had continued his path during the Cuban missile crisis then he would have led to a situation of Mutually Assured Destruction which would have doomed the proletarian states as well as the entire world. He was correct in his course of action even if the Cubans felt "betrayed". This action, the defending of the interests of the USSR at the expense of others, can be seen in the case of Greece during Stalin's time where Stalin refused to even SUPPORT verbally or otherwise the Greek revolution in order to not cause a rift between the USSR and the other Allied countries directly after the Second World War when it was not ready for it. The interests of the USSR always came and must always have come before the interests of other countries.


He rehabilitated Tito and portrayed Yugoslavia as a "socialist" country, and promoted collaboration between West European "communists" and social-democrats as part of somehow achieving socialism through the ballot box. He revised the thesis of Lenin and Stalin that wars were inevitable under imperialism.
Yugoslavia WAS actually a Socialist country, much more than the others in that workers actually owned the means of production and ran them by themselves. The collaboration of which you speak of was also necessary to oppose Capitalism and united the Left as much as the Popular Fronts were necessary to combat Fascism by lining with bourgeois, reformist, and Social-Democratic parties to oppose Fascism and Nazism. Revising the thesis that wars were inevitable under imperialism was an attempt to further peaceful coexistence by attempting to develop the USSR to be much more superior to Capitalism and thus appealing to the world, at which point the influence of the USSR and increased power would allow him to act much more properly on the world stage and topple down Capitalist governments without direct war.


Those are just some of his right-wing measures in foreign policy. They alone cement his status as a revisionist.
I do not see how they are right-win nor do I see how they are revisionist if you do not consider Lenin and Stalin as themselves also being revisionists and extensions of Marxism on many question.


The Soviet revisionists spoke of "returning to Leninist norms" after 1956, but in fact Marxism-Leninism is that which upholds the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and Soviet revisionism that which negates and slanders Stalin while pretending to uphold Marx, Engels and Lenin.[/QUOTE]
No. Marxism-Leninism has nothing to do with Stalin as the name suggests, Stalin and Co. merely attributing themselves to that line does not make it so just as many individuals attributing themselves to Marxism have little to do with it. The policies and actions of Stalin may not at all be defended by Marxist-Leninists. Trotskyists support Trotsky just as Stalinists support Stalin. Stalinism is a much suiting label for Stalinists. If Stalinists, Trotskyists, and Co. wish to claim themselves to be Marxist-Leninists then so be it, I'll just inform people that there is no single unified line of Marxism-Leninism.

Oh and it is very possible to slander Stalin for undesirable actions that even Stalinists themselves oppose whilst actually upholding Marx, Engels, and Lenin. That does not, however, mean that we are to shun Stalin or Trotsky completely, but I actually defend both when necessary.


I see no difference between Stalinist and capitalist, so yeah......
Because you have no idea what a Stalinist nor a Capitalist is.

[hashem]

Socialism must either be superior to Capitalism or it must not be achieved and another alternative, one that works, must be found. They do not have different rules and purposes, they both attempt to achieve a general well-being of people as their basis, how they do so differs.

The only purpose of capitalism is profit. Take away capitalists profit. they will leave people to starve and move their capital to somewhere which it can produce profit for them.

Today all the technical means exists to provide people with sufficient food, health care, housing, culture, entertainment and their other needs; this purpose can be achieved with low work hours and without damaging the environment but the capitalist system prevents it, because its based on profit not the actual needs of people.

A basketball team cannot compete with a football team because ways and purpose of their sport is different. Same is true about socialism and capitalism and even pre capitalist formations. In early stages of capitalism, there well pre capitalist societies which were wealthier , but that didn’t made them superior.

Difference between socialism and capitalism is not based on their methods (although their methods are also different), but their purposes. Socialism is superior to capitalism from a proletarian view point. in time, It can and will provide people with higher living standards compared to capitalism but that is not the reason of its supremacy. Socialism turns people from objects which are only worthy when and if they produce profit, to the most valuable beings who freely cooperate with each other in order to develop themselves and the society.


You can never do away with exploitation, not even under socialism nor communism. You can also never do away with the extraction of surplus value and the creation of profits. How, do you ask? Simple, a Socialist society appropriates the surplus value of the worker, the worker does not keep what he produces nor does he get paid for the actual value of his labor-power.

It is completely possible to live without exploitation. exploitation means taking away and using something which is produced by someone against the producers will. This only happens in certain economical systems. of course, under socialism and communism workers don’t keep all of things which they produce, but the different is, they willingly offer some of their work to society, for common good, not to some parasites who take it away without doing a useful thing instead.


Give me a citation NOW that workers of the world supported Soviet Socialism before Khrushchev and abandoned it after his rule.

Look around. Before revisionists victory, almost all of those who called themselves communist, were united (except Trotskyists, Titoists, Anarchists and … who were very few compared to communist parties which united millions of people). since mid 1960s, only a small, corrupt and hired minority of those supported USSR , many of them even didn’t believed in its ideology, their short time interests motivated them to do so. Today, only anti revisionists have a popular support and are carrying the class struggle. supporters of former USSR are only small and hated sects who serve the bourgeoisie and make things even worse for workers and poor people in cases which they gain the power (like Moldova and Cyprus).


There was no bourgeois influence because there were NO bourgeoisie in the USSR and NO bourgeois influence in the USSR. All bourgeois sentiments were suppressed.

Founders of scientific socialism proved that bourgeois ideas will exist during the dictatorship of proletariat until communism. it will influence the society and will try to restore the former system.

If there is no private sector, it doesn’t mean there is no bourgeoisie. bourgeoisie can use the governmental sector to gain surplus value while it doesn’t officially owns the means of production.


What are you trying to say? That if workers build a building then they should own it? In that case the builders of our societies should own everything. That is ridiculous. Workers only own what they are paid under Capitalism and Socialism. The super-exploitation of foreign labor in Dubai is a NECESSITY for development for both the foreign workers and Dubai. They have no alternative because of the lack of a Socialist system as in the case of the USSR. Billionaires are not the only ones who use them, any person with money can use them, even the foreign worker if he wants to or can pay for access to it.

No one said those workers should own the skyscrapers. But they should earn a sufficient wage proper to their labor and they should have some rights (healthcare, social security, right to organize and strike, freedom of speech and …). These are possible under capitalism (isn’t this an alternative at least for a short time period?), but a reactionary system denies this, forces workers to work in inhuman conditions and enriches parasites who do nothing useful.

super-exploitation is not necessary for development, this is true about both foreign workers and Arab millionaires. turning people who can be productive into parasites who feed from oil and others labor is not development. Being reduced to machines who work hard with low wages and without rights is not development.

Of course, any foreign worker is legally allowed to buy skyscrapers, but if they could afford them, they didn’t needed to work! Only those who don’t work can afford skyscrapers!


In the case of Dubai, the workers need to be invariably exploited and develop Capitalism and themselves before a shift to Socialism can take place.

Invariable and unconditional exploitation can lead neither to development (even from a capitalist point of view) nor to socialism. If exploiters are allowed to exploit unconditionally, they will abandon new technologies and use slave labor instead. If workers struggle had not forced bourgeoisie to respect worker rights, they would have continued to use the cheap labor of women and children in coal mines instead of expensive machines.

Which countries are more advanced today? Those which have worker syndicates and parties or those who resort to “Invariable exploitation”?


When houses are constructed, a "minority of parasites" are not the only ones who benefit, the exploited workers benefit, the house owners benefit, the house retailers benefit, the economy benefits, AND the bourgeoisie benefit.

Still, most of this long list are included in the ranks of minority of parasites. Workers only benefit indirectly, as long as they pay for houses, they can have them. This doesn’t change the fact that minority of parasites benefit the most and will have better houses without deserving them.


The proletariat are NOT the majority, if you claim they are I want to challenge you to prove that they are.

The proletariat with their families and their allies (peasants, poor people and toilers and even bourgeoisie intellectuals who have broken away from their class, and in short: all of people who are capable to pursue a proletarian line) consist the majority of population.


the proletariat of First World countries can suffer from the lack of jobs due to outsourcing, but no. Outsourced jobs are generally cheap manual labor that are employed on the minimum wage.

how are the wage rates determined? By offer and demand of labor force. If workers don’t offer their work force with low wages, bourgeoisie has to increase the wages. This happens when workers are united against their enemy. No job (as long as its required by society) is bound to have a low wage. Jobs turn to “cheap manual labor” when they are offered to hungry, unorganized and backward workers who need them so badly that they compete with each other and will accept them with worst conditions.


You call them parasites and yet they still superior due to high living standards, thriving economies, no scarcities, existence of consumer products, etc.

You claim that is the case, but if so then the Nordic Models are far superior.

Yes, I claim that Arabia and UAE are like parasites. a thief or drug dealer can get richer than an educated person with a good job, does that make the former kind superior?

And yes Nordic countries are superior because they are closer to socialism, they don’t employ workers under inhuman conditions and also respect human rights (to a degree which is possible under capitalism). But socialism is superior to the Nordic Model.


kings, queens, dictator, and presidents CAN hold the state FOR the people, we call that "representation". Look it up. You did not by any means defend your position or argue why they cannot hold the state for anyone even though they already do so. You skip that and go on ahead and speak of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the only way of proper representation with no justification whatsoever.

They don’t hold the state FOR the people, they hold the state for a ruling class, this must be so clear for anyone who claims to be a Marxist that it doesn’t need further argument. Even ordinary people see and feel this on their everyday life.

Parliamentary democracy is progress compared to monarchy but a proletariat government doesn’t limit itself to such representation of workers by delegates who are above ordinary people and can be elected once in 2, 3 or 4 years. Councils will run the proletarian government, just like they did in commune of Paris or early years of USSR.


The proletariat and other classes CANNOT ALL become class conscious, and if they do then that class consciousness is only TEMPORARY. That is exactly why you need a vanguard party of the most dedicated, revolutionary, and educated elements of the proletariat and the rest of society to manage society and guide it forwards.

Rule of a vanguard party is not replacing the class (let alone the fact that what you suggest is not replacing, but suppression of class!). a vanguard party helps the workers in order to develop to a class for themselves by giving them class consciousness and organizing them. Even if some sections of workers are unable to become fully class conscious and organized, this task must be done to the extend which is possible and progress of revolution depends on this extension.

Those who think they can achieve socialism without participation of proletariat and its allies, are not the “most dedicated, revolutionary, and educated elements of the proletariat”, they are some adventurist idealists at best and some opportunist anti worker politicians at worst.


The Soviets persisted long after the revolution and even existed under Stalin.

After the first few years of USSR, true soviets which were representing people and were organs of proletarian dictatorship were abolished, after that, the existing “soviet”s became formal institutions which were not truly elected by people and were unable to affect the governmental policies. USSR’s government lost its popular support and its essence began to change. This change was in progress since early 1920s but didn’t achieved official victory until 1956.


bureaucracy did not take hold of the state. The state WAS the bureaucracy. It was exactly because the Soviets were a legislative force that could not convene every single day that an executive organ such as the Central Executive Committee, the state, and so on were implemented.

a socialist state is not bureaucracy. It is class representation of proletariat. If it does what its supposed to do, in time, more and more workers will gain enough consciousness and skills to run the society and can replace the bureaucracy. Meanwhile, old cultural values which have roots in class societies, are based on exploitation and personal gain are replaced with new cultural values which are based on voluntary collaboration. voluntary collaboration replaces the bureaucracy which was made to tell people what to do. But this is not what was happening in USSR after bourgeoisie influence replaced the dictatorship of proletariat with dictatorship of bourgeoisie. Non of the officials were elected, there was not even a Parliamentary democracy. Workers were not allowed to create their associations and make demands. In case of Hungary in 1956, it was USSR and its puppet government which drove people into an uprising. If people were able to freely express their wants and need and decide for themselves, the uprising couldn’t have happened.


They did not take an anti-proletarian position because every position they took was in the interest of the extension of the proletariat's long run interests in the USSR. The demands of the workers are NOT always the best demands as we have seen with the reactionary proletariat in Poland with Solidarity and the other reactionary proletariat that led to the downfall of Soviet Socialism and the restoration of Capitalism. Letters did actually take place and were actually replied to and addressed.

Are those who are ruling FOR the proletariat saints who are immune to mistakes and corruption? How can mistakes be avoided or corrected and how can corruption be repelled? By letters which no one is obliged to answer or even read? Perhaps. Then why did the east European people welcomed reactionaries like “Solidarity” and preferred them to “communist” parties, while those “communist”s had all the means and many years to educate and organized the people, put their “socialist” program into action and show its results? If your claims are correct, the only answer can be: east European people are crazies who like to be suppressed! Then why do you bother to care for them? go to the sanctuary of your “vanguard” party which is composed of the “the most dedicated, revolutionary, and educated elements” and live the crazies alone.


when you organize and spread class consciousness, you do so under the veil of the vanguard party. When proletarians are class conscious and organized, they JOIN the vanguard party, they do NOT act outside of it. There is still every reason to be afraid of their decision as we have seen in the history of the USSR and the history of the world.

What is the vanguard party? can a party which its ideology praises exploitation of workers and support it as something necessary for development be workers vanguard? Can a party which supports colonialism and imperialism, despite scientific socialism teachings about the unity of workers of the world and similarity of their interests as a class, be vanguard? Is a party which after decades of its rule, overwhelming majority of people follow “Solidarity” and Pope, be the vanguard party? No. this is a party which misleads workers into service of bourgeoisie.

a true vanguard party takes ideas from people, analysis them using scientific socialism, pressures and purges them and returns them to people as answers for their problems. Such task can be done if the party is obliged to listening to people and solving their problems. This obligation cant be reached by mere personal dedication of its members (which is necessary but not enough), but by the force of masses which can dismiss anyone who they find incapable or corrupt. as the vanguard party does its task, more and more people become organized and class conscious, they will become vanguards themselves and wouldn’t need the bureaucracy anymore.


The workers, also, cannot correct a mistake AFTER it happens "fast and easy", where do you come from? When mistakes happen, they can destroy the entire nations. Due to something called the "socialization of costs", they do NOT learn from their mistakes and are thus unable to correct it.

Under a socialist system, workers are the nation. They can hardly destroy themselves! Exactly because "socialization of costs" under a system which is representing the society (or a large majority of it), the society can stop those unnecessary costs due to mistakes which affect its members. But under a system which benefits a small minority of parasites, "socialization of costs" transfers the costs to majority and harms them the most. Besides, there is no reason to think a society which has abolished exploitation, its members develop themselves and help the others to develop without conflictions between them, is more under treat of mistakes than a society which is run by a small minority whom interests are in confliction with the majority but claims to be ruling FOR the them without letting them choose. The latter is not only more likely to make mistakes, but to deliberately ruins the lives of majority.


Do you think only Khrushchev was afraid of people's decisions? Khrushchev was not afraid of people's decisions. Khrushchev accepted the decision to take him out of power

Funny, because Khrushchev was removed during a semi coup while he was on vacation, not by people of course, but by another faction of bourgeoisie which used undemocratic methods.


Go to any grouping you know of and ask them of what they think of Communism, homosexuality, abortion, religion, etc. You'll slowly realize that people are idiots.

No. they are not idiots. They have been told that communism is exactly what you claim it is. They have been told communism means super-exploitation, taking away freedom of speech and freedom to choose, peaceful coexistence with exploiters and violent measures against workers. Their response is completely understandable and until it has been proved that what they have heard is wrong (not by mere theoretical discussions but by active participation in class struggle), I don’t expect them to think differently.


Communist Parties are not the victors today, it is the bourgeois parties that are the victors.

communist parties which have repelled revisionism, especially in backward capitalist countries which cant afford to strengthen reformism, are powerful, are leading people and are gaining the trust of more and more workers, just like what the Bolsheviks did.


show me how Khrushchevism "advocated peaceful attitude towards exploiters and violent attitudes towards workers".

If Khrushchevism treats people like idiots who must be repressed, my statement is proved.

Banning the worker syndicates inside their own country, selling arms to capitalist dictatorships which didn’t even claimed to be socialist and refusing to offer even verbal support to struggles in other countries and … is more than enough to prove this. I wrote about Hungary before, and yes sending military forces to other countries because they are “acting AGAINST the interests” of another government is exactly what all of imperialists have done.


The petit-bourgeoisie CAN become a ruling class if they are propped up by the state. The petit-bourgeoisie are self-employed, they only requrie self-ownership of hte means of production, handicrafts, etc. Marx and Engels stated that the petit-bourgeoisie are at risk because of CAPITALISM doing away with them, not that if a system based itself on them that they cannot become the ruling class. We have seen in history that they have become the ruling class as in the case of Nazi Germany. Under Capitalism, they have no class policy of their own, but not under other systems such as Nazism. Their class interests in Nazi Germany turned towards self-employment.

You haven’t learned the basics of scientific socialism, or maybe you are unable to learn because of your class position. No system (especially the one under Nazi Germany) can be based on petit-bourgeoisie. Scientific socialism and history have shown that petit-bourgeoisie can be used as a tool in hands of bourgeoisie but when political trends which represent petit-bourgeoisie become rulers, they can only pursue a bourgeoisie policy, maintain the bourgeois system and offer some privileges to petit-bourgeoisie at best. in time they will also harm those who were once representing. example? Bonaparte III.

Nazism is not a separate system. It’s a policy taken under extreme situations in order to maintain the capitalist system.


There was no class struggle in the USSR because there no longer were any classes.

Proving what has been said as an assumption is logical isn’t it?


These individuals, the former members of the Communist parties, turned into a reaction after they have observed FOR THEMSELVES the failure of Soviet Socialism.

They were reactionary all the time. If a progressive activists whose aim is to achieve a classless society finds out that the method which he is using is incorrect or his goal is impossible, what is his natural response? He changes his methods or pursues a more realistic goal like lessening the class differences in present system and providing better conditions for workers and poor people. but this is not what happened in new “republic”s. new rulers (former members of the “communist” party) followed a neo liberal policy. Economy went back, class differences increased and conditions worsened for most of the people. one of the new rulers, Saparmurat Niyazov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov), the Pharaoh of Turkmenistan, build a large golden statue of himself using 12 tons of gold while Turkmen people were poor, hungry and sick. This is attitude of a person who has never strived for anything except personal gain.

If the former members of the Communist parties, had “turned into a reaction” after they ”observed FOR THEMSELVES the failure of Soviet Socialism” then they would have strived for a superior system, not a system which has shown its more backward comparing to “Soviet Socialism”. They have “observed FOR THEMSELVES” that their new system is not superior to former system. But they haven’t tried to change it.


For the bourgeoisie to exist, they require Capitalism, specifically PRIVATE ownership of the means of production, competing markets, private profit, etc. Those were not existent in the USSR and thus no bourgeoisie could ever exist in the USSR

USSR was not the only country with a governmental economy. Economy of Iran is also governmental and was even more governmental in Pahlavis era. as Engels wrote in “anti-duhring”, if governmental economy is equal to socialism, then Bonaparte, Bismarck and Belgium’s government were supporters of socialism as well! means of production can officially be owned by society but practically be used to gain profit for certain people.


The USSR was indeed a marvel of history

Weren’t you the one who said capitalism is superior to “soviet socialism”?!


You are repeating what Kautsky criticized the USSR for when they signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty for dooming the international proletariat and the proletariat of Germany.

Peace was in favor of proletariat in Russia, Allied countries and Central Powers. German internationalists supported peace and voted against military budget. They struggled against the war. continuation of war was what could lead to dooming the international proletariat.


A verbal encouragement would be considered a THREAT by the Allies, such as after World War 2, and would have led to a Third World War that would have risked destruction of the USSR with nukes and vice versa.

Clowns like Ahmadinejad and Kim are treating to destroy the other countries all the time while they don’t have 1/1000 of the power which USSR had. USSR actually supported revolutionary movements in its early years and before victory of revisionists while it was weaker.


A verbal encouragement does NOTHING.

It can show who the friends and enemies of social revolutions are. It exposes the reactionaries and encourages revolutionaries.


I know nothing about this "Tudeh" party, but if I did I'm pretty sure I'd easily show you how wrong you are as I have done with every other case above.

Great! You don’t even know the story and you don’t bother to do a brief search on internet, yet you are sure that USSR’s position was correct! Then why do you bother to argue? You can assume that you are right about everything and smile!

For those who are interested: Tudeh party of Iran was unconditionally supporting USSR. It condemn Khomeini during Shah’s “Reforms” in 1960s as a reactionary and supported the “Reforms”, but in 1979 it threw its unconditional support to Khomeini and collaborated with islamists against communists. at the end itself was repressed too because islamists had no need for a such dirty servant. It followed USSR’s policy but didn’t received even verbal support from USSR when its members were being tortured and killed.


it did not remain an imperialist war if the USSR had decided to continue the war to DEFEND the proletarian revolution. Go read the statements of the Lenin and Trotsky on the matter.

Wasn’t this the position of defencists who Lenin opposed? The war would remain an imperialist war even if it was continued by those who liked to call themselves “socialist”s. only if other countries didn’t agreed with a peace, the war could have been justified.

I also read the statements of Lenin, namely “War and revolution” (collected works, vol 24, page 398) and it was opposite of what you claimed.


Engels disagreed with Slavic countries not because their independence was not a real one, but because they wanted to SIDE with the Tsarists

Engels disagreed with Slavic countries independence for two main reasons:

1- they would become Tsarist Russia’s puppets which were independent on paper but were servants of a reactionary empire in reality. Thus there was no real independence.

2- at 1848 there were hopes for a democratic worker state which could unite Germans with Slavs. So any attempt to do something different was reactionary.

But if a nation is able to free itself from foreign suppression and become independent without turning into a puppet, this is a historical progress and must be supported by communists.

[Ismail]

I do not recall reading Marx speak of the killing of Communists, Communists expelled from the party, the extension of the state after the elimination of classes, and so on.


Do you even have the "slightest" idea what Capitalism is? The restoration of Capitalism would necessitate the restoration of private ownership of the means of production, private profits, private accumulation of capital, competing markets, wage-labor hired by private interests, and so on. None of those were implemented by Khrushchev. Your argument is thus false.You are confusing state ownership with social ownership. Private profits, the exploitation of labor by private interests, etc. did in fact occur through a "state" framework. Two links in my signature go into detail on how capitalism was restored and offer evidence of said restoration, relying primarily on what the Soviet revisionists themselves were putting out.


If Khrushchev had continued his path during the Cuban missile crisis then he would have led to a situation of Mutually Assured Destruction which would have doomed the proletarian states as well as the entire world. He was correct in his course of action even if the Cubans felt "betrayed".To quote one article (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv15/guhastal.htm):

Already concerned with the visible world development from capitalism to socialism and developing opposition to imperialism, the imperialists thought that their possession of nuclear weapons, especially in the period of their temporary monopoly and the unprecedented military force would enable them to arrest and if possible reverse the wheel of history. In other words, the imperialists were using all their class power and energy in an attempt to maintain imperialist status quo. That was the role of nuclear weapons for the imperialists. Molotov said, ‘As we know, a sort of new religion has become widespread among expansionist circles in the U.S.A.; having no faith in their own internal forces they put their faith in the secret of atom bomb although this secret has long ceased to be a secret.’ (Speech at the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution, 6th November, 1947: Speeches – Molotov, Vol. II, F.L.P.H. Moscow, 1949)

The attitude towards the nuclear weapons became the central issue in the determination of foreign and home policy of the Soviet Union in the leadership of the CPSU.

Despite the temporary imperialist nuclear monopoly, Stalin continued to carry forward a consistent proletarian internationalist foreign policy without any concession or ideological retreat, knowing that the answer to the perennial imperialist threat lay in unwavering opposition to imperialism and mobilisation of socialist camp and all anti-imperialist forces. The launching of international peace offensive in Stalin’s days had the aim of carrying this policy forward on a broad front, again, as principled and practical answer to imperialist pressure.

The opposition elements, the revisionist section of the leadership of the Soviet party believed that Stalin’s thorough-going opposition to imperialism, especially in the ‘nuclear age’ was becoming highly dangerous to Soviet national interest. They believed that the Soviet Union must at all cost buy off the threat of nuclear destruction by concessions to imperialism – easing the tension between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. The threat of nuclear weapons gave rise to fear in a section of the communists of the world including a section of the Soviet leadership and this was the international basis of modern revisionism. For the revisionists nuclear weapons are a force in themselves, outside objective social laws, the threatened use of which can act as some kind of the catalyst in international politics to compel the basic social forces to forego the historically necessary world mission of emancipating the people as well as themselves! So, to them Marxism became outdated in the ‘nuclear age’ and that required thorough revision. The essence of Khrushchev’s position in this respect was long ago publicly recognised by a leading capitalist politician, Harold Macmillan, who described Khrushchev approvingly as the ‘first Soviet statesman to recognise that Karl Marx was a pre-atomic man.’ This deflection from dialectical and historical materialism promoted fear in them and the fear led them to opportunism, capitulation and bourgeois nationalism. Thus the revisionist section of the leadership of the Soviet party demanded a line of ‘least resistance’ and ‘smooth-sailing’ – to which Stalin did not pay any heed....

Stalin died in March 1953 and in September of that year Soviet Red Army General Talensky, rejecting Stalin’s formula of ‘permanently operating factors’ in war, introduced the ‘theory’ that in the ‘nuclear age’ the atom bomb can determine the fact and outcome of war at the very first phase of war by attacking suddenly, once more proving Stalin’s prophetic words that ‘Atom bombs are intended for intimidating the weak nerved.’
This action, the defending of the interests of the USSR at the expense of others, can be seen in the case of Greece during Stalin's time where Stalin refused to even SUPPORT verbally or otherwise the Greek revolution in order to not cause a rift between the USSR and the other Allied countries directly after the Second World War when it was not ready for it. The interests of the USSR always came and must always have come before the interests of other countries.There are two big differences here:

1. The Greek Communists had made a number of grave strategic mistakes, such as the Varkiza agreement. In private conversations Stalin said that the Greek Communists could not win, and that the time had come to cease expecting as such. And yet even when overt support ended, informal support continued through Albania (which was named the country most responsible for prolonging the KKE's struggle by the UN) and Bulgaria, while Yugoslavia soon ceased its support in exchange for US military aid and an ending of a dispute between it and the Greek Government over Macedonia.
2. Betraying Cuba was part of the overall interests of Soviet revisionism in betraying the revolution across the world in order to come to an accord with US imperialism.


Yugoslavia WAS actually a Socialist country, much more than the others in that workers actually owned the means of production and ran them by themselves.Actually they didn't. Its "workers' control" was the worst sort of social-democratic demagogy. I assembled a large amount of quotes on the subject of Yugoslav revisionism here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2560845&postcount=33


The collaboration of which you speak of was also necessary to oppose Capitalism and united the Left as much as the Popular Fronts were necessary to combat Fascism by lining with bourgeois, reformist, and Social-Democratic parties to oppose Fascism and Nazism. Revising the thesis that wars were inevitable under imperialism was an attempt to further peaceful coexistence by attempting to develop the USSR to be much more superior to Capitalism and thus appealing to the world, at which point the influence of the USSR and increased power would allow him to act much more properly on the world stage and topple down Capitalist governments without direct war.The Popular Front did not entail the revising of any aspect of Marxism-Leninism. Pretending that wars aren't inevitable under capitalism did, and the only thing that appealed to was certain circles of US imperialism interested in collaboration with the USSR.


I do not see how they are right-win nor do I see how they are revisionist if you do not consider Lenin and Stalin as themselves also being revisionists and extensions of Marxism on many question.Revisionism means depriving Marxism of its revolutionary content, often under the banner of "new conditions" arising in life. Lenin was a resolute foe of dogmatism while at the same time being a clear-cut opponent of the likes of Bernstein, Kautsky, and other revisionist renegades.

[Theophys]

The only purpose of capitalism is profit. Take away capitalists profit. they will leave people to starve and move their capital to somewhere which it can produce profit for them.

Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with profit. If people start to starve, demand will skyrocket on food, higher profits can be made.



Today all the technical means exists to provide people with sufficient food, health care, housing, culture, entertainment and their other needs; this purpose can be achieved with low work hours and without damaging the environment but the capitalist system prevents it, because its based on profit not the actual needs of people.

Prove it. The technical means of today rely on Capitalism, not your system. We do not have sufficient anything as I have debated and explain in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/eliminating-scarcity-luxury-t180805/index.html?t=180805). We cannot achieve any of that with low work hours and without damaging the environment, that is riiculous Utopianism that needs to buried along with Kropotkinism. Firstly, there's such a thing that prevents your Utopian system from ever existing: finite resources. Since our Earth has finite resources then we CANNOT create infinite products and thus any constant number of demand on resources WILL drain and deplete these finite goods. Capitalism "solves" this issue by introducing pricing mechanisms, markets, and so on and so forth that restrict entry to these goods. A system that I support, based on "according to contribution" Socialism also solves this issue. Secondly, in order to meet the needs of everyone, you have to destroy the environment much more than Capitalism does or face mass starvation never before seen in history. You are planning to meet the needs of every single person on this planet, you cannot do so without extraction every single resource at whatever cost. Thirdly, you cannot have lower working hours without increased automation to fill the void. Since we do not have full automation then sad story for your Utopia. Profit arises from the actual needs of people as long as they can pay for it.



A basketball team cannot compete with a football team because ways and purpose of their sport is different. Same is true about socialism and capitalism and even pre capitalist formations. In early stages of capitalism, there well pre capitalist societies which were wealthier , but that didn’t made them superior.

Nonsense. A basketball team and a football team have NOTHING to do with Capitalism and Socialism. That is a false analogy. Oh and go ahead and name ONE pre-Capitalist society that was SUPERIOR to Capitalism, not just provided wealth for a few individuals but for almost everyone in that system with high standards of living, life expectancy, literacy, available goods, high productivity, etc. etc. Go ahead. Your Socialism is useless if it cannot compete with Capitalism and become superior.



Difference between socialism and capitalism is not based on their methods (although their methods are also different), but their purposes. Socialism is superior to capitalism from a proletarian view point. in time, It can and will provide people with higher living standards compared to capitalism but that is not the reason of its supremacy. Socialism turns people from objects which are only worthy when and if they produce profit, to the most valuable beings who freely cooperate with each other in order to develop themselves and the society.

So much Utopianism. No. The difference between Socialism and Capitalism IS BASED on their methods. Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. did not speak of Socialism as being superior to Capitalism because it presents higher living standards, but because it would be superior in every form including on the question of the means of production, production, productivity, etc. There is no such thing as "superior from a proletarian viewpoint" when you try to show that the proletariat only care about standards of living. As we have historically seen, they don't. The proletariat, just as any other, want commodity production, want entertainment, want numerous other pursuits other than high living standards. Hell, it was always the Capitalist countries with the highest standards of living, quite ironic for you, isn't it?



It is completely possible to live without exploitation. exploitation means taking away and using something which is produced by someone against the producers will. This only happens in certain economical systems. of course, under socialism and communism workers don’t keep all of things which they produce, but the different is, they willingly offer some of their work to society, for common good, not to some parasites who take it away without doing a useful thing instead.

Lol? Are you kidding me? Your state, your commune, or whatever other organ of power you want to use WILL take away the products of the worker unless you plan on having the workers produce and keep the products they produce for themselves without a market, artificial or otherwise. In such a case, good luck with your disaster of an economy. It is exactly because under Socialism and Communism workers don't keep all of the thing they produce that they are exploited, whether you like it or not. They do not "willingly" offer anything for any "common good", the products are taken away from them. The bourgeoisie actually do "a useful thing", take a course in economics, you'll learn a lot.



Look around. Before revisionists victory, almost all of those who called themselves communist, were united (except Trotskyists, Titoists, Anarchists and … who were very few compared to communist parties which united millions of people). since mid 1960s, only a small, corrupt and hired minority of those supported USSR , many of them even didn’t believed in its ideology, their short time interests motivated[FONT=Verdana] them to do so. Today, only anti revisionists have a popular support and are carrying the class struggle. supporters of former USSR are only small and hated sects who serve the bourgeoisie and make things even worse for workers and poor people in cases which they gain the power (like Moldova and Cyprus).


And in the first sentence he instantly contradicted himself... I just... So by your admission the Communists were united but were actually not united. Nice one. Then you resort to a baseless claim that you just made up on the spot and cannot even prove, that all many of "them" "since the mid 1960s" were "small, corrupt, and hired" that supported the USSR while the rest "didn't believed in its ideology"! What fucking ridiculous bullshit is this? I CHALLENGE YOU to prove it. Go back up your claims and stop pulling statistics out of your ass. Then as a conclusion you make ANOTHER false assumption by claiming that "only anti revisionists have a popular support and are carrying the class struggle". Listen, if "anti-revisionists" like you are carrying the class struggle then I fear for the classes involved. Oh and it doesn't end there, he claims that those who support the USSR are "only small and hated sects who serve the bourgeoisie". ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Can your bullshit and learn how to debate properly. The burden of proof is on you and thus I want you to prove and back up every SINGLE claim you just made above. I like how he lobs the words "serve the bourgeoisie" and "bourgeoisie" without even knowing what they mean. Seriously... Serve the bourgeoisie he says. Laughable.



Founders of scientific socialism proved that bourgeois ideas will exist during the dictatorship of proletariat until communism. it will influence the society and will try to restore the former system.

There is no such thing as scientific Socialism because that scientific Socialism does not follow the scientific method nor anything related to science. Bourgeois ideas will exist during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, NOT during the later stages of Socialism after the doing away with the dictatorship of the proletariat UNDER SOCIALISM BEFORE COMMUNISM. When classes are eliminated under Socialism then the Dictatorship of the Proletariat no longer exists. You said that they "proved it". Show me this "scientific" analysis of yours. I'll be waiting. Just remember that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat =/= Socialism. Nevertheless, you claim here that bourgeois ideas will "exist until communism" and ergo you back up what I said before that bourgeois IDEAS may persist long after the revolution even though the bourgeoisie would no longer exist.



If there is no private sector, it doesn’t mean there is no bourgeoisie. bourgeoisie can use the governmental sector to gain surplus value while it doesn’t officially owns the means of production.

Do you have any fucking idea what the bourgeoisie are? The bourgeois are PRIVATE owners of them means of production that hire and exploit labor for PRIVATE interests and profits in a CAPITALIST market economy. Seriously, go read Marx. If there is no private sector then it directly follows that there is NO bourgeoisie. Have you EVEN READ a SINGLE book by Marx? And he calls himself an "anti-revisionist" and yet right here he starts a revision of Marx on the question of the bourgeoisie to include the bureaucracy. What a hypocrite. Nevertheless, no, the bourgeoisie cannot use the governmental sector to gain PRIVATE surplus value because they do NOT PRIVATE own the means of production, especially if they do not OFFICIALLY own the means of production. In fact under such system the products of PUBLIC labor go to the PUBLIC, not the "bourgeoisie" who cannot sell the products as their own. Now to make things worse for your revisionist nonsense, the bourgeoisie CANNOT use a PROLETARIAN state to gain surplus value for their own because they cannot own nor have any say in a proletarian state.


You have no idea what "the bourgeoisie" means, you have no idea how to define and determine "bourgeoisie", you do know who the bourgeoisie are, you have not read a single economics work by Marx, and you are a revisionist. Good job.



No one said those workers should own the skyscrapers. But they should earn a sufficient wage proper to their labor and they should have some rights (healthcare, social security, right to organize and strike, freedom of speech and …). These are possible under capitalism (isn’t this an alternative at least for a short time period?), but a reactionary system denies this, forces workers to work in inhuman conditions and enriches parasites who do nothing useful.

A reactionary system in Marxist terms is used to define specific systems against each other to determine which is reactionary for the historical progression of society. In this case, they are not acting reactionary because they are developing Capitalism at whatever the cost in order to hasten class antagonisms. If the workers in Dubai were given healthcare, "social security", the right to organize and strike, freedom of speech, then the workers would be comfortable and have a means to vent. If the workers, however, were oppressed, starved, given no healthcare, etc. then they have reasons to do away with Capitalism. With these reasons they organize publicly or underground and plan to topple the oppressive system of Capitalism. Marx explained this issue of class antagonisms rising to the fore in such circumstances when he spoke of free trade and supported it "in the revolutionary sense". Unless you are planning to have these workers remain in Capitalism and desire Capitalism then you will need to make Capitalism WORSE in order to give them every reason to topple it, otherwise you'll end up with the situation of the comfortable and happy First World labor. For example the workers' riots in Dubai took place due to horrible working conditions and living standards, they would not have taken place had there not been horrible working conditions and living standards. If they had been organized under a vanguard party then you would have had a revolution. This can also be seen with the huge labor movements of the 19th and early 20th century and their fall after the introduction of ameliorative measures and workers' rights. The only thing the Socialists and Communists did by defending workers' rights was make Capitalism easier for them whilst still being oppressed and exploited "behind the scenes". Good job.



super-exploitation is not necessary for development, this is true about both foreign workers and Arab millionaires. turning people who can be productive into parasites who feed from oil and others labor is not development. Being reduced to machines who work hard with low wages and without rights is not development.

Actually super-exploitation is a NECESSITY for development otherwise development would be stalled and slowed, if not outright stopped, due to increased costs of labor. There is a very good reason as to why super-exploitation is resorted to and is the main reason behind outsourcing capital. The creation of the bourgeoisie is a historical necessity as explained by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Co. Without the bourgeoisie there can be no historical development but only stagnation in the conservatism of Feudalism and pre-Capitalist systems. The parasites who feed from oil are developing Capitalism within their countries and building the material conditions for an advanced society in order to move according to the historical progression required of them. This is development, unless of course you think they all still live in tents over there. Reducing them to machines is necessary for the early stages of Capitalism, as we have seen in the case of Britain and the United States, amongst other countries, before turning into huge superpowers with a satisfied population, even the proletariat.



Of course, any foreign worker is legally allowed to buy skyscrapers, but if they could afford them, they didn’t needed to work! Only those who don’t work can afford skyscrapers!

If people do not work in some way then they do not obtain money, even begging is work. If you use the Marxist definition of work as "productive" then you take away millions of jobs that are considered "unproductive" in the Marxist sense. These foreign workers actually chose to work in Dubai rather than their own country due to the higher pay, they still benefit in some way as opposed to the alternative that they ran away from. It's sick, but it's necessary.



Invariable and unconditional exploitation can lead neither to development (even from a capitalist point of view) nor to socialism. If exploiters are allowed to exploit unconditionally, they will abandon new technologies and use slave labor instead. If workers struggle had not forced bourgeoisie to respect worker rights, they would have continued to use the cheap labor of women and children in coal mines instead of expensive machines.

Again, unless you think the US is still a bunch of native Americans in tents running around in animal skin or Dubai as a desert with a handful of nomads in tents then you would be correct, but since that is not the case then you are absolutely by every means wrong. Invariable and unconditional exploitation (as if it can ever be otherwise) leads to development and Socialism, as Marx and Engels explained on the question of the development of Capitalism and its exploitation of workers. Again more revisionism from you, how ironic. I have yet to find a single "anti-revisionist" NOT being a revisionist. Actually, if exploiters are allowed to exploit unconditionally then they will actually adopt new technologies in order to increase productivity, efficiency, and profits as we have historically seen. Slave labor is not by any means as efficient, productive, nor profitable as machines that produce thousand times a worker. Workers' struggle doomed the workers, they made Capitalism hospitable and livable for the working class. No longer were the workers desiring any revolutionary change to do away with Capitalism, they became fine with what Capitalism became and even began to support it. Workers' struggles and their achievements have nothing to do with the replacement of labor with machines, the introduction of machinery was already taking place long before workers' rights movements and reforms. Machinery are much more efficient and productive than workers, and that is exactly why they are used, not because workers fight for their rights as workers are still cheaper than the cheapest factory machine.



Which countries are more advanced today? Those which have worker syndicates and parties or those who resort to “Invariable exploitation”?

Those who have the wealthiest population, high living standards, and high development indexes. They have nothing to do with worker syndicates/parties and invariable exploitation, although invariable exploitation is the reason why they are where they are today.



[FONT=Verdana]Still, most of this long list are included in the ranks of minority of parasites. Workers only benefit indirectly, as long as they pay for houses, they can have them. This doesn’t change the fact that minority of parasites benefit the most and will have better houses without deserving them.

That minority of parasites are necessary for Capitalism to take place before Socialism. Workers actually benefit directly from the construction of homes, as I have already explained, as they are paid for their labor AND they benefit indirectly regardless of whether or not the bourgeoisie profit at all. There is no such thing as "have better houses without deserving them", if you have money and are able to pay for a better house then you deserve it. Money is nothing more than an accumulated form of social voting in return for contribution or otherwise to society. Of course under Capitalism that is not always the case and that's why Market Socialism would be much more preferable or a credits system even, but still, you argument is ridiculous.



The proletariat with their families and their allies (peasants, poor people and toilers and even bourgeoisie intellectuals who have broken away from their class, and in short: all of people who are capable to pursue a proletarian line) consist the majority of population.

More revisionism. I do not recall Marx nor Enegls speaking of any allies for the proletariat, I only recall revisionists such as Lenin and onwards speaking of them, even the so-called "anti-revisionists". When you get it into your head that there is no such thing as "anti-revisionism" then and only then would I stop showing you your revisionist bullshit. Nevertheless, you claim that all those constitute the majority. No. Here's what I said:


"The proletariat are NOT the majority, if you claim they are I want to challenge you to prove that they are."


I am still waiting for you to prove it. I want you to also prove that even their "allies" are the majority. Oh and while you're at it I want you to also show how a family with a proletarian husband and a bourgeois wife fall under "the proletariat with their families.



how are the wage rates determined? By offer and demand of labor force. If workers don’t offer their work force with low wages, bourgeoisie has to increase the wages. This happens when workers are united against their enemy. No job (as long as its required by society) is bound to have a low wage. Jobs turn to “cheap manual labor” when they are offered to hungry, unorganized and backward workers who need them so badly that they compete with each other and will accept them with worst conditions.

Oh the perversion of Marxism with your revisionism! Wages are determined by subsistence wags necessary for the reproduction of the working class. Wages are determined, according to Marx, by the amount of reserve labor versus active labor, not based on how much workers put a price on their wage or how much workers exists regardless of the reserve army of labor. Yes and since the First World countries do not have a proletariat that are "hungry, unorganized, and backward workers who need them so badly that they compete with each other and will accept them with worst conditions" then you just answered your own ridiculous argument and destroyed it. The First World countries do not have this type of proletariat and thus such jobs do not take root in the First World countries meaning that the outsourcing of jobs does not affect the proletariat of First World countries in the form that you make it to be.



Yes, I claim that Arabia and UAE are like parasites. a thief or drug dealer can get richer than an educated person with a good job, does that make the former kind superior?

More false analogies. Countries have nothing to do with theft/drug dealers versus educated people. But nevertheless, thieves and drug dealers are illegal, educated people are not, ergo the example is completely irrelevant. Countries are superior in terms of "high living standards, thriving economies, no scarcities, existence of consumer products, etc." Now unless you can show how those are comparable to a drug dealer or thief versus an educated person then and only then will your fallacious false analogy be relevant, but since it is not my point remains and yours got demolished. You claim that Arabia and the UAE are like parasites and yet forget that such "parasites" existed to a much, much more severe extent in Britain, the United States, Germany, France, and so on. Look at them today. I rest my case.



And yes Nordic countries are superior because they are closer to socialism, they don’t employ workers under inhuman conditions and also respect human rights (to a degree which is possible under capitalism). But socialism is superior to the Nordic Model.

LOL? Firstly, the Nordic countries are NOT closer to Socialism, they are still by every means Capitalism. More revisionism from you, this time of even Lenin and Stalin themselves by considering the Nordic countries as "closer to Socialism" when they have nothing to do with Socialism. The Nordic countries have a CAPITALIST mode of production, not a Socialist one. They do not employ workers under inhuman conditions because of severe regulation of Capitalism. This was not always the case and the extreme regulation of Capitalism has NOTHING to do with Socialism unless you resort to more revisionism and become a Tea Party reactionary yourself who considers Obama and any market intervention to be Socialism. Socialism has not been shown to be superior to the Nordic Model as in the case of every Socialist country in existence. We need a new form of Socialism, one that involves pricing mechanisms, credits, and so on as I have already explained in other threads.



They don’t hold the state FOR the people, they hold the state for a ruling class, this must be so clear for anyone who claims to be a Marxist that it doesn’t need further argument. Even ordinary people see and feel this on their everyday life.
More revisionism from you. There is NO SUCH THING as a "ruling class" under Socialism other than the proletariat who are the ruling class. Thsi is not clear for a Marxist because this is a revision, a perversion of Marxism as I have already shown. The Socialist vanguard party, the state bureaucrats under such a system, etc. all work, run and manage the state FOR the proletariat, and after the elimination of classes, for the population. The ruling class, as long as a state in the Marxist sense exists, is under a Socialist country nothing other than the proletariat itself. I do not care if ordinary people feel anything, that has nothing to do with anything. The question of class is not one of subjective feelings but of objective analysis.



Parliamentary democracy is progress compared to monarchy but a proletariat government doesn’t limit itself to such representation of workers by delegates who are above ordinary people and can be elected once in 2, 3 or 4 years. Councils will run the proletarian government, just like they did in commune of Paris or early years of USSR.
Fucking revisionism everywhere in this guy's post. Delegates are VOTED FOR BY the ordinary people, this is what Marx supported, what Engels supported, what Lenin supported, what Trotsky supported, what Stalin supported, and what every other supporter of the Soviets wanted. Go read some works on the subject because your revisionist ignorance is ridiculous. Here's an excerpt from Trotsky (only) excellent book titled "Terrorism and Communism" where he quotes Marx on the issue in a debate against Kautsky on the question of indirect elections, the Soviets, and so on, much like you being Kautsky here:


Marx accuses the Commune of not having at once begun an attack against the Versailles, and of having entered upon the defensive, which always appears “more humane,” and gives more possibilities of appealing to moral law and the sacredness of human life, but in conditions of civil war never leads to victory. Marx, on the other hand, first and foremost wanted a revolutionary victory. Nowhere, by one word, does he put forward the principle of democracy as something standing above the class struggle. On the contrary, with the concentrated contempt of the revolutionary and the Communist, Marx – not the young editor of the Rhine Paper, but the mature author of Capital: our genuine Marx with the mighty leonine mane, not as yet fallen under the hands of the hairdressers of the Kautsky school – with what concentrated contempt he speaks about the “artificial atmosphere of parliamentarism” in which physical and spiritual dwarfs like Thiers seems giants! The Civil War, after the barren and pedantic pamphlet of Kautsky, acts like a storm that clears the air.


In spite of Kautsky’s slanders, Marx had nothing in common with the view of democracy as the last, absolute, supreme product of history. The development of bourgeois society itself, out of which contemporary democracy grew up, in no way represents that process of gradual democratization which figured before the war in the dreams of the greatest Socialist illusionist of democracy – Jean Jaurès – and now in those of the most learned of pedants, Karl Kautsky. In the empire of Napoleon III, Marx sees “the only possible form of government in the epoch in which the bourgeoisie has already lost the possibility of governing the people, while the working class has not yet acquired it.” In this way, not democracy, but Bonapartism, appears in Marx’s eyes as the final form of bourgeois power. Learned men may say that Marx was mistaken, as the Bonapartist empire gave way for half a century to the “Democratic Republic.” But Marx was not mistaken. In essence he was right. The Third Republic has been the period of the complete decay of democracy. Bonapartism has found in the Stock Exchange Republic of Poincaré. Clémenceau, a more finished expression than in the Second Empire. True, the Third Republic was not crowned by the imperial diadem; but in return there loomed over it the shadow of the Russian Tsar.


In his estimate of the Commune, Marx carefully avoids using the worn currency of democratic terminology. “The Commune was,” he writes, “not a parliament, but a working institution, and united in itself both executive and legislative power.” In the first place, Marx puts forward, not the particular democratic form of the Commune, but its class essence. The Commune, as is known, abolished the regular army and the police, and decreed the confiscation of Church property. It did this in the right of the revolutionary dictatorship of Paris, without the permission of the general democracy of the State, which at that moment formally had found a much more “lawful” expression in the National Assembly of Thiers. But a revolution is not decided by votes. “The National Assembly,” says Marx, “was nothing more nor less than one of the episodes of that revolution, the true embodiment of which was, nevertheless, armed Paris.” How far this is from formal democracy!


“It only required that the Communal order of things,” says Marx, “should be set up in Paris and in the secondary centres, and the old central government would in the provinces also have yielded to the self-government of the producers.” Marx, consequently, sees the problem of revolutionary Paris, not in appealing from its victory to the frail will of the Constituent Assembly, but in covering the whole of France with a centralized organization of Communes, built up not on the external principles of democracy but on the genuine self-government of the producers.


Kautsky has cited as an argument against the Soviet Constitution the indirectness of elections, which contradicts the fixed laws of bourgeois democracy. Marx characterizes the proposed structure of labor France in the following words:– ”The management of the general affairs of the village communes of every district was to devolve on the Assembly of plenipotentiary delegates meeting in the chief town of the district; while the district assemblies were in turn to send delegates to the National Assembly sitting in Paris.”


Marx, as we can see, was not in the least degree disturbed by the many degrees of indirect election, in so far as it was a question of the State organization of the proletariat itself. In the framework of bourgeois democracy, indirectness of election confuses the demarcation line of parties and classes but in the “self-government of the producers” – i.e., in the class proletarian State, indirectness of election is a question not of politics, but of the technical requirements of self-government, and within certain limits may present the same advantages as in the realm of trade union organization.


The Philistines of democracy are indignant at the in-equality in representation of the workers and peasants which, in the Soviet Constitution, reflects the difference in the revolutionary roles of the town and the country. Marx writes: “The Commune desired to bring the rural producers under the intellectual leadership of the central towns of their districts, and there to secure to them, in the workmen of the towns, the natural guardians of their interests.” The question was not one of making the peasant equal to the worker on paper, but of spiritually raising the peasant to the level of the worker. All questions of the proletarian State Marx decides according to the revolutionary dynamics of living forces, and not according to the play of shadows upon the marketplace screen of parliamentarism


The councils that ran the Paris Commune and the early USSR? You mean the same councils that persisted longer after the early years of the USSR called the "Soviets"? Yes.



Rule of a vanguard party is not replacing the class (let alone the fact that what you suggest is not replacing, but suppression of class!). a vanguard party helps the workers in order to develop to a class for themselves by giving them class consciousness and organizing them. Even if some sections of workers are unable to become fully class conscious and organized, this task must be done to the extend which is possible and progress of revolution depends on this extension.

Those who think they can achieve socialism without participation of proletariat and its allies, are not the “most dedicated, revolutionary, and educated elements of the proletariat”, they are some adventurist idealists at best and some opportunist anti worker politicians at worst.

Whoever said that the rule of the vanguard party is the replacing of the proletarian class but actually the extension of its most dedicated, educated, and revolutionary elements? Stop putting words in my mouth. And that's what I said, the vanguard party also spreads class consciousness and organizes them underneath it. Then we have more nonsense from him The progress of the revolution does not depend on this "extension", i.e. the complete spread of class consciousness to every single proletarian. The Bolsheviks underwent the first actual victory of the proletariat without the complete spread of class consciousness, they even had proletarians opposing them in words and in war. Also, I never said that Socialism can be achieved without the participation of the proletariat and its allies, I challenge you to show me where I did. You will be unable to do so and thus embarrass yourself even more by resorting to strawman logical fallacies. What you suggest is called 'Blanquism', look it up. I just love how you spout out words which you have no idea what they mean. Now in all of that segment you haven't even bothered to ONCE answer my argument which is that not ALL workers and so on can become class conscious, as you yourself claim that they can and will and that if they do then that is temporary as in the case of riots or emotional social events that force the proletariat into temporary action before going back into the shadows. You claim you want to keep striving to get every single proletarian under your wing because "the progress of the revolution depends on this extension". And you dared call me "some adventurist idealist at best and some opportunist anti-worker politician at worst"? You are nothing but that. Ironic.



After the first few years of USSR, true soviets which were representing people and were organs of proletarian dictatorship were abolished, after that, the existing “soviet”s became formal institutions which were not truly elected by people and were unable to affect the governmental policies. USSR’s government lost its popular support and its essence began to change. This change was in progress since early 1920s but didn’t achieved official victory until 1956.

LOL? Are you KIDDING ME? Not only are you a revisionist of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, but you also are a revisionist of history. The Soviets were NOT abolished, I challenge you to show me where this happened. Go ahead. The Soviets that existed under the Soviet Socialist system were formal institutions because they turned out as the VICTORS and thus an entire society and state based on them was created, thus formalizing them. This act of formalization is nothing but good in such an aspect. The delegates were ALL elected by people and they DID INDEED affect governmental policies. What the fuck? You honestly make this anti-Soviet revisionist bullshit up? It was the Soviet delegates themselves who banned the purges after the Great Purge. The delegates made up all the legislative decisions during the Congress. Read up on your USSR history. The USSR did not lose its popular support until the people realized that their system was inferior to Capitalism in other countries and scarcities began to arise. Your timeline of the change is ridiculous and bases itself on nothing but nonsense that comes from a type 'anti-revisionist' revisionist.



a socialist state is not bureaucracy. It is class representation of proletariat. If it does what its supposed to do, in time, more and more workers will gain enough consciousness and skills to run the society and can replace the bureaucracy. Meanwhile, old cultural values which have roots in class societies, are based on exploitation and personal gain are replaced with new cultural values which are based on voluntary collaboration. voluntary collaboration replaces the bureaucracy which was made to tell people what to do. But this is not what was happening in USSR after bourgeoisie influence replaced the dictatorship of proletariat with dictatorship of bourgeoisie. Non of the officials were elected, there was not even a Parliamentary democracy. Workers were not allowed to create their associations and make demands. In case of Hungary in 1956, it was USSR and its puppet government which drove people into an uprising. If people were able to freely express their wants and need and decide for themselves, the uprising couldn’t have happened.

More ignorant bullshit here. A Socialist state PERTAINS a bureaucracy as long as it requires an executive apparatus apart from a legislative apparatus. That is what the Soviet system based itself upon, the Soviets acting as the legislative force whilst the state acting as the executive force. Workers without a state can never replace the state no matter how conscious and skillful they become otherwise the counter-revolutions in the Soviet countries would have abolished the state and moved towards an Anarchist Utopia. That was not the case. New cultural values? Talk about Utopianism. You remind me of the Bolsheviks who expected that their Socialist society would become heaven on Earth with mass consciousness, solidarity, super-productivity, super-abundance, and so on. Reality slapped them in the face as with every single other revolution and revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks had to resort to pragmatism rather than Utopian radicalism and thus adopted the NEP. There is no such thing as "new cultural values" just as there is no such thing as a "new Socialist man" as we have been historically shown. Voluntary collaboration can NEVER replace bureaucracies or else you will destroy that society and resort to a reactionary Feudalistic or Primitive Communistic local production and handicrafts with massive scarcities and destruction. Marx and Lenin praised large-scale production, machinery, technology, socialized production, etc. brought forth by Capitalism and severely criticized decentralized production a la Feudalism and the petit-bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy told people what to do in order to be able to meet the needs of their society. That wasn't successful despite all your Utopian nonsense. There was no bourgeois influence in the USSR because there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR. Bourgeois ideology could have rises FROM that society without the bourgeoisie, but no proof of that exists as the one you seem to speak of. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was replaced by the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie? BAHAHAHAHAHA, nice one. What a fucking ridiculous cop-out No True Scotsman fallacy! A Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie in the USSR without any bourgeoisie and full of Socialists and Communists with Socialist and Communist policies! This is why people never take such children seriously. ALL of the officials were elected, they were all elected starting from the delegates. You need to read up on how the Soviet system worked, because you know nothing about anything. Workers' associations were already dealt with during the Trade-Union Debate during Lenin's time. The demands of the workers could be made through the delegates, letters to the state, and so on and so forth. Hungary 1956 was a counter-revolution suppressed by the USSR. Their wants and needs? You speak of condemning "revisionists" and yet you support the revisionism of the Hungarian revolution of 1956!? Is this what you want:


- We demand general elections by universal, secret ballot are held throughout the country to elect a new National Assembly, with all political parties participating.


- We demand complete recognition of freedom of opinion and of expression, of freedom of the press and of radio, as well as the creation of a daily newspaper for the MEFESZ Organisation (Hungarian Federation of University and College Students’ Associations).


- We demand that the statue of Stalin, symbol of Stalinist tyranny and political oppression, be removed as quickly as possible and be replaced by a monument in memory of the martyred freedom fighters of 1848-49.


- We demand the replacement of emblems foreign to the Hungarian people by the old Hungarian arms of Kossuth. We demand new uniforms for the Army which conform to our national traditions. We demand that March 15th be declared a national holiday and that the October 6th be a day of national mourning on which schools will be closed.


- The students of the Technological University of Budapest declare unanimously their solidarity with the workers and students of Warsaw and Poland in their movement towards national independence.


- Our foreign trade agreements and the exact total of reparations that can never be paid must be made public. We demand to be precisely informed of the uranium deposits in our country, on their exploitation and on the concessions to the Russians in this area. We demand that Hungary have the right to sell her uranium freely at world market prices to obtain hard currency.


You are a reactionary and a revisionist trying to play "anti-revisionism". Laughable and ridiculous.


This brings us to the earlier point, on the question of freedom of speech and rights for workers in Dubai,. If you claim that the Hungarian uprising was because people were NOT "able to freely express their wants and need and decide for themselves, the[n] [the] uprising couldn't have happened." What we can conclude from this anti-Communist, anti-Marxist, reactionary revisionist here is that:

The lack of freedom of speech and rights leads to revolution as proven by the Hungarian revolution of 1956, and as such we must support workers' freedom of speech and rights in Dubai and other countries! ARE YOU SERIOUSLY CALLING FOR NO REVOLUTIONS IN DUBAI AND OTHER COUNTRIES? You just explained the reason for revolution and then you claimed that you want to do away with the reasons for revolution in Capitalist countries!


Destroyed.




[FONT=Verdana]Are those who are ruling FOR the proletariat saints who are immune to mistakes and corruption? How can mistakes be avoided or corrected and how can corruption be repelled? By letters which no one is obliged to answer or even read? Perhaps. Then why did the east European people welcomed reactionaries like “Solidarity” and preferred them to “communist” parties, while those “communist”s had all the means and many years to educate and organized the people, put their “socialist” program into action and show its results? If your claims are correct, the only answer can be: east European people are crazies who like to be suppressed! Then why do you bother to care for them? go to the sanctuary of your “vanguard” party which is composed of the “the most dedicated, revolutionary, and educated elements” and live the crazies alone.

No they are not immune to mistakes and corruption, but mistakes are corruption are MINIMIZED in the case of those educated, dedicated revolutionaries in the vanguard party who rule FOR the proletariat. Mistakes can be avoided due to the educated decisions made by the party members as opposed to having millions of uneducated and uninformed and unspecialized rabble from all over the country trying to make and executed decisions themselves. Corruption can never be abolished, but it can be minimized by purges (not killing), dedication to the party and ideology, and proper satisfaction of the bureaucracy's needs so that they receive what they need legally rather than illegally. The letters were already read and answered, this process can be very much simplified using computers and the internet today. Reactionaries like Solidarity were welcomed because of reaction WITHIN AND FROM the Polish proletariat, their cultures, their traditions, and them being under the control of their historical enemy - the Russians. Poland was historically the worst and most reactionary country when it came to the question of Marxist progress and Communism. Solidarity should have been suppressed, but it was not because Gorbachev and Co. wanted to a more "liberal" Communism, the very same "liberal" Communism that you support, similar to the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and similar to the "Workers without Communism" and "workers' soviets without the state". You even oppose the vanguard party and yet call yourself an anti-revisionist! Of course I will go to my sanctuary, the vanguard party, and would suppress them.




What is the vanguard party?

Typical. Go read Lenin's works and you'll know what a vnaguard party is as you have no idea what it is.



can a party which its ideology praises exploitation of workers and support it as something necessary for development be workers vanguard?
Yes.



Can a party which supports colonialism and imperialism, despite scientific socialism teachings about the unity of workers of the world and similarity of their interests as a class, be vanguard?
Yes. There is no such thing as "scientific Socialism". Marx and Engels supported imperialism and colonialism if it was in the name of historically progress and development. See this on the question of calling for the progressive Germans and Hungarians to assimilate the Slavs rather than the reactionary Tsarists. On the question of Socialism, thus, Marx and Engels would support the assimilation and spread of the influence of the country of the proletariat in the name of the proletariat's class interests. The unity of the workers of the world? That does not by any means prevent the assimilation of other countries under the Socialist banner.



Is a party which after decades of its rule, overwhelming majority of people follow “Solidarity” and Pope, be the vanguard party? No.

Again, Poland has historically been a reactionary, traditional, backwards society based on religion and monarchism and which has fervently been anti-Russian and anti-Communist. To allow Solidarity to exist would be suicide, and that's what turned out. Solidarity and its counter-revolution should have been suppressed much like the Hungarian revolution of 1956. The Polish proletariat did not want to be under the control or influence of the Communists, the Soviets, the Russians, and the USSR as a whole. Thus your proletarian internationalism was shown to be nonsense in this case.



this is a party which misleads workers into service of bourgeoisie.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
How is this guy still on Revleft? First of all, go ahead and prove it. I'll be waiting. Secondly, there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR. Thirdly, workers were misled in favor of their class interests rather than national, individual, or cultural/traditional beliefs and interests. Fourthly, this only proves that the party is necessary lest instances like Solidarity be the rule of thumb. Fifthly, you speak against bourgeoisie influence and yet you support the Hungarian bourgeois ideologist counter-revolution! Laughable.



a true vanguard party takes ideas from people, analysis them using scientific socialism, pressures and purges them and returns them to people as answers for their problems. Such task can be done if the party is obliged to listening to people and solving their problems. This obligation cant be reached by mere personal dedication of its members (which is necessary but not enough), but by the force of masses which can dismiss anyone who they find incapable or corrupt. as the vanguard party does its task, more and more people become organized and class conscious, they will become vanguards themselves and wouldn’t need the bureaucracy anymore.

No True Scotsman logical fallacy right off the bat. Vanguard parties take ideas from people when necessary, but it turns out that people's decisions are not always the best decisions otherwise the Russians would have been stuck with the Constituent Assembly, Kerensky, and the Soviets marginalized. The Hungarian counter-revolution would have taken place and the Soviet Bloc destroyed in that decade. Again, no such thing as scientific Socialism. Purges were also public trials where every members of the Communist Party were "returned to people" in order to be judged. The party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems. That is never possible, that is exactly why governments exist and act in many cases against the general will and demands of society. The most popular decision is not always the best decision. People can never know what's best for them, they merely repeat each other whether something is right or wrong and follow the liberal bourgeois notion of "freedom" as a rule of thumb. If the masses were able to dismiss anyone then not a single measure would be made as everyone trying to do anything would be dismissed. In fact, even Lenin himself would have been dismissed as well as the rest of the Bolshevik party. People CANNOT know who is incapable or corrupt because they are not within the party and cannot know exactly what happens. You want not one vanguard, but you want VANGUARDS, you want numerous divisions, conflicts, and wars as a result of the contradictions that would be created from your idealist adventurism! They would always need the bureaucracy just as they will always need specialized workers. The Soviets did away with the specialized workers until they realized that heir machines would not run and break down, forcing the Soviet government to get them back. The bureaucracy act as the planners, the executives, the people who put the policies and legislation of the Soviets into place, plan them, manage them, and so on.



Under a socialist system, workers are the nation. They can hardly destroy themselves! Exactly because "socialization of costs" under a system which is representing the society (or a large majority of it), the society can stop those unnecessary costs due to mistakes which affect its members. But under a system which benefits a small minority of parasites, "socialization of costs" transfers the costs to majority and harms them the most. Besides, there is no reason to think a society which has abolished exploitation, its members develop themselves and help the others to develop without conflictions between them, is more under treat of mistakes than a society which is run by a small minority whom interests are in confliction with the majority but claims to be ruling FOR the them without letting them choose. The latter is not only more likely to make mistakes, but to deliberately ruins the lives of majority.

Lol so now workers are a nation when workers have no nations and are international? Idealist adventurism and Utopianism. Go dream somewhere else. They can destroy themselves and they have already done so with the destruction of the USSR. Lol? The socialization of costs is EXACTLY why they CANNOT stop those unnecessary costs and mistakes! Did you even read anything about the socialization of costs? It is when costs are isolated that they work as a preventative to mistakes, not when the cost is socialized! When a small minority makes a mistake, IT ITSELF eats the entire cost, not society. Society does not socialize the costs of a minority as the minority themselves are blamed, not society and they are the most affected. Again, you can never abolish exploitation unless you support a credits system or Anarcho-Primitivism. Conflicts will exist between them as long as contradictions exist, you want to increase contradictions by creating many workers, no central government, thousands of autonomous and independent communes with differing ideologies and beliefs. What you would create would not be anything less than pure war and conflict. It would be the problem with the nations of today but on the scale of thousands of communes not capable of isolation and need to expand. A small minority running society creates less conflict than everyone running themselves as the former is more organized, centralized, ordered, supported by central authority and law, and so on. Go play Anarchism somewhere else, leave Communism for the rest of us. A small minority is not more likely to make mistakes, in fact, a small minority is LESS likely to make any mistakes because they are educated, dedicated, elected, publicly responsible and accountable of their actions, and eat the full cost of their actions if they make a mistake. Your majority WILL, on the other hand, make MUCH, MUCH more mistakes with no consequences as the costsa re socialized with no person to blame. You will have millions of uneducated, undedicated, unelected, not publicly responsible, and unaccountable rabble voting for something which they know very little about.



Funny, because Khrushchev was removed during a semi coup while he was on vacation, not by people of course, but by another faction of bourgeoisie which used undemocratic methods.
Another faction of bourgeoisie? Oh my fucking god. Are you kidding me? Khrushchev was removed by COMMUNISTS within the COMMUNIST PARTY that used DEMOCRATIC MEANS to make Khrushchev resign. If there were undemocratic means that means there was no popular support within the party to take such a course of action and thus it would not have happened in the first place. People didn't give a shit. You have no idea what you're talking about.


"On October 14, 1964, the Presidium and the Central Committee each voted to accept Khrushchev's "voluntary" retirement from his offices. Brezhnev was elected First Secretary (later General Secretary), while Alexei Kosygin succeeded Khrushchev as premier.[250]"




[FONT=Verdana]No. they are not idiots. They have been told that communism is exactly what you claim it is. They have been told communism means super-exploitation, taking away freedom of speech and freedom to choose, peaceful coexistence with exploiters and violent measures against workers. Their response is completely understandable and until it has been proved that what they have heard is wrong (not by mere theoretical discussions but by active participation in class struggle), I don’t expect them to think differently.
Oh really now? They have been told communism is what I claim it is? Ergo I claim that communism is super-exploitation? LOL. Also, taking away freedom of speech? Absolutely. Freedom to choose? Very vague and abstract, be specific. Freedom to choose political PARTIES? Freedom to choose politicians? Freedom to choose delegates? Do tell. Peaceful coexistence is something that these people desire, they do not want war. Violent measures against workers are only taken against workers who threaten the proletarian state, the proletariat's class interests, and those who wish to become reactionary counter-revolutionaries just like you and your friends during the Hungarian counter-revolution and the Polish counter-revolution. People actually do not get told this, they get told what Socialism and Communism are by the media or by people like you. They notice the contradictions and spit in your face. Active participation in class struggle when the material conditions are not existent for Socialism is ridiculous. In fact, that's what's being made today and yet the proletariat are alienated to Communism as you are alienated to Marxism, Leninsm, anti-revisionism, history, and Communism.




[FONT=Verdana]communist parties which have repelled revisionism, especially in backward capitalist countries which cant afford to strengthen reformism, are powerful, are leading people and are gaining the trust of more and more workers, just like what the Bolsheviks did.
Before turning into what happened in the USSR and you blaming "capitalist roaders" or "bourgeois influence", yeah good luck whit that. In the mean time, I'll be working on theories and wait until the time is ripe. Repelling revisionism he says, as if none of them are revisionists or as if revisionism is the problem.



If Khrushchevism treats people like idiots who must be repressed, my statement is proved.
That treatment was found under Stalin, Hoxha, Lenin, Marx, and Engels.



Banning the worker syndicates inside their own country
See the Trade-Union Debate.



selling arms to capitalist dictatorships which didn’t even claimed to be socialist
Like who? Saddam? Claimed to be Socialist. Assad? Claimed to be Socialist. Gaddafi? Claimed to be Socialist. Kim? Claimed to be Socialist. Nasser? Claimed to be Socialist. More false arguments and lies by you.



and refusing to offer even verbal support to struggles in other countries
Such as? Greece? Blame Stalin.



and … is more than enough to prove this.
No, that's not by ANY MEANS enough to prove ANYTHING, especially since I disproved your lies.



I wrote about Hungary before, and yes sending military forces to other countries because they are “acting AGAINST the interests” of another government is exactly what all of imperialists have done.
You have no fucking idea what imperialism is. Go read "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin then come back here. While you're at it, go read Marx and Engels on the question of progressive and reactionary countries, historical progress, the question of the Slavs, assimilation, etc.



You haven’t learned the basics of scientific socialism
No such thing as scientific Socialism.



or maybe you are unable to learn because of your class position.
Ad hominem logical fallacy.



No system (especially the one under Nazi Germany) can be based on petit-bourgeoisie.
Yes it can and yes it has. Go read up on Nazi Germany as you are quite ignorant on that subject, as with every other one you discussed so far.



Scientific socialism and history have shown that petit-bourgeoisie can be used as a tool in hands of bourgeoisie but when political trends which represent petit-bourgeoisie become rulers, they can only pursue a bourgeoisie policy, maintain the bourgeois system and offer some privileges to petit-bourgeoisie at best. in time they will also harm those who were once representing. example? Bonaparte III.
Not really. In the case of Nazi Germany the bourgeoisie were suppressed as a degeneration of Judaism and Capitalism. A bourgeois policy in the name of the petit-bourgeois would lead to Capitalism, ergo that is not the case at all. A petit-bourgeois system would be one as in the case of Nazism, as in the case of Distributism, and so on. By ensuring a society with private property but based on merit, honor, the prevention of big bourgeoisie, and a large amount of government intervention, a petit-bourgeois rule can be established. This is specifically the case when a system, such as Nazism and Distributism, based themselves on small businessmen, middle peasants, merchants, the self-employed, etc. rather than an economic free-for-all or complete elimination of all classes or domination of one class.



Nazism is not a separate system. It’s a policy taken under extreme situations in order to maintain the capitalist system.
You still submit to that "Nazism is degenerated Capitalism" bullshit? If you subscribe to Marxism then you would be able to realize that this is nothing more than bullshit. Nazism does not base itself on the bourgeoisie, as in the case of Capitalism, nor on the proletariat as in the case of Socialism/Communism. Nazims bases itself on the petit-bourgeoisie, completely different from Capitalism and Socialism/Communism. Nazism is not a policy, it is a system that is different from the bottom-up from Capitalism and Socialism/Communism.



[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Proving what has been said as an assumption is logical isn’t it?
What are you trying to imply? That is not a counter-argument.



They were reactionary all the time.
LOL, then they would not have even bothered to join the Communist Party nor would they have been accepted.



If a progressive activists whose aim is to achieve a classless society finds out that the method which he is using is incorrect or his goal is impossible, what is his natural response? He changes his methods or pursues a more realistic goal like lessening the class differences in present system and providing better conditions for workers and poor people. but this is not what happened in new “republic”s.
In the republics you had no classes. Get that into your thick head. Classes were long done away with after the elimination of private property, private profit, Capitalism, and the necessary material conditions for Capitalism. In the case of the failure of your system, having people themselves topple it, and no longer desire it then the new leaders that these people bring forward are naturally the representation of the people. The PEOPLE wanted the restoration of Capitalism, NOT the Communists. The Communists continued their political life or went into retirement in depression after the fall of the USSR. If anyone is being influenced by the bourgeoisie it is not the bureaucracy that kept the USSR running, not the party, but the PEOPLE themselves, the very proletariat which you claim to be Socialist, Communist, that makes the best decisions, that know what it's doing, that is class conscious! THEY restored Capitalism, not some mythical capitalist roaders, not some revisionists, but the people themselves. It was exactly when the party did NOT suppress the people, when the people were left alone to do as they please, that they fucked up everything and destroyed the USSR before restoring Capitalism. So in other words, fuck the people.



new rulers (former members of the “communist” party) followed a neo liberal policy.
That's because the new rulers became as such after the COLLAPSE OF THE USSR, not before. Before the collapse of the USSR they were not capable of taking part in such acts, thus proving that your entire bullshit theory of bourgeoisie within the Communist party is thus bullshit. When the USSR collapsed and there was no hope of restoring it, people fed up with it, they resorted to Capitalism as the alternative. It was the people themselves that wanted a restoration of Capitalism, not the rulers. The new rulers merely followed what the people wanted.



Economy went back, class differences increased and conditions worsened for most of the people.
Only for the first few years before going back up again. It was completely their fault. They toppled the USSR, not the party nor the bureaucracy which were preserving the USSR by suppressing counter-revolution. When the party and bureaucracy chose not to suppress them and stopped the 1991 coup then and only then was Capitalism restored.



one of the new rulers, Saparmurat Niyazov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov), the Pharaoh of Turkmenistan, build a large golden statue of himself using 12 tons of gold while Turkmen people were poor, hungry and sick. This is attitude of a person who has never strived for anything except personal gain.
Thanks to your people.



If the former members of the Communist parties, had “turned into a reaction” after they ”observed FOR THEMSELVES the failure of Soviet Socialism” then they would have strived for a superior system, not a system which has shown its more backward comparing to “Soviet Socialism”. They have “observed FOR THEMSELVES” that their new system is not superior to former system. But they haven’t tried to change it.
A SUPERIOR SYSTEM! Wasn't this what started this debate? The question of superiority? It was CAPITALISM thus that was SUPERIOR TO SOCIALISM. That's why people wanted it. That's why the party let them choose it. If Socialism was made to be superior to Capitalism then this would not have happened, but revolutions in Capitalist countries would have taken place. Thus Socialism must be either superior to Capitalism or we must let that specific form of Socialism rot. You just destroyed your ENTIRE POINT in this debate and thus lost it. Good job.


Oh and yes, they actually TRIED TO CHANGE it, they tried to REFORM it to something better, they tried this but YOU called them revisionists and condemned them for it. They tried to implement freedom of speech, universal elections, more power to the Soviets and localities, more freedom, freedom to the republics, and so on and LOOK WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED.




USSR was not the only country with a governmental economy. Economy of Iran is also governmental and was even more governmental in Pahlavis era. as Engels wrote in “anti-duhring”, if governmental economy is equal to socialism, then Bonaparte, Bismarck and Belgium’s government were supporters of socialism as well! means of production can officially be owned by society but practically be used to gain profit for certain people.
Actually, no. Economies run by the government with no private property means that there is NO CAPITALISM, but not that there is Socialism. Socialism necessitates Socialist measures, a Socialist state, and so on. Marxist Socialism requires Socialist measures, a Socialist state, the proletariat as the dominant class during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and so on. There is no single form of Socialism. Socialism can actually be merely state ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are owned by society but used for personal interests then that is NOT Capitalism and NOT private ownership of the means of production.



Weren’t you the one who said capitalism is superior to “soviet socialism”?!
Oh yes it was, but there is absolutely no denying that it was a marvel of history, being the first every successful proletarian state and all.



[FONT=Verdana]Peace was in favor of proletariat in Russia, Allied countries and Central Powers. German internationalists supported peace and voted against military budget. They struggled against the war. continuation of war was what could lead to dooming the international proletariat.
Here's what Kautsky said:


"“The Bolsheviks,” Kautsky mediates, “acquired the force necessary for the seizure of political power through the fact that, amongst the political parties in Russia, they were the most energetic in their demands for peace – peace at any price, a separate peace – without interesting themselves as to the influence this would have on the general international situation, as to whether this would assist the victory and world domination of the German military monarchy, under the protection of which they remained for a long time, just like Indian or Irish rebels or Italian anarchists.” (Page 53)"


You are echoing what Kautsky said, you are condemning the USSR for acting in its own national interests to protect the most important stronghold of the proletarian revolution. Luckily the Bolsheviks were smart enough not to fall for your nor Kautsky's bullshit and instead put the USSR as a priority over other countries and situations. According to Kautsky's argument, much like yours, was criticism of peace that was in favor of ONLY the Russian proletariat whilst ignoring the international situation. You are, like Kautsky, criticizing the USSR for acting in its OWN interests. Here's what Trotsky said which applies exactly to this situation - the prioritization of the Soviet government over the rest of the world:


"What, then, was the guiding principle of our external policy, once the first months of existence of the Soviet Government had made clear the considerable vitality as yet of the capitalist governments of Europe? Just that which Kautsky accepts today uncomprehendingly as an accidental result – to hold out!


We realized too clearly that the very fact of the existence of the Soviet Government is an event of the greatest revolutionary importance; and this realization dictated to us our concessions and our temporary retirements – not in principle but in practical conclusions from a sober estimate of our own forces. We retreated like an army which gives up to the enemy a town, and even a fortress, in order, having retreated, to concentrate its forces not only for defence but for an advance. We retreated like strikers amongst whom today energies and resources have been exhausted, but who, clenching their teeth, are preparing for a new struggle. If we were not filled with an unconquerable belief in the world significance of the Soviet dictatorship, we should not have accepted the most painful sacrifices at Brest-Litovsk. If our faith had proved to be contradicted by the actual course of events, the Brest Peace would have gone down to history as the futile capitulation of a doomed regime. That is how the situation was judged then, not only by the Kiihlmanns but also by the Kautskies of all countries. But we proved right in our estimate, as of our weakness then, so of our strength in the future. The existence of the Ebert Republic, with its universal suffrage, its parliamentary swindling, its “freedom” of the Press, and its murder of labor leaders, is merely a necessary link in the historical chain of slavery and scoundrelism. The existence of the Soviet Government is a fact of immeasurable revolutionary significance. It was necessary to retain it, utilizing the conflict of the capitalist nations, the as yet unfinished imperialist war, the self-confident effrontery of the Hohenzollern bands, the thick-wittedness of the world-bourgeoisie as far as the fundamental questions of the revolution were concerned, the antagonism of America and Europe, the complication of relations within the Entente. We had to lead our yet unfinished Soviet ship over the stormy waves, amid rocks and reefs, completing its building and armament en route.


Kautsky has the audacity to repeat the accusation that we did not, at the beginning of 1918, hurl ourselves unarmed against our mighty foe. Had we done this we would have been crushed. The first great attempt of the proletariat to seize power would have suffered defeat. The revolutionary wing of the European proletariat would have been dealt the severest possible blow. The Entente would have made peace with the Hohenzollern over the corpse of the Russian Revolution, and the world capitalist reaction would have received a respite for a number of years. When Kautsky says that, concluding the Brest Peace, we did not think of its influence on the fate of the German Revolution, he is uttering a disgraceful slander. We considered the question from all sides, and our sole criterion was the interests of the international revolution.


We came to the conclusion that those interests demanded that the only Soviet Government in the world should be preserved. And we proved right. Whereas Kautsky awaited our fall, if not with impatience, at least with certainty; and on this expected fall built up his whole international policy."



Clowns like Ahmadinejad and Kim are treating to destroy the other countries all the time while they don’t have 1/1000 of the power which USSR had. USSR actually supported revolutionary movements in its early years and before victory of revisionists while it was weaker.
Lol? Is the US who is not only threatening to destroy other countries but ACTUALLY and LITERALLY destroying other countries? What country is the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND HISTORY to have EVER made not only the highest amount of nuclear threats but also ACTUALLY used NUCLEAR BOMBS on thousands of innocent people, not once but TWICE? Ahmadinejad and Kim are threatening to destroy aggressors such as the United States and Israel. Ahamdinejad and Kim are in no position to support any revolution nor do they have any reason.



It can show who the friends and enemies of social revolutions are. It exposes the reactionaries and encourages revolutionaries.
And exactly as I had said, "A verbal encouragement would be considered a THREAT by the Allies, such as after World War 2, and would have led to a Third World War that would have risked destruction of the USSR with nukes and vice versa. In fact, such a situation can be observed in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR COULD NOT support the Cubans without risking itself and Cuba with a Third World War. A verbal encouragement does NOTHING"
It shows that the US were the enemies of the Greek revolutionaries and that the USSR was the friend of the Greek revolutionaries in which case the US and the USSR by transitivity would have been enemies. This would have escalated into the going back on the post-war partitions which were in the interests of the USSR and may have even led to war. The USSR gained many, many territories and countries at the cost of Greece which was left for Yugoslavia.



Great! You don’t even know the story and you don’t bother to do a brief search on internet, yet you are sure that USSR’s position was correct! Then why do you bother to argue? You can assume that you are right about everything and smile!
Do you know ANYTHING about the French Communist Party? The Lebanese Communist Party? The Syrian Communist Party? You know nothing about them. I cannot know everything about every singel party in existence. Deal with it. I do not bother to do the research because this "Tudeh" party does NOT interest me. I am sure the USSR's position was correct as long as it acted in its own interests as a priority whilst also support revolutions where it deemed necessary. I am already right and that's why I'm arguing.



For those who are interested: Tudeh party of Iran was unconditionally supporting USSR. It condemn Khomeini during Shah’s “Reforms” in 1960s as a reactionary and supported the “Reforms”, but in 1979 it threw its unconditional support to Khomeini and collaborated with islamists against communists. at the end itself was repressed too because islamists had no need for a such dirty servant. It followed USSR’s policy but didn’t received even verbal support from USSR when its members were being tortured and killed.

According to the Wiki entry on the Tudeh party, barely any reference but two to Khomeini without any significance or party relations to him at all, there is no mention of reforms in 1960 and the party, the entry does not speak of calling Khomeini a reactionary and then later supporting him, does not speak of collaboration with Islamists against Communists, and so on. And yet he wants us to know what the Tudeh party and its relationship the USSR was. Laughable. Not only that, but I do not even see how the fuck this has anything to do with the USSR's international policy. That the USSR did not give them any verbal support? The last thing they needed was verbal public support from the USSR to lead to them being accused of espionage, foreign influence, puppets, etc.



Wasn’t this the position of defencists who Lenin opposed? The war would remain an imperialist war even if it was continued by those who liked to call themselves “socialist”s. only if other countries didn’t agreed with a peace, the war could have been justified.

No. The "revolutionary defencists" were the ones defending the February Revolutionary and justifying the imperialist war and wishing to continue it in the same light that the Tsarists were continuing it as an imperialist war rather than a war of national defence of the proletariat and its achievements. The Soviets defending themselves against imperialist aggression is not an imperialist action. To continue the imperialist war would mean continuing the line of the Tsarists in the war, trying to win over the Germans.



I also read the statements of Lenin, namely “War and revolution” (collected works, vol 24, page 398) and it was opposite of what you claimed.
Those, again, were written as a criticism of the post-Tsarist and pre-Soviet ministers who wished to continue the war in the same light that the Tsarists did. They claim that their revolution justified it, Lenin contended that their revolution was not complete and did not justify it. I'll quote:


"We maintain that no newspaper, either of the chauvinists in general, who simply say that the fatherland must be defended, or of the social-chauvinists, has ever given a definition of annexation that would fit both Germany and Russia, that would be applicable to any side. It cannot do this for the simple reason that this war is the continuation of a policy of annexations, that is, a policy of conquest, of capitalist robbery on the part of both groups involved in the war."


"All over the world some socialists are preaching a war build-up, while others, like Eugene Debs, the American Bebel, who enjoys immense popularity among the American workers, say: “I’d rather be shot than give a cent towards the war. I’m willing to fight only the proletariat’s war against the capitalists all over the world.” That is how the socialists have split throughout the world. The world’s social-patriots think they are defending their country. They are mistaken they are defending the interests of one band of capitalists against another. We preach proletarian revolution the only true cause, for which scores of people have gone to the scaffold, and hundreds and thousands have been thrown into prison. These imprisoned socialists are a minority, but the working class is for them, the whole course of economic development is for them. All this tells us that there is no other way out. The only way to end this war is by a workers’ revolution in several countries. In the meantime we should make preparations for that revolution, we should assist it. For all its hatred of war and desire for peace, the Russian people could do nothing against the war, so long as it was being waged by the tsar, except work for a revolution against the tsar and for the tsar’s overthrow. And that is what happened."


"It remains for me now, according to the brief plan of this talk I have sketched for myself, to touch on the question of “revolutionary defencism”. I believe, after what I have had the honour of reporting to you, that I may now be allowed to touch only briefly on this question.


By “revolutionary defencism” we mean vindication of the war on the plea that, after all, we have made the revolution, after all, we are a revolutionary people, a revolutionary democracy. But what answer do we give to that? What revolution did we make? We overthrew Nicholas. The revolution was not so very difficult compared with one that would have overthrown the whole class of landowners and capitalists. Who did the revolution put in power? The landowners and capitalists the very same classes who have long been in power in Europe. Revolutions like this occurred there a hundred years ago. The Tereshchenkos, Milyukovs, and Konovalovs have been in power there for a long time, and it doesn’t matter a bit whether they have a civil list to pay their tsars or whether they do without this luxury. A bank remains a bank, whether capital is invested in concessions by the hundred or not; profits remain profits, be it in a republic or in a monarchy. If any savage country dares to disobey our civilised Capital, which sets up such splendid banks in the colonies, in Africa and Persia if any savage nation should disobey our civilised bank, we send troops out who restore culture, order, and civilisation, as Lyakhov did in Persia,[7] and the French “republican” troops did in Africa, where they exterminated peoples with equal ferocity. What difference does it make? We have here the same “revolutionary defencism”, displayed only by the unenlightened masses, who see no connection between war and the government, who do not know that this policy is sanctioned by treaties. The treaties have remained, the banks have remained, the concessions have remained. In Russia the best men of their class are in the government, but the nature of the war has not changed a bit because of this. The new “revolutionary defencism” uses the great concept of revolution merely as a cloak to cover up the dirty and bloody war waged for the sake of dirty and outrageous treaties.


The Russian revolution has not altered the war, but it has created organisations which exist in no other country and were seldom found in revolutions in the West. Most of the revolutions were confined to the emergence of governments of our Tereshchenko and Konovalov type, while the country remained passive and disorganised. The Russian revolution has gone further than that. In this we have the germ of hope that it may overcome the war. Besides the government of “near-socialist” ministers, the government of imperialist war, the government of offensive, a government tied up with Anglo-French capital besides this government and independent of it we have all over Russia a network of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies. Here is a revolution which has not said its last word yet. Here is a revolution which Western Europe, under similar conditions, has not known. Here are organisations of those classes which really have no need for annexations, which have not put millions in the banks, and which are probably not interested in whether the Russian Colonel Lyakhov and the British Liberal ambassador divided Persia properly or not. Here is the pledge of this revolution being carried further, i.e., that the classes which have no interest in annexations, and despite the fact that they put too much trust in the capitalist government, despite the appalling muddle and appalling deception contained in the very concept “revolutionary defencism”, despite the fact that they support the war loan, support the government of imperialist war despite all this have succeeded in creating organisations in which the mass of the oppressed classes are represented. These are the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies, which, in very many local areas in Russia, have gone much further than the Petrograd Soviet in their revolutionary work. It is only natural, because in Petrograd we have the central authority of the capitalists."



Engels disagreed with Slavic countries independence for two main reasons:

1- they would become Tsarist Russia’s puppets which were independent on paper but were servants of a reactionary empire in reality. Thus there was no real independence.

Just as Capitalist nations and anti-USSR or non-USSR revolutions would be acting in the interests of a reactionary CAPITALIST empire against a progressive SOCIALIST country.



2- at 1848 there were hopes for a democratic worker state which could unite Germans with Slavs. So any attempt to do something different was reactionary.

Just as throughout the existence of the USSR there were hopes for a world united under the USSR or with worker state, so any attempt to something different was reactionary.



But if a nation is able to free itself from foreign suppression and become independent without turning into a puppet, this is a historical progress and must be supported by communists.

Yeah, just like the republics under the USSR calling for independence and acting upon it. So progressive. Just like the Polish and hte Hungarians.



You are confusing state ownership with social ownership. Private profits, the exploitation of labor by private interests, etc. did in fact occur through a "state" framework. Two links in my signature go into detail on how capitalism was restored and offer evidence of said restoration, relying primarily on what the Soviet revisionists themselves were putting out.

I am not confusing anything with anything. Social ownership can take the form of state ownership and does in many cases do so. They cannot take place through a "state framework", they can openly take place if private property existed. If state ownership existed without private ownership then it was no longer private ownership and thus no longer Capitalism. Your ridiculous analysis does not even take into consideration the question of private hiring of labor, private profits, competing Capitalist markets, private accumulation of capital, and so on and so forth. You simply, somehow, derive that since the state owned the means of production then private property, private profit, competing markets, etc. existed and thus Capitalism and the bourgeoisie existed. Laughable. You can keep resorting to the No True Scotsman fallacies of your all you want, but this is the fact of the matter. There was no such thing as bourgeoisie nor Capitalism in the USSR. I do not really care about the links if you cannot from a few sentences arrive to the correct conclusion which Marxism is based upon. If the evil bad men known as the "revisionists" wanted to restore Capitalism, they would have done so on day one. There was no conspiracy, merely people sick of the Soviet Socialist system.



To quote one article (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv15/guhastal.htm):

What is the entire point of the quote and its relation to what was said?



There are two big differences here:

1. The Greek Communists had made a number of grave strategic mistakes, such as the Varkiza agreement. In private conversations Stalin said that the Greek Communists could not win, and that the time had come to cease expecting as such. And yet even when overt support ended, informal support continued through Albania (which was named the country most responsible for prolonging the KKE's struggle by the UN) and Bulgaria, while Yugoslavia soon ceased its support in exchange for US military aid and an ending of a dispute between it and the Greek Government over Macedonia.

Stalin said they could not win without even bothering to help them win. He left them to their own ends knowing fully and compeltely that he could have intervened and made them win, but it was this intervention that would have led to a Third World War had it taken place and a huge rift between the USSR and the Allies directly after the Second World War where the USSR was still attempting to rebuild itself and assert control over its new territory and countries. Overt support to Greece by the USSR? Like when? Informal support through Albania and Bulgaria acting on orders by the USSR? Show me because I'm interested.



2. Betraying Cuba was part of the overall interests of Soviet revisionism in betraying the revolution across the world in order to come to an accord with US imperialism.

Is that it? You do not have the slightest idea that continuing the shipping of those missiles would have led to the US striking the ships and led to a nuclear Third World War? It's just Soviet revisionism in your head? No. The USSR did not desire to end in a nuclear war, that is exactly why they took back the ships and "betrayed" the Cubans in the interests of the extension of the USSR.



Actually they didn't. Its "workers' control" was the worst sort of social-democratic demagogy. I assembled a large amount of quotes on the subject of Yugoslav revisionism here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2560845&postcount=33

I read it. I see no problem with it. It was a successful Socialist economy using market mechanisms that solved numerous problems existent in the USSR ranging from the fallacies of collective decision-making, inability to produce proper consumer goods, inability to produce quality goods, the lack of competition, the lack of workers' ownership of the means of production, and so on. The system was actually based on remuneration "according to contribution", wages were determined by the actual amount of work put in and contribution made. Call it Social-Democratic all you want, some of us honestly do not give a shit about blanket labels used by people on Revleft. I support a similar system to Tito's but with planning, direct remuneration according to contribution, artificial or real markets, ability by the workers to keep or sell the fruits of their labor, the creation of credits that cannot be excahnged between individuals, and so on.



The Popular Front did not entail the revising of any aspect of Marxism-Leninism.

Since when did Marx, Engels, and Lenin support the collaboration with Capitalists, reformists, Social-Democrats, Right Socialists, and so on by Communists? Lenin split with and opposed the Mensheviks, Social-Democrats, Right SRs, (later) Left SRs, Cadets, Socialist moderates, etc.



Pretending that wars aren't inevitable under capitalism did, and the only thing that appealed to was certain circles of US imperialism interested in collaboration with the USSR.

That was on the surface. The USSR kept pursuing its own interests whilst attempting to avoid direct confrontation with the Capitalist countries who had their proletariat alienated from the USSR and siding with their Capitalist nations due to the Cold War. This is another example of pragmatism over radical Utopianism.



Revisionism means depriving Marxism of its revolutionary content, often under the banner of "new conditions" arising in life. Lenin was a resolute foe of dogmatism while at the same time being a clear-cut opponent of the likes of Bernstein, Kautsky, and other revisionist renegades.

Revisionism is a bullshit term that makes absolutely no sense, especially after the practice of Socialism leads to the abandonment of theories which were proven not to work in reality in favor of pragmatism. Indeed like the abandonment of revolution in the name of opposing Fascism and Nazism? Or perhaps the abandonment of world revolution after its failure in the name of the interests of the USSR? Pragmatism and reality took over revolutionary idealism and Utopianism in the USSR AFTER the revolution was made in the USSR. No longer was it a question of theorizing for the future, but of actual implementation relative to the real issues arising in society that needed be addressed at the expense of theory. I do not need to remind you of Lenin and his abandonment of his revolutionary theoretical expectations made in "The State and Revolution" on the question of Socialism, the standing army, the withering away of the state, the retreat back to the NEP, states being defined based on the existence and domination of classes (USSR continued having a state without actually having any classes to suppress), etc.

[Nevsky]

Theophys, could you please stop calling other people "kid"? I do think that your long, at times well articulated - yet controversial - posts are a welcome addition to historical discussions like this but please drop that arrogant attitude. Every time you make use of that disgustingly complacent "kid"-line I have to hold back the urge to vomit.

[Theophys]

Theophys, could you please stop calling other people "kid"? I do think that your long, at times well articulated - yet controversial - posts are a welcome addition to historical discussions like this but please drop that arrogant attitude. Every time you make use of that disgustingly complacent "kid"-line I have to hold back the urge to vomit.

I do not believe the term "kid" is any better than the use of the terms "revisionist", "anti-revisionist", "anti-Marxist", "non-Marxist", "anti-Communist", "Trotskyists", "Stalinist", etc. when the other person is not so. "Kid" is merely the same, but at least it preserves the aforementioned labels rather than perverts them.

Nevertheless, there you go. Removed any instances of "kid" and won't use that term.

[Ismail]

Social ownership can take the form of state ownership and does in many cases do so.And yet you're arguing that state ownership is social ownership, by the sheer fact that in the USSR industry was nationalized.

As one work noted:


The central question concerns the nature of the system of production. The ownership of enterprises by individuals is a secondary question. If the latter were the central question then nationalisation of industries would in fact make them non-capitalist. The British coalmines, electricity industry, and railways are not owned by individuals. Shortly the greater part of the steel industry will not be owned by individuals. But the workers in these industries remain wage workers exploited by capital:


"...neither the conversion into joint stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. The modern state is only the organisation with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists... The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished; it is rather pushed to an extreme." (Engels: Anti-Duhring, p. 307)
If the evil bad men known as the "revisionists" wanted to restore Capitalism, they would have done so on day one. There was no conspiracy, merely people sick of the Soviet Socialist system.They did, in fact, seek to restore capitalism from day one. Literally the first few months after Stalin died his economic policies were being criticized (without mentioning him by name) and policies implemented which set in motion capitalist restoration. What they didn't do was arbitrarily destroy the great prestige of the USSR and CPSU, which they instead gradually pissed away through the ensuing decades through their invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan among other things.


What is the entire point of the quote and its relation to what was said?The point is that the introduction of nuclear weapons changed precisely nothing about imperialism or class struggle, contrary to the views of the Soviet revisionists.


Stalin said they could not win without even bothering to help them win.... except for the continued aid Albania and Bulgaria sent to the rebels, which was certainly done with the USSR's good graces, and except for the aid which the USSR funneled through these two states and Yugoslavia before drawing away from a conflict they considered unwinnable.


Overt support to Greece by the USSR? Like when? Informal support through Albania and Bulgaria acting on orders by the USSR? Show me because I'm interested."As early as November 1946, when Greek rebel bands began their attacks on the legitimate government of Athens, Albania was accused of giving them assistance. When some months later, General Markos took over command of the guerrillas, that country became one of their chief bases...

Even after the Tito-Cominform break, Albania continued to help the Greek rebels. On September 21, 1949, the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans advised the General Assembly to declare the government of Albania 'primarily responsible for the threat to peace in the Balkans' and call on Albania (and Bulgaria) to cease aiding the Greek guerrillas."
(Skendi, Stavro (ed). Albania. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1956. p. 28.)

"The Bulgarians were also openly supporting the guerrillas... they instituted 'voluntary' wage deductions (as high as 10 percent) that went into the Greek Aid Fund. Every month Bulgarians bought coupons inscribed 'for the aid of the Greek Democratic People.' The Bulgarian Red Cross donated medical and other supplies, and the following month it issued a special stamp 'for the aid of the Greek refugees.' On the day after New Year's, the National Committee of the Fatherland Front sought contributions for 'moral and political aid' as well as 'material assistance to the refugees from Greece.' A 'victory of the Greek people' was 'definitely in the interests of Bulgaria.'

A further complication was that Albania and Bulgaria accused the Greek government of violating their borders. From early January through mid-April 1948, the Albanian government lodged over a hundred complaints with the UN secretary-general...

The Yugoslavs, however, filed no protests against Greece, which suggested that their government was undergoing a change in policy brought by increasing trouble with Moscow."
(Jones, Howard. "A New Kind of War": America's Global Strategy and the Truman Doctrine in Greece. New York: Oxford University Press. 1989. pp. 125-126.)

The American ambassador to Yugoslavia in a secret dispatch on January 3, 1948:

"During call on Foreign Minister yesterday afternoon I was informed Marshal Tito would see me this morning...

Knowing that interview had been arranged for general informal talk and that theme Tito expected me to develop was improved trade relations, I started by brief discussion prewar and present trade (which I shall report in separate telegram) and managed transition to political field by frank statement that many of US products Yugoslav Government needs are in such short supply that exports naturally go to countries friendly to US, and that Yugoslav Government cannot expect credit, whether by US public agencies or commercial banks, so long as American public opinion finds Yugoslav Government invariably opposing US in all efforts for establishing peace and reconstruction.

This brought us to questions of Trieste and Greece....

On Greece Tito said the whole world knows how Yugoslav Government sees situation there. 'We have stated our position repeatedly, but we are not going to do anything dramatic or engage in any adventure.' ... I had noted reports that in Bulgaria and Albania the tone is more interventionist and bellicose and in view of recent series of pacts one could suppose this to be by agreed plan. He replied, 'Yes, I know that you Americans are worried about Communism thrusting out into other areas but do not forget Yugoslavia's chief national task is internal development and we need peace'."
(Foreign Relations of the United States: 1948 Volume IV. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. 1974. pp. 1054-1055.)


Since when did Marx, Engels, and Lenin support the collaboration with Capitalists, reformists, Social-Democrats, Right Socialists, and so on by Communists? Lenin split with and opposed the Mensheviks, Social-Democrats, Right SRs, (later) Left SRs, Cadets, Socialist moderates, etc.The whole concept of democratic revolutions, which both Marx and Engels spoke of, as did Lenin, made clear the leading role of the working-class in said movements and their uninterrupted move from the democratic stage to the socialist stage.

By every account I've come across, the PCE two years into the war was incomparably stronger than it had been on the eve of it. Both Soviet and PCE sources spoke for years afterward of how, if successful against the rebels, the Republic would have become the world's first People's Democracy.


Indeed like the abandonment of revolution in the name of opposing Fascism and Nazism?Strange how that same struggle resulted in the uprooting of the pro-fascist social and economic systems of Eastern Europe (including the only country there that had no Soviet troops on its soil, Albania.)


Revisionism is a bullshit term that makes absolutely no sense,Lenin, Luxemburg, Stalin, Trotsky, and even the Soviet revisionists themselves would disagree.

[hashem]

Every time you make use of that disgustingly complacent "kid"-line I have to hold back the urge to vomit.

a communist is more disgusted because of his political, economical and social positions and distortion of history than his childish behavior which only exposes him.

you found his posts "well articulated" and the only thing which you have to say about his ultra reactionary positions is "controversial".

[Nevsky]

a communist is more disgusted because of his political, economical and social positions and distortion of history than his childish behavior which only exposes him.

you found his posts "well articulated" and the only thing which you have to say about his ultra reactionary positions is "controversial".

I don't agree with his overall position but why shouldn't I admit the fact that he takes a lot of time for debating and raises a few solid points? A communist should be able to debate someone he doesn't like, not just point the finger and say "reactionary" (no offense to you, you actually debated him, was just saying that in general).

[Geiseric]

Marxist Leninist means Stalinist so yes he was a Marxist Leninist. He was not however a communist, objectively speaking. He had to protect the bureaucracies future property.

[Brutus]

I see no difference between Stalinist and capitalist, so yeah......

This is simply moronic.
Do you think that people like comrade Nevsky, Ismail, TheExAnarchist, etcetera want to see capitalism live on? Sure, we disagree with their theories such as SOIC, but to equate them with the bourgeoisie is completely stupid.

[Old Bolshie]

So I've never read anything about Khrushchev but I'm curious to know

Why does everybody hate him?

Not everybody hates him. Moderated Marxist-Leninists have high consideration for him.


Was he a Marxist/socialist?

He was a Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist.


Was he a capitalist?

No. He wanted to achieve socialism pretty much like any other Stalinist.


Was he against imperialism?

No. USSR's intervention in Hungary proved it. He fought USA imperialism because it favored USSR's own imperialistic interests.


What were the good things about him and what were the bad things about him?


It depends from each point of view. He clearly ended the brutality of Stalin's years, moderating the regime to an extent. However, he maintained the general lines of Stalin's path as the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution showed.

[Ismail]

However, he maintained the general lines of Stalin's path as the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution showed.It was Khrushchev who forced the "Stalinist" Rákosi to step down in favor of the forces of Imre Nagy, who had been a "victim" of "Stalinism." Hoxha recalled the months leading up to the "Revolution" when the counter-revolutionary forces were already preparing:

In the evening they put on a dinner for us in the Parliament Building, in a room where a big portrait of Attila hanging on the wall struck the eye. We talked again about the grave situation that was simmering in Hungary. But it seemed that they had lost their sense of direction. I said to them:

“Why are you acting like this? How can you sit idle in the face of this counter-revolution which is rising, why are you simply looking on and not taking measures?

“What measures could we take?” one of them asked.

“You should close the ‘Petöfi’ Club immediately, arrest the main trouble-makers, bring the armed working class out in the boulevards and encircle the Esztergom. If you can’t jail Mindszenty, what about Imre Nagy, can’t you arrest him? Have some of the leaders of these counter-revolutionaries shot to teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is.”

The Hungarian comrades opened their eyes wide with surprise as if they wanted to say to me: “Have you gone mad?” One of them told me:

“We cannot act as you suggest, Comrade Enver, because we do not consider the situation so alarming. We have the situation in hand. What they are shouting about at the ‘Petöfi’ Club is childish foolishness and if some members of the Central Committee went to congratulate Imre Nagy, they did this because they had long been comrades of his and not because they disagree with the Central Committee which expelled Imre from its ranks.”

“It seems to me you are taking the matter lightly,” I said. “You don’t appreciate the great danger hanging over you. Believe us, we know the Titoites well and know what they are after as the anti-communists and agents of imperialism they are.”

Mine was a voice in the wilderness. We ate that ill-omened dinner and during the conversation which lasted for several hours, the Hungarian comrades continued to pour into my ears that “they had the situation in hand” and other tales.

In the morning I boarded the aircraft and went to Moscow. I met Suslov in his office in the Kremlin...

Suslov began to speak in that reedy voice of his and in essence said:

“We cannot agree with your judgements over the Hungarian question. You are unnecessarily alarmed. The situation is not as you think. Perhaps you have insufficient information,” and Suslov talked on and on, trying to “calm” me and convince me that there was nothing alarming in the situation in Hungary. I was not in the least convinced by his “arguments”, and the events which occurred in the subsequent days confirmed that our observations and opinions about the grave situation in Hungary were completely correct.When Khrushchev was compelled to send in the tanks, at the same time he made sure to liquidate the old "Stalinist" party and replace it anew, with Kádár, another "victim" of "Stalinism" and former Nagy associate at the head.

[Theophys]

And yet you're arguing that state ownership is social ownership, by the sheer fact that in the USSR industry was nationalized.

As one work noted:
And this is why I hate the term "revisionism" because people do not realize that Lenin, Stalin, and so on were revisionists themselves on the question of the specifics of Socialism or otherwise.

Yes, I can very well argue that the USSR had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Capitalism, State Capitalism, or any of that nonsense and was by every means Socialist. Marx and Engels were arguing against nationalization solely whilst pertaining an entirely Capitalist system/framework. That was not the case in the USSR. The USSR did include wage-labor, but wage-labor can never be done away with unless we have the proper material conditions for an "according to need" system. Read the context of the quote:

" It is this counterpressure of the productive forces, in their mighty upgrowth, against their character as capital, this increasingly compulsive drive for the recognition of their social nature, which forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, as far as this is at all possible within the framework of capitalist relations. The period of industrial boom with its unlimited credit inflation no less than the crash itself operating through the collapse of large capitalist establishments, drives towards that form of the socialization of larger masses of means of production which we find in the various kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and communication are so colossal from the outset that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalist exploitation. At a certain stage of development this form, too, no longer suffices; [the large-scale producers in one and the same branch of industry in a country unite in a "trust", an association for the purpose of regulating production. They determine the total amount to be produced, parcel it out among themselves and thus enforce the selling price fixed beforehand. Since such trusts usually go to pieces as soon as business becomes bad, for this very reason they push towards a still more concentrated socialization. The whole branch of industry is converted into one big joint-stock company, and internal competition gives place to the internal monopoly of this one company; this happened as early as 1890 with English alkali production, which, after the fusion of all the forty-eight large works, is now carried on by a single company, under centralized direction, with a capital of £6 million.

In the trusts, free competition changes into monopoly and the planless production of capitalist society capitulates before the planned production of the invading socialist society. Of course, this is initially still to the benefit of the capitalists. But the exploitation becomes so palpable here that it must break down. No nation would put up with production directed by trusts, with such a barefaced exploitation of the community by a small band of coupon-clippers.

In one way or another, with trusts or without,] the state, the official representative of capitalist society, is [finally] constrained to take over the direction of production.* This necessity for conversion into state property first appears in the big communication organizations: the postal service, telegraphs and railways.
If the crises revealed the bourgeoisie's incapacity to continue to administer the modern productive forces, the conversion of the large production and communication establishments into joint-stock companies [,trusts] and state property shows that the bourgeoisie can be dispensed with for this purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist are now conducted by salaried employees. The capitalist no longer has any social activity save the pocketing of revenues, the clipping of coupons and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists fleece each other of their capital. Just as at first the capitalist mode of production displaced the workers, so now it is displacing the capitalists, relegating them, just as it did the workers, to the superfluous population, although not immediately to the industrial reserve army.

But neither conversion into joint-stock companies [and trusts] nor conversion into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. This is obvious in the case of joint-stock companies [and trusts]. But the modern state, too, is only the organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal aggregate capitalist. The more productive forces it takes over into its possession, the more it becomes a real aggregate capitalist, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-workers, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished, rather it is pushed to the limit. But at this limit it changes into its opposite. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the handle to the solution."

As can be seen, Engels was referring to nationalization in a CAPITALIST FRAMEWORK, not a Socialist one, not one based on and controlled by Soviets, not one that acts in opposition to Capitalism, not one that does not have any bourgeoisie, not one that has ownership of the means of production by a few monarchists in the state with a set of bourgeoisie still receiving revenue from them, not one that has no competitive Capitalist markets, not one that has no slight hint of private profits, not one that has no ownership of the means of production except social ownership of it undertaken by the state on behalf of the proletariat rather than on behalf of the bourgeoisie and in the interests of extending the life of Capitalism, etc. It was not longer a BOURGEOIS state, a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, but a PROLETARIAN state, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and as such Engels' claims do not apply here. When Engels gave the examples of the nationalizations of Napoleon, Bismarck, the Belgians, etc. he was referring to nationalization not in the interests of the proletariat, not following a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but in the interests of the monarchists, the militaristic imperialist machines, in the interests of exploiting workers and reaping as much surplus value as possible, and so on. In fact, here's the footnote on this question by Engels:

" * I say is constrained to. For it is only when the means of production or communication have actually outgrown direction by joint-stock companies and therefore their nationalization has become economically inevitable -- it is only then that this nationalization, even when carried out by the state of today, represents an economic advance, the attainment of another preliminary step towards the seizure of all the productive forces by society itself. But since Bismarck became keen on nationalizing, a certain spurious socialism has recently made its appearance -- here and there even degenerating into a kind of Qunkeyism -- which without more ado declares all nationalization, even the Bismarckian kind, to be socialistic. To be sure, if the nationalization of the tobacco trade were socialistic, Napoleon and Metternich would rank among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, constructed its own main railway lines, if Bismarck, without any economic compulsion, nationalized the main Prussian railway lines simply in order to be better able to organize and use them in face of war, in order to train the railway officials as the government's voting cattle, and especially in order to secure a new source of revenue independent of parliamentary votes, such actions were in no sense socialistic measures, whether direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal Porcelain Manufacture, and even the regimental tailors in the army would be socialist institutions [or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in the thirties during the reign of Frederick William III, the nationalization of the -- brothels]. [Note by Engels.]"

As can be seen from the full context, Engels was referring to a non-Socialist society where nationalization takes place. Note when he says "actually outgrown direction by joint-stock companies" that nationalization becomes economically inevitable. This means that UNDER CAPITALISM, nationalization to extend the life of Capitalism is not Socialistic. Nationalization for the sake of a militaristic complex is not Socialism. When PART of society is nationalized then it is not Socialism. It is only when "the seizure of all the productive forces by society itself" takes place that society becomes Socialist. This "seizure of all the productive forces by society itself" CAN and DID take the form of a PROLETARIAN STATE, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, under the direct legislative control of the Soviets and their delegates. The USSR seized all the productive forces by society itself and assigned executive and legislative committees to merely manage those productive forces FOR SOCIETY, not for anyone else, be it Bismarck or Napoleon. We can see this to be the case when Engels says "even when carried out by the state of today" to show which context he is speaking from. We can further see this when he speaks of nationalization "without any economic compulsion [...] simply in order to be better able to organize and use them in FACE OF WAR, in order to train the railway officials as the GOVERNMENT'S VOTING CATTLE, and especially in order to secure a new source of revenue INDEPENDENT OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTES" and thus he says that "such actions were in no sense socialistic measures". He is not referring to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat turning the state into a proletarian state rather than a bourgeois state, there was no bourgeois democracy in the USSR, the state was nothing more than an EXTENSION for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it was acting for and in the class interests of the proletariat. The ownership of the means of production in this sense becomes nothing more than the social ownership of the means of production with the state acting on BEHALF and in the INTERESTS of the proletariat by suppressing its enemies during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and then industrializing, managing, and planning society FOR them until they are capable of managing it on their own. This cannot by any means be witnessed in the case of Bismarck, the Belgian state, Napoleon, Metternich, and so on. Now couple this with the abolishment of the bourgeoisie, the empowerment of the proletariat, the lack of any private profits, the lack of any private property, the lack of any owners of the means of production except society itself, the lack of competitive markets, etc. and you will see the difference as clear as the light of day. Bismarck, the Belgian state, Napoleon, etc. had no interests in the proletariat, the socialization of the means of production, the development of Socialism, etc. when they nationalized their economies or parts of them in order to extend their empires or prevent collapse.

In fact when it comes to the set of quotes you presented:
"...neither the conversion into joint stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. The modern state is only the organisation with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists... The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished; it is rather pushed to an extreme." (Engels: Anti-Duhring, p. 307)

Engels here is referring to the MODERN STATE, i.e. the BOURGEOIS STATE, where any attempts at the forming of joint-stock companies or turning towards state property whilst keeping in place the bourgeois state and the Capitalist productive forces would still not be Socialist. That is not the case of the USSR. Engels further goes on to explain that the MODERN STATE, which is the "organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists". This was obviously not at all the case of the USSR. There was no bourgeois society, the bourgeoisie were abolished, bourgeois ideals were banned, and there was no bourgeois economy, everything was in the name of the proletariat. The "general external conditions of hte capitalist mode of production" WERE NOT maintained, instead they were replaced by a SOCIALIST mode of production.

The definition of a Capitalist mode of production is as follows:
"A "mode of production" (in German: Produktionsweise) means simply "the distinctive way of producing," which could be defined in terms of how it is socially organized and what kinds of technologies and tools are used. Under the capitalist mode of production:
- Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
- Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
- The owners of the means of production (capitalists) are the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive their income from the surplus product produced by the workers and appropriated freely by the capitalists.
- A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class (proletariat) do not own capital and must live by selling their labour power in exchange for a wage."

Thus a Capitalist mode of production did not exist in the USSR.

Nevertheless, following your own argument, the USSR was never Socialist, not even under Stalin nor was Hoxha's Albania.


They did, in fact, seek to restore capitalism from day one. Literally the first few months after Stalin died his economic policies were being criticized (without mentioning him by name) and policies implemented which set in motion capitalist restoration. What they didn't do was arbitrarily destroy the great prestige of the USSR and CPSU, which they instead gradually pissed away through the ensuing decades through their invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan among other things.
No, not really. If they wanted to restore Capitalism "from day one", they would have instantly dismantled the USSR or let it die. What happened was that they attempted to reform the Stalinist policies which were too harsh in favor of a more open, free, and liberal Socialism that could actually develop towards communism. Stalin's economic policies needed to be criticized. It is completely absurd and ridiculous to claim that the post-Stalin Soviet leadership actually wanted to "restore capitalism", the only thing they wanted to restore was common sense and a proper view of Socialism as they saw it. They wanted to do away with the harsh and "oppressive" actions and policies of Stalin's in favor of more socially-oriented policies that would make Soviet Socialism more appealing to the world and its own citizens. They saw the severity of what happened under Stalin, they reacted in an attempt to change that and reform it, but NOT TO RESTORE CAPITALISM as you and other "anti-revisionists" claim. That is ridiculous. Capitalist restoration was only set in motion after it was too late to reform the USSR. Gorbachev was solely responsible for this by putting in change too fast and too haphazardly at so late a time.

From "The Red Flag: A History of Communism":

Gorbachev was inadvertently destroying the ideological foundations of the Soviet system, and opinion changed very rapidly between 1987 and 1991. More became hostile to the party and positive towards the West. This even happened in Soviet satellites, where people had had a good knowledge of the West for some time; in Hungary, the number of those believing that ‘opportunities for educational and cultural growth’ were fully realized in the West leapt from 22.8 per cent in 1985 to 51.1 per cent in 1989.76 Even so, this is not to say that a majority of Soviet bloc citizens wanted a Western-style market economy. When asked what should be done to escape from the increasingly serious economic crisis, only 18 per cent of Soviet citizens wanted more private enterprise; 50 per cent wanted more discipline and order.77 Similarly, in 1989 73 per cent of Czechoslovaks opposed the privatization of industry and 83 per cent were hostile to the end of collective farms.78

The real beneficiary of the ideological crisis was nationalism and some of the earliest signs of political collapse came in the Baltic States, where nationalist hostility to Soviet rule had been widespread for some time. Popular Fronts in Support of Perestroika, created by the KGB to channel democracy in approved directions, soon escaped central control. Demonstrators began demanding complete independence, calling for a return to private property and the end of the Soviet system.

Gorbachev was soon faced with chaos. By attacking the old political system and ideology, he was cutting the sinews of power before an alternative power structure had been built. Much the same was true of the economy: the power of the state was undermined, before the ground had been prepared for the market to replace it. Gorbachev was faced with two coherent alternatives. There was the Chinese model, which assumed a gradual move to the market, led by a powerful party and reliant on continuing repression of dissent; or there was a neo-liberal ‘shock therapy’, counselled by many Western economists and the IMF. Understandably, Gorbachev resolutely set his face against the former: it contradicted his plans for political democracy, and, he believed, would only entrench the power of the bureaucrats he hated so much. However, Gorbachev also rejected shock therapy – equally predictably. It would have destroyed the economic bureaucracy at a stroke, and replaced it with markets, privatization and tough anti-inflation measures. Yet the result would also have been wild price swings, deep recession and mass unemployment. Even had this been a good idea, Gorbachev would never have pursued it because he was determined to have democracy and markets at the same time, whilst retaining his own power. The introduction of the market would inevitably have hurt many people, and democracy would have given the millions of ‘losers’ a powerful weapon against the government. Gorbachev himself responded to popular pressure by cushioning living standards with borrowing from the West. The consequence was ballooning foreign debt.

In place of neo-liberal shock therapy and Chinese-style state-led reform, Gorbachev settled on a deeply flawed compromise. The attack on the bureaucracy destroyed the old system that delivered supplies from one factory to another, whilst enterprise directors were given new autonomy: they were now free of any pressure – market or political – to produce efficiently and cheaply. Inevitably prices rose, shelves emptied and queues lengthened. Whilst the peace-maker ‘Gorby’ was being hailed in the West, his popularity at home plummeted.
Some at the time urged that Gorbachev copy the more statist Chinese model, and the debate over alternative paths continues.79 Chinese conditions were certainly very different from Russia’s. In the Soviet Union, agriculture had been more damaged by collectivization, and the old industrial apparatchiks were much more powerful and able to block economic reforms. Nevertheless, some argue that had the right incentives been put in place, some version of Deng’s Four Modernizations might have produced a better economic result.

It is perhaps pointless to speculate about possible alternatives. Given the democratic, anti-bureaucratic worldview of Gorbachev and the reformers, and the liberal intellectual environment in the West, the Chinese model had little chance. And even had a version of the Chinese model secured an improved economic result, it would have been at the expense of political freedom, and probably world peace. The Communists would have remained in power, and an old guard would have been more likely to resist the retreats of 1989 in Eastern Europe.

However, the course Gorbachev chose, whatever its political advantages, had a damaging economic outcome: the effective collapse of the state and the ‘theft’ of the economy by managers and officials. When, in 1989, the dithering Gorbachev eventually did appoint the liberal Nikolai Petrakov as his economic adviser, and made it clear the following year that privatization was on the cards, they began to ‘self-privatize’, selling off equipment and pocketing the proceeds. Meanwhile party bosses and state officials took advantage of Gorbachev’s attack on the central hierarchy and took the assets of the organizations they worked for. The bureaucrats were ‘stealing the state’.80 This semi-legal larceny was the source of the wealth of many of the ‘oligarchs’ of the 1990s. Gorbachev, intent on destroying the ‘bureaucrats’, had actually helped many of them to enrich themselves, and his idealism had set in train the decade of political and economic collapse that beset Russia after Communism, in turn fueling the anti-liberal reaction that followed it under President Vladimir Putin.

From the autumn of 1989 onwards, therefore, the effects of Gorbachev’s creeping revolution against the Communist Party were becoming clear: the various spheres of Soviet power were collapsing. And it was no surprise that the first to go was the weakest link in the chain: Eastern Europe.

If you want to blame anyone, blame Gorbachev, but not for being a demented Capitalist but for faulty implementation of his policies, much like Stalin's faulty implementation of collectivization.


The point is that the introduction of nuclear weapons changed precisely nothing about imperialism or class struggle, contrary to the views of the Soviet revisionists.
They did not change anything about imperialism or the class struggle, but they did change the international situation along with the Cold War. To pursue the sending of the missiles to Cuba would have been nothing more than suicide for the entire world. Against conventional armies, one is much more capable to resist, but against two world superpowers armed with nuclear bombs with one having ALREADY used them TWICE on a country then that is another thing. You would be exterminating entire millions of humans, including proletarians during the war. Imperialism hasn't changed nor has the class struggle but new threats rose and new conditions took place. The USSR did not want to go to war with the US nor vice versa, unless of course your idea of a revolution, anti-imperialism, or promotion of the class struggle is a US-USSR nuclear war.


... except for the continued aid Albania and Bulgaria sent to the rebels, which was certainly done with the USSR's good graces, and except for the aid which the USSR funneled through these two states and Yugoslavia before drawing away from a conflict they considered unwinnable.
The USSR withdrew from direct aid to Greece because of conflicts with Yugoslavia, Stalin not desiring a conflict with the Allies after they left on good terms by trying to start a Communist revolution in a country partitioned to the Allies, and as an extension of his promise on not fomenting revolutions and the dissolution of the Comintern as a result. Now, Albania and Bulgaria has nothing to do with the USSR publicly or directly offering support. The USSR was not sending aid to the Greek through Albania and Bulgaria AFTER they gave up on it. In fact, I never recall the USSR even supporting the Greeks. The USSR had its own interest and the interest of post-war peace and building up relations (talk about Khrushchev being the "peaceful coexistence" revisionist) with the West/Allies. The Greek Civil War would have by every means winnable had the USSR actualyl bothered to not only send in material supoprt but also to have sent militaristic aid, but why did they not do so? Purely and solely because they did not want to ignite a war or bruise relations with the Allies whilst still attempting to rebuild after the war, as I have already explained.


"As early as November 1946, when Greek rebel bands began their attacks on the legitimate government of Athens, Albania was accused of giving them assistance. When some months later, General Markos took over command of the guerrillas, that country became one of their chief bases...
Albania =/= USSR.


Even after the Tito-Cominform break, Albania continued to help the Greek rebels. On September 21, 1949, the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans advised the General Assembly to declare the government of Albania 'primarily responsible for the threat to peace in the Balkans' and call on Albania (and Bulgaria) to cease aiding the Greek guerrillas."
(Skendi, Stavro (ed). Albania. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1956. p. 28.)
Albania =/= USSR.


"The Bulgarians were also openly supporting the guerrillas... they instituted 'voluntary' wage deductions (as high as 10 percent) that went into the Greek Aid Fund. Every month Bulgarians bought coupons inscribed 'for the aid of the Greek Democratic People.' The Bulgarian Red Cross donated medical and other supplies, and the following month it issued a special stamp 'for the aid of the Greek refugees.' On the day after New Year's, the National Committee of the Fatherland Front sought contributions for 'moral and political aid' as well as 'material assistance to the refugees from Greece.' A 'victory of the Greek people' was 'definitely in the interests of Bulgaria.'
Bulgaria =/= USSR.


A further complication was that Albania and Bulgaria accused the Greek government of violating their borders. From early January through mid-April 1948, the Albanian government lodged over a hundred complaints with the UN secretary-general...
Albania + Bulgaria =/= USSR.


The Yugoslavs, however, filed no protests against Greece, which suggested that their government was undergoing a change in policy brought by increasing trouble with Moscow."
(Jones, Howard. "A New Kind of War": America's Global Strategy and the Truman Doctrine in Greece. New York: Oxford University Press. 1989. pp. 125-126.)
You think the only support that was of note was filing protests against Greece? Are you kidding me? No.


The American ambassador to Yugoslavia in a secret dispatch on January 3, 1948:

"During call on Foreign Minister yesterday afternoon I was informed Marshal Tito would see me this morning...

Knowing that interview had been arranged for general informal talk and that theme Tito expected me to develop was improved trade relations, I started by brief discussion prewar and present trade (which I shall report in separate telegram) and managed transition to political field by frank statement that many of US products Yugoslav Government needs are in such short supply that exports naturally go to countries friendly to US, and that Yugoslav Government cannot expect credit, whether by US public agencies or commercial banks, so long as American public opinion finds Yugoslav Government invariably opposing US in all efforts for establishing peace and reconstruction.
No issue here.


This brought us to questions of Trieste and Greece....

On Greece Tito said the whole world knows how Yugoslav Government sees situation there. 'We have stated our position repeatedly, but we are not going to do anything dramatic or engage in any adventure.' ... I had noted reports that in Bulgaria and Albania the tone is more interventionist and bellicose and in view of recent series of pacts one could suppose this to be by agreed plan. He replied, 'Yes, I know that you Americans are worried about Communism thrusting out into other areas but do not forget Yugoslavia's chief national task is internal development and we need peace'."
(Foreign Relations of the United States: 1948 Volume IV. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. 1974. pp. 1054-1055.)
And you honestly believed what Tito said to an American politician in an attempt to broker a trade agreement? If you honestly do not understand politics and diplomacy then I do not wonder why you presented this as proof of anything. Yugoslavia, in order to create a trade agreement with the West would NOT publicly inform them that they are funding Communists to overthrow the Allies' interests in Greece. But of course you seem to think that Tito would expose every secret and actual position to everyone publicly.


The whole concept of democratic revolutions, which both Marx and Engels spoke of, as did Lenin, made clear the leading role of the working-class in said movements and their uninterrupted move from the democratic stage to the socialist stage.

By every account I've come across, the PCE two years into the war was incomparably stronger than it had been on the eve of it. Both Soviet and PCE sources spoke for years afterward of how, if successful against the rebels, the Republic would have become the world's first People's Democracy.
Do show me that:

1) All Popular Fronts had to be led by the working class
2) All Popular Fronts had to be led by the representatives/movements of or by the working class
3) All Popular Fronts were moving towards Socialism and wanted to move towards Socialism
4) Show me where Marx, Engels, and Lenin spoke of collaborating and allying with bourgeois and non-working class and non-Communist parties in bourgeois parliamentary democracy.

Until you do so, remember that they were not led by the working class, were not led by parties representing the working class, did not all want to move towards Socialism but merely oppose Nazism/Fascism, etc.


Strange how that same struggle resulted in the uprooting of the pro-fascist social and economic systems of Eastern Europe (including the only country there that had no Soviet troops on its soil, Albania.)
As I had said, the revolutions were abandoned. Eastern Europe was not turned towards Communism by revolutions but by forceful assimilation by the progressive USSR against the reaction of Fascism and Capitalism. Whether that turned out for the best or worst is debatable, the point is that revolutions were abandoned in favor of fighting Fascism and Nazism. The point was not whther or not they eventually led to Albania and Yugoslavia, but whether or not revolutionary POLICY was replaced with REFORMIST policy that based itself on cooperation, collaboration, and political alliances with bourgeois, non-Communist, and non-working class movements.

Here's what you said:
"Revisionism means depriving Marxism of its revolutionary content, often under the banner of "new conditions" arising in life. Lenin was a resolute foe of dogmatism while at the same time being a clear-cut opponent of the likes of Bernstein, Kautsky, and other revisionist renegades."

Thus forming popular fronts and by any means delaying, sidelining, or completely doing away with the concept of revolution, as was the case with the popular fronts, "for the time being" due to "new conditions arising in life" (Fascism and Nazism) is thus revisionism by your OWN argument. Good job arguing against yourself.


Lenin, Luxemburg, Stalin, Trotsky, and even the Soviet revisionists themselves would disagree.
All of whom used numerous blanket terms that were not actually descriptive of the target but merely used as insults. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin are the most to be blamed to this when they used blanket terms to refer to their opponents. I do not know about Luxemburg, never was interested in her works.

[Ismail]

And this is why I hate the term "revisionism" because people do not realize that Lenin, Stalin, and so on were revisionists themselves on the question of the specifics of Socialism or otherwise.Neither Lenin, Stalin or "so on" were counter-revolutionaries or renegades from Marxism. The fact is that Soviet ideology lost its revolutionary character after the death of Stalin. How can you argue otherwise when it encouraged reformism in places like Chile with disastrous results, claimed that any pro-Soviet regime in the third world was pursuing "non-capitalist development" with no proletarian role in this process, etc.?


As can be seen, Engels was referring to nationalization in a CAPITALIST FRAMEWORK, not a Socialist one...The point is that state ownership does not equal socialism, which you were claiming earlier.


No, not really. If they wanted to restore Capitalism "from day one", they would have instantly dismantled the USSR or let it die.Why would that do that when the USSR was the main rival of US imperialism and could quite easily turn into a social-imperialist superpower (as it did under the revisionists) using a "Marxist" demagogy to deceive the world's peoples? Had the Soviet revisionists sought to dismantle the USSR from day one they'd be overthrown. Khrushchev had to threaten a military coup against the "Anti-Party Group" of Molotov, Kaganovich, etc. in 1958 to hold onto power. Soviet society and economy had to become thoroughly stagnant to justify privatization and other measures.

Case in point: Deng found it relatively easy to pursue mass privatization in China due to the disastrous policies of Mao which easily discredited socialism there.


What happened was that they attempted to reform the Stalinist policies which were too harsh in favor of a more open, free, and liberal Socialism that could actually develop towards communism.Making profit the criterion of successful management of industry was apparently just one of these "open, free, and liberal" measures.


If you want to blame anyone, blame Gorbachev, but not for being a demented Capitalist but for faulty implementation of his policies, much like Stalin's faulty implementation of collectivization.Stalin's policies on collectivization were effectively reversed after his death: he was declared to have "not trusted" the peasantry (the same charge was made by the Chinese revisionists led by Mao himself.) The subsequent right-wing economic measures in agriculture, notably the abolition of the machine-tractor stations, hindered Soviet agriculture.

On these policies see: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/luari.htm


You would be exterminating entire millions of humans, including proletarians during the war. Imperialism hasn't changed nor has the class struggle but new threats rose and new conditions took place. The USSR did not want to go to war with the US nor vice versa, unless of course your idea of a revolution, anti-imperialism, or promotion of the class struggle is a US-USSR nuclear war.As Hoxha said in 1960:

Let us look facts straight in the eye. World imperialism headed by its aggressive detachment, U.S. imperialism, is directing the course of its economy towards preparations for war... is accumulating stocks of nuclear weapons and refuses to disarm, to stop testing nuclear weapons, and is feverishly engaged in inventing new means of mass extermination. Why is it doing all this? To go to a wedding party? No, to go to war against us, to do away with socialism and communism, to put the peoples under bondage.

The Party of Labor of Albania is of the opinion that if we say and think otherwise we will be deceiving ourselves and others. We would not be called communists if we were afraid of the vicissitudes of life. We, communists, detest war. We, communists, will fight to the end to smash the diabolic and warmongering schemes the U.S. imperialists are up to, but if they launch a war, we should deal them a mortal blow that will wipe imperialism from the face of the earth once and for all.

Faced with the nuclear blackmail of the U.S.-led world imperialists, we should be fully prepared economically, politically, morally as well as militarily to cope with any eventuality.And as Molotov said in 1976: "The fact that atomic war may break out, isn't that class struggle? There is no alternative to class struggle. This is a very serious question. The be-all and end-all is not peaceful coexistence. After all, we have been holding on for some time, and under Stalin we held on to the point where the imperialists felt able to demand point-blank: either surrender such and such positions, or it means war. So far the imperialists haven't renounced that."


Do show me that:

1) All Popular Fronts had to be led by the working classThat was certainly the assumption. The speeches of José Díaz in Spain, for instance, stressed that the most important element of the Popular Front was the leading role of the working-class. Likewise after WWII the Popular Fronts in Eastern Europe were led by the communist parties, although they differed in character from those in Spain and France.


3) All Popular Fronts were moving towards Socialism and wanted to move towards SocialismFrom the 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

Popular Front

a form of organization of the broad popular masses (the working class, the peasantry, the urban middle strata, and the progressive intelligentsia), which evolved in a number of countries to unify the masses in the struggle against fascism and war and for democracy, social progress, and national independence and to defend the fundamental economic interests of the working people. The foundation of the popular front is a united workers’ front. The principles for its establishment, which were developed by V. I. Lenin, were formulated in a number of decisions of the Communist International. The task of establishing popular fronts acquired paramount importance during the first half of the 1930’s, in conjunction with a number of factors, including the offensive by capital at that time, the seizure of power by the fascists in Germany (1933), and the consolidation of the fascist dictatorship in Italy. Other factors necessitating the establishment of popular fronts were the growing strength and activity of fascism in France, Spain, and a number of other countries and the rising threat of war...

A comprehensive substantiation and deep analysis of popular front tactics, which for many years determined the line of the communist movement, were provided at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern (1935) in a report by G. Dimitrov (“The Offensive of Fascism and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle for Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism”). This report constituted the basis for decisions made by the congress, which pointed out that the establishment of popular fronts to unify the working class with all the nonproletarian strata interested in fighting against fascism and war might result in the formation of popular front governments. Moreover, the congress observed that under new conditions the popular front, as a most important means of struggle for peace and democracy, prepares the preconditions for the advance to socialism. For colonial and dependent countries the congress proposed the idea of creating a unified anti-imperialist front that would unite all forces capable of waging a struggle against colonial oppression.
4) Show me where Marx, Engels, and Lenin spoke of collaborating and allying with bourgeois and non-working class and non-Communist parties in bourgeois parliamentary democracy.On Lenin, a number of his Comintern works speak of the role of the role of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution in colonial countries. Also, as he noted in one work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm):

The working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. That is why a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for Socialism.Marx and Engels likewise spoke of democratic revolutions. Where else do you think Trotsky got his "revolution in permanence" concept (which he bastardized) from?


Thus forming popular fronts and by any means delaying, sidelining, or completely doing away with the concept of revolution, as was the case with the popular fronts, "for the time being" due to "new conditions arising in life" (Fascism and Nazism) is thus revisionism by your OWN argument. Good job arguing against yourself.Except the Popular Front government in Spain carried out bourgeois-democratic reforms with the essential support of the working-class, brought the majority of industry into the hands of the workers, etc. The Popular Fronts in Eastern Europe obviously did even more than this. Again, various sources note that had the Republic won it almost certainly would have become an early People's Democracy.

[Old Bolshie]

It was Khrushchev who forced the "Stalinist" Rákosi to step down in favor of the forces of Imre Nagy, who had been a "victim" of "Stalinism." Hoxha recalled the months leading up to the "Revolution" when the counter-revolutionary forces were already preparing:

And yet Imre Nagy himself was executed under Khrushchev orders and the Hungarian revolution was crushed by the soviets.



When Khrushchev was compelled to send in the tanks, at the same time he made sure to liquidate the old "Stalinist" party and replace it anew, with Kádár, another "victim" of "Stalinism" and former Nagy associate at the head.

And what was the difference between Rákosi and Kádár? The same between Stalin and Khrushchev: nothing substantial, only in words. The general lines were preserved despite the moderation of the regime that both Kádár and Khrushchev brought.

[Ismail]

And yet Imre Nagy himself was executed under Khrushchev ordersWell yeah, the problem in Khrushchev's eyes wasn't that Nagy was the right to him, but that he was moving towards US imperialism whereas Togliatti and Gomułka remained loyal to Soviet revisionism. It's little different to how Brezhnev showered Dubček with praise until the latter presided over redirecting Czechoslovakia from the sphere of Soviet social-imperialism to American imperialism.


and the Hungarian revolution was crushed by the soviets.You mean Hungarian counter-revolution caused by those influenced by the Titoites, dispossessed classes, nationalists, etc. Kádár remained in power afterwards precisely because he made concessions to these forces without severing Hungary from the Warsaw Treaty and Comecon.

A good read on the subject of the counter-revolution: http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/the-truth-about-hungary.pdf

[Questionable]

If you can’t jail Mindszenty, what about Imre Nagy, can’t you arrest him? Have some of the leaders of these counter-revolutionaries shot to teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is.

That Hoxha sure had a way with being blunt.

[Bostana]

This is simply moronic.
Do you think that people like comrade Nevsky, Ismail, TheExAnarchist, etcetera want to see capitalism live on? Sure, we disagree with their theories such as SOIC, but to equate them with the bourgeoisie is completely stupid.

So you're telling me stalinism (such as they have in China, Soviet Union, etc, etc.) wasn't capitalist?
I never equated anybody to bourgeois, but I did equate Stalinism to capitalism which supports the bourgeoisie, yes. (As we saw in the Soviet Union)

You equated Stalinists to being pro-capitalists. And I regarded Stalinism, the stalinism set up by Stalin when he took ontrol of soviet Russia, as capitalist. Of course Ismail doesn't want to see capitalism live on, but in a way you contradict yourself (if you're stalinst) by bring anti-capitalist, yet being sympathic to what stalin set up in soviet Russia during his time.

[Brutus]

So you're telling me stalinism (such as they have in China, Soviet Union, etc, etc.) wasn't capitalist?
I never equated anybody to bourgeois, but I did equate Stalinism to capitalism which supports the bourgeoisie, yes. (As we saw in the Soviet Union)

You equated Stalinists to being pro-capitalists. And I regarded Stalinism, the stalinism set up by Stalin when he took ontrol of soviet Russia, as capitalist. Of course Ismail doesn't want to see capitalism live on, but in a way you contradict yourself (if you're stalinst) by bring anti-capitalist, yet being sympathic to what stalin set up in soviet Russia during his time.

You equated stalinists to capitalists.
1) I am not Stalinist
2) Lenin's Russia was capitalist, are all leninists pro capitalist- I'm sympathetic to Lenin's Russia?

[REV3R]

I've not read much on him but i know for a fact that he wanted to help support Fidel Castro on his way to making a socialist Cuba and was against American intervention in Cuba, and imperialism.
And then he betrayed Castro and Cuba by going behind their back and making a deal with the US without telling Castro....

[Ismail]

And then he betrayed Castro and Cuba by going behind their back and making a deal with the US without telling Castro....Don't forget that the Soviets turned Cuba into their neo-colony as well.

[Bostana]

You equated stalinists to capitalists.
I equated Stalinism to being supportive of capitalism in it's own special way. Like what Stalin did, he claimed to be anti-capitalist yet he was really a capitalist himself and was fond of bourgeoisie, as long as he was among them


1) I am not Stalinist
I know comrade, neither am I;)


2) Lenin's Russia was capitalist, are all leninists pro capitalist- I'm sympathetic to Lenin's Russia?

Good point. But Lenin was trying to put an end to capitalism, while Stalin, as I said above, was fond of it, and maintained it instead of trying to put an end to it.

[Brutus]

If we read memoirs and letter between Stalin and his comrades we can see that they thought they were doing the correct (socialist) thing, though.

[Bostana]

If we read memoirs and letter between Stalin and his comrades we can see that they thought they were doing the correct (socialist) thing, though.

Who exactly were his comrades, though? Other leaders he was trying to fool into believing that he was a die-hard Marxists? Or leaders of Stalinist parties in another part of the globe who believed in him like he were some sort of god?

[Brutus]

Molotov, kaganovich, etcetera

[Old Bolshie]

You mean Hungarian counter-revolution caused by those influenced by the Titoites, dispossessed classes, nationalists, etc.

Even if it was the case of the Hungarian Revolution being influenced by Titoites that still wouldn't legitimize the soviet intervention.


Kádár remained in power afterwards precisely because he made concessions to these forces without severing Hungary from the Warsaw Treaty and Comecon.


Kádár remained in power because he showed to be a loyal servant of Moscow when he delivered to them the head of Imre Nagy on a silver platter. Shortly before his dead, Kádár confessed his involvement in Nagy's execution calling it his "own personal tragedy".

[Ismail]

Who exactly were his comrades, though? Other leaders he was trying to fool into believing that he was a die-hard Marxists?Molotov's recollections of Stalin were done in the 70's and 80's. Kaganovich's were done in the late 80's up to his death in 1991. Not even Khrushchev's memoirs claimed Stalin wasn't a Marxist on some level. By practically every Soviet account Stalin really did believe what he was doing. This is supported by Western archival materials as well. For example:

"It appears that already in the early 1930s Stalin was convinced that the oppositional leaders, who had given up their resistance against him, were involved in a widely ramified imperialist conspiracy. Starting in the summer of 1930, a number of prominent specialists in various state institutions – N.D. Kondrat'ev, Leonid Ramzin and others – were arrested on charges of sabotaging Russian finance, industry and agriculture on the orders of emigrant Russian capitalists and Western European governments, who were preparing an invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin's correspondence suggests that he believed in the accusations....

And he directly linked the old oppositionists in the party to these cases. He wrote to Molotov that former leftist leader Piatakov was inspired by the plotters. He did not doubt that there existed a 'Rykov–Piatakov bloc,' allied with the 'Kondrat'ev–defeatist tendencies.'

And that was not all. During 1930, Stalin received a report from Menzhinskii that chief of the general staff Tukhachevskii might be preparing a coup d'état. Thereupon Stalin wrote to his comrade Ordzhonikidze that he did not know whether to believe this. But there existed at least the possibility that the 'Kondrat'ev–Sukhanov–Bukharin party' aimed for 'a military dictatorship, if only they can get rid of the CC, of the kolkhozy and sovkhozy, of the bolshevik tempos of development of industry.' Fortunately, the leader convinced himself some time later that, as he wrote to Molotov, Tukhachevskii 'appeared 100% pure. That's very good.' Subsequently, the matter petered out. Nevertheless, strikingly, in 1930 we already have the fully developed concept of a bloc of rightists and leftists, in league with conspirators in the Red Army and bourgeois specialists, who again co-operated with the imperialist powers to prepare military intervention against the USSR. And all this appears not from statements for public consumption but from Stalin's private mail...

In 1930, the authorities were informed that RSFSR Prime Minister Syrtsov was conspiring with First Secretary of the trans-Caucasian District Committee Lominadze. Stalin took this 'Left–Right bloc' seriously. He commented to Molotov about the 'anti-party (in essence right deviationist) little factional group' and added: 'They played at a takeover.' ...

Stalin always suspected even his closest comrades of not recognising counter-revolutionary plots. In August 1932, for example, he complained to Kaganovich that Politburo member Stanislav Kosior failed to recognise that, through his 'direct agents' in the Ukrainian party, Polish leader Pilsudski was organising an espionage network."
(Erik Van Ree. The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism. New York: RoutledgeCurzon. 2002. pp. 118-119.)

The Lominadze bit was indeed true, as Getty pointed out (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1521611&postcount=7) that the Trotskyists did in fact organize the "Lominadze group" with other groups.

Van Ree provides more examples. E.g. "The brother of another Politburo member, Kaganovich, was also arrested. Again Stalin seemed convinced of his guilt. Kaganovich later remembered that Stalin told him at a Politburo meeting: 'we received testimony that your brother Mikhail is part of a conspiracy.' When Kaganovich said that this was a lie, Stalin reacted: 'What do you mean, a lie? I received testimony.' The Soviet dictator could even believe in the guilt of members of his own family. Witness the case of his brother-in-law and NKVD official Redens. According to the leader's son, Vasilii, when Lavrentii Beriia proposed to arrest him his father commented: 'look into it very carefully… I don’t believe Redens is an enemy.' But later he told his son: 'I was mistaken in Redens.' The latter was shot." (p. 123.)

Van Ree also notes in his work that Stalin's library contained various works by Luxemburg among others which Stalin made critical notes of in the margins.

Other classified material unearthed after 1991 show Stalin's concern about issues of Marxism. For example, from a 1949 meeting (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv16n1/china.htm) with a delegation of the CP of China:

You speak of Sinified socialism. There is nothing of the sort in nature. There is no Russian, English, French, German, Italian socialism, as much as there is no Chinese socialism. There is only one Marxist-Leninist socialism. It is another thing, that in the building of socialism it is necessary to take into consideration the specific features of a particular country. Socialism is a science, necessarily having, like all science, certain general laws, and one just needs to ignore them and the building of socialism is destined to failure. What are these general laws of building of socialism?

1. Above all it is the dictatorship of the proletariat the workers’ and peasants’ State, a particular form of the union of these classes under the obligatory leadership of the most revolutionary class in history, the class of workers. Only this class is capable of building socialism and suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and petty bourgeoisie.

2. Socialised property of the main instruments and means of production. Expropriation of all the large factories and their management by the state.

3. Nationalisation of all capitalist banks, the merging of all of them into a single state bank and strict regulation of its functioning by the state.

4. The scientific and planned conduct of the national economy from a single centre. Obligatory use of the following principle in the building of socialism: from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution of the material good depending upon the quality and quantity of the work of each person.

5. Obligatory domination of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

6. Creation of armed forces that would allow the defence of the accomplishments of the revolution and always remember that any revolution is worth anything only if it is capable of defending itself.

7. Ruthless armed suppression of counter revolutionaries and the foreign agents.

These, in short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring that we relate to them as such. If you understand this everything with the building of socialism in China will be fine. If you won’t you will do great harm to the international communist movement. As far as I know in the CPC there is a thin layer of the proletariat and the nationalist sentiments are very strong and if you will not conduct genuinely Marxist-Leninist class policies and not conduct struggle against bourgeois nationalism, the nationalists will strangle you. Then not only will socialist construction be terminated, China may become a dangerous toy in the hands of American imperialists. In the building of socialism in China I strongly recommend you to fully utilise Lenin’s splendid work ‘The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power’. This would assure success.
Even if it was the case of the Hungarian Revolution being influenced by Titoites that still wouldn't legitimize the soviet intervention.There was an armed counterrevolution being praised by US propaganda. The only real issue (as Hoxha notes) was that Nagy was tried by a Soviet court rather than a Hungarian one, and also the fact that it was the Soviet revisionists who laid the basis for this counterrevolution to begin with, to which Khrushchev responded by liquidating the old party and creating a new, revisionist one.


Kádár remained in power because he showed to be a loyal servant of Moscow when he delivered to them the head of Imre Nagy on a silver platter. Shortly before his dead, Kádár confessed his involvement in Nagy's execution calling it his "own personal tragedy".Which is to be expected when Kádár was an ally of Nagy and, as I noted, a fellow "victim" of "Stalinism." The opportunism of the revisionists (such as when Khrushchev showered Stalin with praises while the latter was alive) is well-known.

[Theophys]

Neither Lenin, Stalin or "so on" were counter-revolutionaries or renegades from Marxism. The fact is that Soviet ideology lost its revolutionary character after the death of Stalin. How can you argue otherwise when it encouraged reformism in places like Chile with disastrous results, claimed that any pro-Soviet regime in the third world was pursuing "non-capitalist development" with no proletarian role in this process, etc.?

I do not recall a "revolutionary" character during Stalin's leadership, but I do recall an authoritarian character that needed to be reformed after his death. The term "revisionism" is extremely widely employed, which is why I do not care one little bit for it. Lenin was a renegade from Marxism due to this new theories that he added onto Marxism, his disregard for certain Marxist principles (development of Capitalism before Socialism), the formation of a vanguard party, had a standing army, did not hand the means of production over to the proletariat, and so on. Stalin took part in the purging, i.e. uniquely killing, of Communists (do not give me that Nazi shit, I do not buy it), the formation of Socialism in One Country, the abandonment of other revolutionaries such as the one in Greece as being "hopeless", had a standing army, did not hand the means of production over to the proletariat, had a strengthening state despite the victory over classes in the USSR, etc. etc. That is what we should call "revisionism", if anything, but I like those actions as they were proof of pragmatism taking over radical theory. Chile was independent with its own elections that slowly attempted to achieve Socialism through bourgeois parliamentary elections, let them try it. The example of Chile allowed us to show that reformism would not work, how even democratic regimes (even Chavez's) are demonized, that not all Socialism/Communism is bloody, etc. Chile should have by every means encouraged, if you condemn it then YOU are at fault. We must never condemn such Socialist movements that have gained victory even if they do not fall under your ideals. And oh please, the Popular Fronts barely had any proletarian role and yet was supported and forced by the USSR and Comintern.


The point is that state ownership does not equal socialism, which you were claiming earlier.

All the instances of me claiming so are backed by their social context. Just do remember that Socialism =/= Marxist Socialism.


Why would that do that when the USSR was the main rival of US imperialism and could quite easily turn into a social-imperialist superpower (as it did under the revisionists) using a "Marxist" demagogy to deceive the world's peoples?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with turning into a "social-imperialist superpower", as was the case under Stalin with the expansion of the USSR into other countries and territories after World War 2. Marx and Engels spoke of this on the question of the Slavs. Engels called for the dissolution and assimilation of the Slavs by the progressive Germans and Magyars as opposed to the reactionary Tsarists. He would call for the same action to be done by the progressive USSR as opposed to the reactionary US. That does not turn it into or towards Capitalism.


Had the Soviet revisionists sought to dismantle the USSR from day one they'd be overthrown.

Not really, they already dismissed Stalin, put in their own policies, removed Stalin's policies, etc. They were pretty much capable of tearing down the USSR and calling for a popular revolution or coup.


Khrushchev had to threaten a military coup against the "Anti-Party Group" of Molotov, Kaganovich, etc. in 1958 to hold onto power. Soviet society and economy had to become thoroughly stagnant to justify privatization and other measures.

You condemn Khrushchev for threatening with a military coup and yet do not condemn Stalin for his actions? Ridiculous. Khrushchev, if he was capable of threatening with a military coup against ardent Stalinists, would have been able to purge the party by force and restore Capitalism instantly. The thing is, Khrushchev was NOT a Capitalist, that shit is ridiculous. Khrushchev was a Communist who wanted to reform the USSR after the iron hand of Stalin had come to an end with his death. Show me a single instance of privatization put forward by Khrushchev, note that privatization =/= decentralization. Privatization I refer to as private ownership of the means of production by the bourgeoisie.


Case in point: Deng found it relatively easy to pursue mass privatization in China due to the disastrous policies of Mao which easily discredited socialism there.

Which he did out of an earnest heart to try to keep the regime stable by offering a VIABLE alternative that would move the country away from the "mass conscious" disasters that were Mao's policies. I would have done similar had I came directly after Stalin or Mao, I would have attempted to "soften" the regime and attempted to make it more appealing for people. That would have prevented the USSR from collapsing if implemented properly and not too late.


Making profit the criterion of successful management of industry was apparently just one of these "open, free, and liberal" measures.

Yes, and what the hell is wrong with that? Profit is a necessity for cost accounting, planning, and the running of society on a rational, efficient, and logical basis. The failure of inefficient businesses, the incentives of profit, etc. are all necessities that were initially disregarded by the USSR and later implemented rapidly and faulty (it was too late as well) by Gorbachev without bother to remedy the initial ills. See the debate we're having on this issue here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/eliminating-scarcity-luxury-t180805/index.html?t=180805).


Stalin's policies on collectivization were effectively reversed after his death: he was declared to have "not trusted" the peasantry (the same charge was made by the Chinese revisionists led by Mao himself.) The subsequent right-wing economic measures in agriculture, notably the abolition of the machine-tractor stations, hindered Soviet agriculture.

I honestly do not care whether he trusted the peasantry or not, but I saw what he did to the Kulaks and led to his own economic suicide. I still contend that collectivization should have been carried out differently with the proper material conditions as Trotsky explained (I'm no fucking Trotskyist) and without such use of force that led to the burning and killing of millions of crops and livestock as well as the killing of 700,000 and the arrest of around 7,000,000 Kulaks AND THEIR FAMILIES (not sure on the numbers, I'll get them later from the actual Soviet archives studies if you contend this). Nevertheless these private plots in agriculture were very successful, moreso than the collective plots. The collective plots had no incentive to produce anything, compared to the private plots. I believe that the kolkhozy and sovkhoz should have been reformed, given incentives to produce, paid according to contribution, and able to sell their surplus on government markets. Collectivization in the USSR was implemented without the basis for it, it failed drastically. The removal of the machine-tractor stations did not hinder Soviet agriculture as much as it gave them a reason to work more in order to buy them themselves. Cost accountability and all that.


On these policies see: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/luari.htm

I stopped reading that after the ridiculous and cheesy author started speaking of Capitalism and using revolutionary Utopian rhetoric.


As Hoxha said in 1960:

So what Hoxha is saying here is that he doesn't like war but if the US starts a war, he will respond in kind. What's your point? Did I ever deny this? Did Khrushchev ever deny this? What happened was that Khrushchev attempted to publicly ease relations whilst keeping the militaristic advancements of the USSR in place whilst almost even reaching war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev was a POLITICIAN, a DIPLOMAT, he knew very well that the US hated the USSR and vice versa, but publicly he attempted to ease the conflict in order to avert a nuclear war, contrary to the warmongering Hoxha above. Hoxha talked out of his ass, a nuclear bomb would take out millions despite all his chest pounding war cries. Nevertheless, I do not see how this has anything to do with anything except to simply quote Hoxha for some reason.


And as Molotov said in 1976: "The fact that atomic war may break out, isn't that class struggle? There is no alternative to class struggle. This is a very serious question. The be-all and end-all is not peaceful coexistence. After all, we have been holding on for some time, and under Stalin we held on to the point where the imperialists felt able to demand point-blank: either surrender such and such positions, or it means war. So far the imperialists haven't renounced that."

No, it is not class struggle. Since when the FUCK is class struggle defined the by threat of a nuclear war? This was no longer a class struggle, but the struggle of competing ideologies, competing countries, and competing regimes. If this were a class struggle then the proletariat of the United States would not be threatened by the USSR and instead would be rising up against the United States. That was the stupidest quote I have ever read from a Soviet politician, well it's Molotov, the guy behind the "break baskets" and "Molotov cocktail" jokes. It is not a question of "be-all and end-all" but of preventing the "be-all and end-all" through NUCLEAR war and instead opting for revolutions or the eventual collapse of Capitalism in the US as Marxist theory predicts. It was a question of building up the USSR and reforming it to make it much more appealing to the proletariat of the world and intellectuals, leading to revolutions in their countries to join the USSR. It was a question of outlasting Capitalism rather than mutually assured destruction. It had nothing to do with class struggle but the struggle of nations. What the imperialists haven't renounced neither did the USSR.


That was certainly the assumption. The speeches of José Díaz in Spain, for instance, stressed that the most important element of the Popular Front was the leading role of the working-class. Likewise after WWII the Popular Fronts in Eastern Europe were led by the communist parties, although they differed in character from those in Spain and France.

That was not the assumption at all, the "assumption" was that anyone who wanted to join against Fascism can join. Spain was a unique case in that it turned into a civil war against Fascism with popular movements from below doing the fighting. Also, I do not recall Spain being led by the proletariat but by theory and peasantry. They were united under the banner of anti-Fascism, but even that did not keep them together before starting to kill each other from time to time. They were not led by the proletariat, they were led by ideologies. The Popular Fronts had little to do with Socialism or Communism. When in power they were forced to remain within the Capitalist framework, especially if they had watered down revolutionary talks (wasn't this your definition of revisionism? :laugh:), allied with centrists, allied with the bourgeoisie, etc. After these popular fronts won power, none of them turned towards Socialism and instead imposed minor Capitalist reforms that only extended the life of Capitalism by buttressing it and making it livable and comfortable for the proletariat rather than the other way around. If you criticize Chile for being revisionist or supported by revisionists then you must by extension criticize the popular fronts for being revisionists and supported by revisionists. Ridiculous. Oh and the popular fronts in Eastern Europe are not a viable example as they were assimilated by the USSR.

From the initial lines of Wikipedia:

"A popular front is a broad coalition of different political groupings, often made up of leftists and centrists. Being very broad, they can sometimes include centrist and liberal (or "bourgeois") forces as well as socialist and communist ("working-class") groups. Popular fronts are larger in scope than united fronts, which contain only working-class groups."

"Since 1935, the Communist Party advocated a Popular Front strategy, in agreement with the Komintern's directions and in hope of succeeding in winning elections as in Spain and France. With this aim in mind, the Communist Party toned down its revolutionary discourse, advocating compromise with "bourgeois democracy" and supporting industrial development of the country. On the other hand, the Socialist Party remained skeptical towards such an alliance, and entered the Popular Front only when the electoral victory of the right-wing candidate, Gustavo Ross, seemed inescapable.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(Chile)

"The Popular Front won the May 1936 legislative elections three months after the victory of the Frente Popular in Spain. Headed by Léon Blum, it engaged in various social reforms. The workers' movement welcomed this electoral victory by launching a general strike in May–June 1936, resulting in the negotiation of the Matignon agreements, one of the cornerstone of social rights in France. The socialist movement's euphoria was apparent in SFIO member Marceau Pivert's "Tout est possible!" (Everything is possible). However, as the economy continued to stall during the Great Depression, Blum was forced to stop his reforms and devalue the franc. With the French Senate controlled by conservatives, Blum, and thus the whole Popular Front, fell out of power in June 1937."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(France)

"In 1992, Abulfaz Elchibey, the leader of PFA, won the country's first ostensibly democratic presidential elections. A period of political, social and economic reforms followed. The laws on political parties, freedom of press, education and others were adopted. The country chose a pro-western liberal economic course and implemented successful monetary policy with the establishment of national currency. The most popular innovations were the administrative reforms and the reforms directed towards the creation of civil society. As the result of firm and consistent policies of PFA, Russian (formerly Soviet) army was withdrawn from Azerbaijan in April 1993. Azerbaijan became the first republic in the former USSR and one of the first in the former Socialist bloc which succeeded in achieving a full and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops.

However, independent and pro-western policy of PFA government could not satisfy geopolitical interests of Russia and Iran and hence, with the support of these countries, former communists led by the former KGB General Heydar Aliyev captured the power. The president Abulfaz Elchibey was forced to leave the capital city. Thousands of people were arrested; members of PFA became victims of political terror. In fact, this was the second largest attack on PFA in order to destroy this organization completely, while the leader was out of the capital city. Although, at a later stage the new regime assumed a pretense of democracy it was clear that Azerbaijan once again was in grip of authoritarianism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_Popular_Front_Party

Seriously.



From the 1970's Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

I would take what's written in that book with a grain of salt, not by any means an objective source.

From your very quote:
"a form of organization of the broad popular masses (the working class, the peasantry, the urban middle strata, and the progressive intelligentsia)"

Yeah, sounds very proletarian and led by the proletariat obviously.

"This report constituted the basis for decisions made by the congress, which pointed out that the establishment of popular fronts to unify the working class with all the nonproletarian strata interested in fighting against fascism and war might result in the formation of popular front governments. Moreover, the congress observed that under new conditions the popular front, as a most important means of struggle for peace and democracy, prepares the preconditions for the advance to socialism. For colonial and dependent countries the congress proposed the idea of creating a unified anti-imperialist front that would unite all forces capable of waging a struggle against colonial oppression."

Yeah, so much for your "Socialism" and "working class leadership".


On Lenin, a number of his Comintern works speak of the role of the role of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution in colonial countries. Also, as he noted in URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm"]one work[/URL]:

Lenin's quote has nothing to do with working class leadership, collaboration with the bourgeoisie, centrists, and other elements against Fascism/Nazism, not does it have anything to do with anything except to show that any and all reforms against the fast and rapid development of Capitalism are counter-revolutionary. Ergo, all Popular Fronts are counter-revolutionary and all working-class reforms are by extension counter-revolutionary. Thanks for the quote, I'll use this in the future.


Marx and Engels likewise spoke of democratic revolutions. Where else do you think Trotsky got his "revolution in permanence" concept (which he bastardized) from?

Bourgeois revolutions taking place after Feudalism to create Capitalism and thus the conditions for the rise of the proletariat. Not the alliance with bourgeois revolutions after Capitalism and collaboration with them.


Except the Popular Front government in Spain carried out bourgeois-democratic reforms with the essential support of the working-class, brought the majority of industry into the hands of the workers, etc. The Popular Fronts in Eastern Europe obviously did even more than this. Again, various sources note that had the Republic won it almost certainly would have become an early People's Democracy.

The Popular Fronts of Spain are a unique example that did not go through due to war. You cannot speak of the Popular Fronts of Eastern Europe because they were assimilated by the USSR. As for a People's Democracy, I do not support them because they cannot ensure a move towards Socialism and would only alienate the proletariat from the Socialist/Communist government which is imposing bourgeois-democratic reforms. Thus it is quite revisionist, by your own definition of toning down revolution and whatnot.

[Ismail]

Chile was independent with its own elections that slowly attempted to achieve Socialism through bourgeois parliamentary elections, let them try it.They did. The result was that the bourgeoisie was irritated and promptly backed the murder of Allende and thousands of other leftists.

As Hoxha wrote (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/hoxhachile.htm) at the time:

All the revisionists, from those of Moscow to those of Italy, France and elsewhere, presented the “Chilean experience” as a concrete example which proved their “new theories” about the “peaceful road of the revolution”, the transition to socialism under the leadership of many parties, the moderation of the nature of imperialism, the dying out of the class struggle in the conditions of peaceful coexistence, etc. The revisionist press made great play with the “Chilean road” in order to advertise the opportunist theses of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the reformist and utopian programs of the Togliattist type.

From the “Chilean experience” the revisionists expected not only confirmation of their “theories” about “the parliamentary road”, but also a “classical” example of the building of socialism under the leadership of a coalition of Marxist and bourgeois parties. They expected confirmation of their thesis that the transition to socialism is possible through parliamentary elections and without revolution, that socialism can be built, not only without smashing the old state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, but even with its aid, not only without establishing the revolutionary people’s power, but by negating it....

The Communist Party of Chile, which was one of the main forces of the Allende government, fervently adhered to the Khrushchevite theses of “peaceful transition”, both in theory and practice. Following instructions from Moscow, it claimed that the national bourgeoisie and imperialism had now been tamed, had become tolerant and reasonable, and that in the new class conditions, allegedly created by the present-day world development, they were no longer able to go over to counter-revolution.

However, as the case of Chile proved once again these and similar theories make the working masses irresolute and disorientated, weaken their revolutionary spirit, and keep them immobilized in the face of the threats of the bourgeoisie, paralyse their capacity and make it impossible for them to carry out decisive revolutionary actions against the counter-revolutionary plans and actions of the bourgeoisie...

The revisionists try to prove that the dividing line between the revolution and reforms has been wiped out, that in today’s conditions of world development there is no longer any need for a revolutionary overthrow, because, they allege, the present technical-scientific revolution is doing away with the social class contradictions of bourgeois society, is allegedly a means for the integration of capitalism into socialism, a means to create a “new society” of prosperity for all. Thus; according to this confusing logic, one can no longer speak about exploiters and exploited, hence according to them, social revolution, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat become unnecessary....

History has proved, and the events in Chile, where it was not yet a question of socialism but of a democratic regime, again made clear, that the establishment of socialism through the parliamentary road is utterly impossible. In the first place, it must be said that up till now it has never happened that the bourgeoisie has allowed the communists to win a majority in parliament and form their own government. Even in the occasional instance where the communists and their allies have managed to ensure a balance in their favour in parliament and enter the government; this has not led to any change in the bourgeois character of the parliament or the government, and their action has never gone so far as to smash the old state machine and establish a new one.

In the conditions when the bourgeoisie controls the bureaucratic-administrative apparatus, securing a “parliamentary majority” that would change the destiny of the country is not only impossible but also unreliable. The main parts of the bourgeois state machine are the political and economic power and the armed forces. As long as these forces remain intact, i.e., as long as they have not been dissolved and new forces created in their stead, as long as the old apparatus of the police, the secret intelligence services, etc.; is retained, there is no guarantee that a parliament or a democratic government will be able to last long; Not only the case of Chile, but many others have proved that the counter-revolutionary coups d’état have been carried out precisely by the armed forces commanded by the bourgeoisie....

As long as imperialism exists, there still exists the basis and possibility for, and its unchangeable policy of, interference in the internal affairs of other countries, counter-revolutionary plots, the overthrow of lawful governments, the liquidation of democratic and progressive forces, and the strangling of the revolution....

The Allende government was also sabotaged and savagely opposed by the Christian-democratic and other factions of the bourgeoisie, so-called radical democratic forces similar to those together with which the communist parties of Italy and France claim that they will advance to socialism through reforms and the peaceful parliamentary road. The Frey party in Chile does not bear only “intellectual responsibility”, as some claim, because it refused to collaborate with the Allende government, or because it was lacking in loyalty to the legal government. It bears responsibility also because it used all possible means to sabotage the normal activity of the government, because it united with the forces of the Right to undermine the nationalized economy and to create confusion in the country, because it perpetrated a thousand and one acts of subversion.


Chile should have by every means encouraged, if you condemn it then YOU are at fault. We must never condemn such Socialist movements that have gained victory even if they do not fall under your ideals.I was unaware Chile became a socialist state under Allende. I thought that his coalition won elections, carried out some progressive reforms, and was then drowned in blood because the proletariat had no ability to defend the few gains it had made.


And oh please, the Popular Fronts barely had any proletarian role and yet was supported and forced by the USSR and Comintern.Er, the Popular Front in Spain was not only adopted months before Dimitrov called for it at the Seventh Comintern Congress, but the formation of such a Front found widespread support inside the PCE as noted by E.H. Carr and others. It wasn't "forced."


There is absolutely nothing wrong with turning into a "social-imperialist superpower", as was the case under Stalin with the expansion of the USSR into other countries and territories after World War 2. Marx and Engels spoke of this on the question of the Slavs. Engels called for the dissolution and assimilation of the Slavs by the progressive Germans and Magyars as opposed to the reactionary Tsarists. He would call for the same action to be done by the progressive USSR as opposed to the reactionary US. That does not turn it into or towards Capitalism.You can defend colonialism under a similarly ridiculous "logic."


Not really, they already dismissed Stalin, put in their own policies, removed Stalin's policies, etc. They were pretty much capable of tearing down the USSR and calling for a popular revolution or coup.And then they themselves would be overthrown. You seem to forget that the denunciation of Stalin and whatnot was done in tandem with demagogy about "returning to Leninist norms," "reestablishing socialist legality," and also Khrushchev's absurd claim that the USSR would achieve communism by 1980. The Soviet revisionists were also able to take advantage of the socialist construction of the 30's and successful reconstruction of the economy to project an image of economic progress towards that direction.


Show me a single instance of privatization put forward by Khrushchev, note that privatization =/= decentralization. Privatization I refer to as private ownership of the means of production by the bourgeoisie.And state-capitalism the Albanians referred to as private ownership of the means of production by the new bourgeoisie under the cover of state property.


Which he did out of an earnest heart to try to keep the regime stable by offering a VIABLE alternative that would move the country away from the "mass conscious" disasters that were Mao's policies. I would have done similar had I came directly after Stalin or Mao, I would have attempted to "soften" the regime and attempted to make it more appealing for people. That would have prevented the USSR from collapsing if implemented properly and not too late.Deng was such a soft-hearted man of the people that he invaded Vietnam in a failed bid to return Pol Pot back into power, and then collaborated with US imperialism in arming the Khmer Rouge for the rest of the decade.

Under your criteria practically every leader ever was a communist. But Marxists don't care what people think about themselves so much as what they actually do, especially when in leading positions. After all, there was a case during the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in 1961 where this old associate of Lenin (and a "victim" of "Stalinism") spoke of him coming to her the night before and telling her that he couldn't bear sharing the same space with Stalin, and thus Khrushchev buried the latter while keeping Lenin in the mausoleum.

I don't think that's how Communists act.


Nevertheless, I do not see how this has anything to do with anything except to simply quote Hoxha for some reason.Because Khrushchev's "politics" and "diplomacy" were closely connected to his claim that imperialism had changed its nature owing to the advent of nuclear weaponry. The USSR was no longer pursuing a revolutionary policy in foreign affairs, but one of being a rival imperialist power to the USA.


After these popular fronts won power, none of them turned towards Socialism and instead imposed minor Capitalist reforms that only extended the life of Capitalism by buttressing it and making it livable and comfortable for the proletariat rather than the other way around. If you criticize Chile for being revisionist or supported by revisionists then you must by extension criticize the popular fronts for being revisionists and supported by revisionists.Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there weren't even any PCF ministers in the French Popular Front government. That's the only other example (besides Spain) of a Popular Front "winning power" in 1930's Europe.


Oh and the popular fronts in Eastern Europe are not a viable example as they were assimilated by the USSR.The are, in fact, a viable example since Stanley Payne and other historians of the Spanish Civil War note that had the Republic survived it would have been "assimilated into the USSR" (whatever that means.)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also did you seriously compare the 1930's Popular Fronts with some random bourgeois Azerbaijani party? That's like denouncing the US Democratic Party by comparing it to the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan.


Bourgeois revolutions taking place after Feudalism to create Capitalism and thus the conditions for the rise of the proletariat. Not the alliance with bourgeois revolutions after Capitalism and collaboration with them.This is assuming that Spain's economy was uniformly capitalist.


As for a People's Democracy, I do not support them because they cannot ensure a move towards Socialism and would only alienate the proletariat from the Socialist/Communist government which is imposing bourgeois-democratic reforms. Thus it is quite revisionist, by your own definition of toning down revolution and whatnot.People's Democracies were, as Stalin noted, under the dictatorship of the proletariat. They proceeded to liquidate the power of the capitalists and other measures similar to that which was undertaken by the Soviet government under Lenin.

Case in point, only an idiot would think that Albania's policies were mere "bourgeois-democratic reforms" in the 40's and 50's.

[hashem]

Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with profit. If people start to starve, demand will skyrocket on food, higher profits can be made.

People of Africa are hungry. Demand for food is skyrocketing. But they cant afford to buy food and capitalists will prefer to throw away their food than to give it to the Africans because there is no profit in it, so people will remain hungry.


The technical means of today rely on Capitalism, not your system.

Science and technologies cant rely on systems. I don’t have enough time to prove any obvious thing to you!


there's such a thing that prevents your Utopian system from ever existing: finite resources. Since our Earth has finite resources then we CANNOT create infinite products and thus any constant number of demand on resources WILL drain and deplete these finite goods.

Pure Malthusianism. Humans don’t have to rely on finite resources. They can use recycling, renewable energies and … to meet their needs without needing finite resources. Technology to do so already exists, but since its not profitable, its not used in large scale.


in order to meet the needs of everyone, you have to destroy the environment much more than Capitalism does or face mass starvation never before seen in history.

We don’t have to wait for socialism to see falsity of this statement. In present time there are societies which produce more goods and meet more needs of their people while at the same time they do less damage to the environment, on the other hand there are societies which damage the environment more but are unable to meet the basic needs of people.


you cannot have lower working hours without increased automation to fill the void. Since we do not have full automation then sad story for your Utopia.

Full automation is never possible and its not required to reduce the work hours. Many people are working with old methods because capitalists don’t share their profit (and as a result, their technology). By using advanced technology, its completely possible to produce more with lower work hours.


name ONE pre-Capitalist society that was SUPERIOR to Capitalism, not just provided wealth for a few individuals but for almost everyone in that system with high standards of living, life expectancy, literacy, available goods, high productivity, etc. etc.

Adam Smith wrote that China was wealthier than Europe in 18th century. But i already wrote that supremacy doesn’t depend on this.


There is no such thing as "superior from a proletarian viewpoint" when you try to show that the proletariat only care about standards of living. As we have historically seen, they don't. The proletariat, just as any other, want commodity production, want entertainment, want numerous other pursuits other than high living standards. Hell, it was always the Capitalist countries with the highest standards of living, quite ironic for you, isn't it?

I didn’t wrote proletariat only cares about standards of living, you did. Besides, commodity production and entertainment cant be separated from standards of living. as a class, proletariat strives for political and social changes as well. It was not always the capitalists countries which had higher living standards. Living standards raised in USSR and China before they turned to capitalism. Even today, living standards are higher in villages which are controlled by Naxalities than those which are controlled by Indian government. even in European countries such as Greece, it has become clear for proletariat that high standards of living are in confliction with continuance of capitalism, thus, workers are turning towards socialism.


It is exactly because under Socialism and Communism workers don't keep all of the thing they produce that they are exploited, whether you like it or not. They do not "willingly" offer anything for any "common good", the products are taken away from them. The bourgeoisie actually do "a useful thing"

In primitive tribes, hunters didn’t kept anything for themselves, that didn’t mean there was exploitation. No worker is willing to keep anything for himself either. Workers need public works which don’t belong to individuals. In every small community (for example people who live in a same house), members do some work for the community which benefits all of members. This is entirely different from exploitation which is based on taking away others peoples work for the benefit of someone who doesn’t do anything in return.

In early stages of capitalism, when it was a progressive system, bourgeoisie was doing a useful job but that ages have passed. Modern bourgeoisie doesn’t even manages his capital himself, he employes educated workers to manage for him. He is a parasite which is no longer needed by society.


in the first sentence he instantly contradicted himself

Where is the contradiction? I wrote “almost all of those who called themselves communist were united” which is true. If your English is not so good then you should know that “almost” means most, but not all. Also, Trotskyists and others like to call themselves “communist”, but in reality they are not, so they cant be united with communists, but they were and are very few compared to communists.


you resort to a baseless claim that you just made up on the spot and cannot even prove, that all many of "them" "since the mid 1960s" were "small, corrupt, and hired" that supported the USSR while the rest "didn't believed in its ideology"!

Its true. Since then Khrushchevists have joined bourgeois government and sometimes seized the power themselves. Results of their works are obvious. They cooperated with fascist governments like Iran, Iraq and Syria against communists. After the collapse of USSR many of them including leaders of new republics, became reactionary rightist politicians who run the most corrupt states.

Besides, if what I claim is not right, why don’t you show us some examples of Khrushchevist revisionists having a progressive rule. You can point your finger to North Korea, Baath regimes of Iraq and Syria, Gaddafi, Castro and … but by doing so you only expose yourself further and ease my work!


There is no such thing as scientific Socialism because that scientific Socialism does not follow the scientific method nor anything related to science.

In what fields are teachings of Marxism? economy and sociology. These are fields of science.

Of course, for someone whose purpose is distortion, science is an enemy.


Bourgeois ideas will exist during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, NOT during the later stages of Socialism after the doing away with the dictatorship of the proletariat UNDER SOCIALISM BEFORE COMMUNISM.

Dictatorship of proletariat exists unceasing under socialism until communism and during this period, class struggle still exists. Aren’t you the one who supports violence against workers when they raise against your beloved state? Isn’t this dictatorship?

Communists admit that class struggle exists under socialism and therefore dictatorship of proletariat is needed, but they believe that this dictatorship grants freedom to workers and suppresses their enemies, but revisionists deny the existence of class struggle, claim that they are ruling FOR the workers and suppress anyone who protests against them.


If there is no private sector then it directly follows that there is NO bourgeoisie.

This is a very childish argument. Imagine a factory which is owned by a government. the government appoints a manager (who doesn’t really manages but transfers managing duties to educated employees), gives higher salary to him, suppresses the workers who protest against him, forces workers to work long hours with a low salary in bad conditions. The government uses the surplus value which is made by workers, against their will in order to offer higher salary to the managers and hire more mercenaries to protect this system. What difference is between this system and capitalism? means of productions are called “governmental”, “state owned”, “national” or … instead of “private”. I don’t think any serious person agrees that these names determine the essence of economic formations.

Even in high stages of capitalism, means of production can hardly be called “private” because they don’t belong to a certain person, they belong to big companies which have influence on states. If these companies become one with the state (for example nationalization of banks and industries under economic crisis) and exploit the workers under a different name, this doesn’t affects the economical system.


no, the bourgeoisie cannot use the governmental sector to gain PRIVATE surplus value because they do NOT PRIVATE own the means of production, especially if they do not OFFICIALLY own the means of production. In fact under such system the products of PUBLIC labor go to the PUBLIC, not the "bourgeoisie" who cannot sell the products as their own. Now to make things worse for your revisionist nonsense, the bourgeoisie CANNOT use a PROLETARIAN state to gain surplus value for their own because they cannot own nor have any say in a proletarian state.

Because its not the bourgeoisie which sells the products, there can be no surplus value for bourgeoisie! Very logical! So, what if someone else does the selling for them and relieves them from this hard task?! What if few individuals take control of the government and use the products of public labor for the good of themselves? You don’t have to worry about that, do you? as long as the means of production are not called “private” and the state is called “proletarian”, the products of PUBLIC labor automatically goes to the PUBLIC and things will be fine!


Unless you are planning to have these workers remain in Capitalism and desire Capitalism then you will need to make Capitalism WORSE in order to give them every reason to topple it, otherwise you'll end up with the situation of the comfortable and happy First World labor. For example the workers' riots in Dubai took place due to horrible working conditions and living standards, they would not have taken place had there not been horrible working conditions and living standards. If they had been organized under a vanguard party then you would have had a revolution.

Practical conclusion: Tea party is the real revolutionary in USA and should be supported!

If workers are kept backward and hungry, and if their class consciousness is messed up like this, instead of fighting with their enemy, they will fight with themselves for getting low paid jobs. They may even fight over ridiculous things like race and religion. Such workers can be employed by capitalist for imperialist rivalries as soldiers and against advanced sections of their own class. If workers don’t struggle for better conditions under capitalism and without the organization and class consciousness which is achieved during this struggle, even if they revolt, their rage will end with failure. On the other hand, workers have no reason to believe that a party which is not struggling for immediate improvement in their lives is their vanguard and support it.


The parasites who feed from oil are developing Capitalism within their countries and building the material conditions for an advanced society in order to move according to the historical progression required of them.

They are not building the material conditions for an advanced society, they are giving away raw materials and importing goods; they are destroying the means of production and turning their society to a consumer. they are as much progressive as Beverly Hillbillies.


If people do not work in some way then they do not obtain money, even begging is work.

robbery and drug trafficking are works as well but there are people who don’t do even easy, unproductive and unnecessary works but are richer than hard working people. Arabic countries around the gulf are full of them.


if exploiters are allowed to exploit unconditionally then they will actually adopt new technologies in order to increase productivity, efficiency, and profits as we have historically seen.

This is against what has happened in history and against writings of Marx. Marx wrote in Capital that until the law banned the labor of women and children in coal mines (as a result of workers struggle), capitalists who could use unclothed women workers in mines with low wages, found it so satisfying that they did not used the existing machines. When workers are cheap and without rights while machines are expansive, why should capitalists who only care about profit, use the latter even if its more productive? Its not by accident that those countries which workers have more rights in them are technologically advanced as well.

I myself worked in a salt factory once. That factory used conscripts who were similar to slaves. They made them work hard with spade, pickax and hammer while more advanced technology existed for breaking the rocks more than a century ago and was available in market. But the owner preferred the slaves because they only required food, could easily be replaced and if they protested, they had to answer to a military court.


That minority of parasites are necessary for Capitalism to take place before Socialism.

Capitalism is necessary and a historical progress as long as capitalists haven’t turned to parasites. exactly when they become parasites, the system needs to be changed.


if you have money and are able to pay for a better house then you deserve it. Money is nothing more than an accumulated form of social voting in return for contribution or otherwise to society.

Exactly a parasites point of view. Even bourgeoisie, when it was progressive, held a different position. It condemned rich feudals who were earning money and goods without doing anything useful.


I do not recall Marx nor Enegls speaking of any allies for the proletariat

Marx condemned Lassalle’s thesis about accusing peasantry and toilers who are not included in the ranks of worker class of being a “reactionary mass”. Marx even defended the woodcutters rights in his newspaper. Engels wrote that primitive communes in Russia can enter communism without passing through capitalism, if struggle of Russia’s peasants combines with the struggle of proletariat in west Europe.


The proletariat are NOT the majority, if you claim they are I want to challenge you to prove that they are.

Proletariat doesn’t need to be in majority in order to accomplish the revolution, it can gain the support of majority who benefit from its rule.


Wages are determined by subsistence wags necessary for the reproduction of the working class.

No. value of labor force is determined with that method. Value is not necessarily equal to the existing price, values can remain unchanged while prices change everyday. Wage is price of labor force in certain circumstances, not its value. If there is shortage of work force, materials which are needed for reproduction of the working class doesn’t change, but offer of labor force decreases which results to increase in wages.

Value is determined by the amount of work which is socially necessary for reproduction. If offer and demand are equal then: value = price. If not, the price vacillates around the value. This is a basic economic fact which Marx and bourgeoisie economists have accepted. Every worker strike proves this basic fact.


since the First World countries do not have a proletariat that are "hungry, unorganized, and backward workers who need them so badly that they compete with each other and will accept them with worst conditions" then you just answered your own ridiculous argument and destroyed it. The First World countries do not have this type of proletariat and thus such jobs do not take root in the First World countries meaning that the outsourcing of jobs does not affect the proletariat of First World countries in the form that you make it to be.

On the contrary: you answered your own “ridiculous argument” when you admitted that existence of backward workers makes low wages possible! Besides, what happened to the wages which were supposed to be equal to something “necessary for the reproduction of the working class” when wages are determined by offer of cheap work force? If such workers didn’t existed in foreign countries, capitalist had to pay higher wages to workers in their own countries for same jobs.


the Nordic countries are NOT closer to Socialism, they are still by every means Capitalism.

They are capitalist countries but they are more developed in fields of means of productions and relationships which are created during the production. Unlike countries which have nothing but raw material and extract it with foreign technology, Nordic countries have advanced industries. On the other hand, proletariat is more class conscious and organized. Unlike Arabia and UAE which still have significant remanents of pre capitalist formations, Bourgeoisie democratic reforms in Nordic countries have been carried to the end. So these countries are closer to socialism.


I never said that Socialism can be achieved without the participation of the proletariat and its allies, I challenge you to show me where I did.

You are the one who opposes the right to choose and support violent measures against workers from a government which is calling itself “socialist” (Hitler also called himself a socialist!). How can proletariat and its allies support a government which is indifferent to their choices and suppresses them when they don’t want it?


The Soviets were NOT abolished, I challenge you to show me where this happened. Go ahead. The Soviets that existed under the Soviet Socialist system were formal institutions because they turned out as the VICTORS and thus an entire society and state based on them was created, thus formalizing them. This act of formalization is nothing but good in such an aspect. The delegates were ALL elected by people and they DID INDEED affect governmental policies.

Your statements contradict with each other: “The Soviets were NOT abolished” yet they “were formal institutions”. What difference does it make for a formal institution to carry the name of “soviet” or circus? True soviets can not be formal institutions. Soviets “were formal institutions” yet “The delegates were ALL elected by people and they DID INDEED affect governmental policies”. Which one are we supposed to believe? Soviets were “the VICTORS and thus an entire society and state based on them was created” yet the society and state which are based on them, turn them to “formal institutions”.


New cultural values? Talk about Utopianism.

In a class society, interests of people contradict with each other. Thus, there can be no voluntary collaboration. But in a socialist society, interests of different people complete each other. These two kind of societies have different cultural values.


Is this what you want:
[demands of 1956 protesters in Hungary]

Some of these demands are progressive and I support them, although I should add that counter revolution was misusing the just demands of people. if USSR and its puppet government had paid attention to demands of people, social contradictions couldn’t have developed to an antagonistic level. Those just demands could have been asked and answered peacefully without giving an opportunity for riot to bourgeoisie. About 1956 events, I blame revisionists and followers of capitalism path in Eastern bloc.


What we can conclude from this anti-Communist, anti-Marxist, reactionary revisionist here is that:

The lack of freedom of speech and rights leads to revolution as proven by the Hungarian revolution of 1956, and as such we must support workers' freedom of speech and rights in Dubai and other countries! ARE YOU SERIOUSLY CALLING FOR NO REVOLUTIONS IN DUBAI AND OTHER COUNTRIES? You just explained the reason for revolution and then you claimed that you want to do away with the reasons for revolution in Capitalist countries!

I hadn’t seen such a childish statements from someone who claims to be a leftist, but im not worried about the left because im not judging people from what they claim they are. These statements do not belong to the left (of any kind). They don’t belong to a serious person at all! Just follow his argument and see where it leads: we should struggle for abolition of freedom of speech, worker rights, human rights in general, free elections and all of bourgeois democratic achievements of mankind in order to succeed in a revolution! It means we should support the reaction and at the same time call for a revolution!

The lack of freedom of speech and rights leads to revolution. a revolutionary supports bourgeois democratic reforms and tries to force the governments to accept them, but not all of governments are capable of doing so, because carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end can led to a peaceful socialist evolution and at some point and certain conditions it contradicts with the bourgeoisie system. For example there are free elections in usual situation, but what if a communist party is able to gain victory in it and change the system? Will bourgeoisie government remain so democratic to accept this? So carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end makes way for socialism. On the other hand workers get organized and class conscious during the struggle for reforms within the present system. Without this organization and class consciousness its impossible to accomplish the revolution. Even if unorganized and backward workers manage to overthrow a state, they cant replace it with a state of their own and will resort to the most achievable alternative which cant be anything than a bourgeoisie alternative, for example Khomeini during the 1979 revolution in Iran.


mistakes are corruption are MINIMIZED in the case of those educated, dedicated revolutionaries in the vanguard party who rule FOR the proletariat. Mistakes can be avoided due to the educated decisions made by the party members as opposed to having millions of uneducated and uninformed and unspecialized rabble from all over the country trying to make and executed decisions themselves.

In a democratic socialist state, no one stops the most educated and dedicated revolutionaries in a vanguard party to explain the situation to people and show them the wrong paths which lead to mistakes. So there is no need to fear mistakes when they can be avoided by free argument and election. Besides, do you even pay attention to what you say yourself? You claim that after decades of rule, those “educated and dedicated” people in the “vanguard” party found out that capitalism is superior to the system which they were supporting. In late 1980s they admitted that protesters of 1956 were right! If what you say is true, they weren’t the most “educated and dedicated” people, but the most stupid and opportunist people!

Its not mistakes which threatens the societies most, its deliberate harm which the rulers cause to the majority. Mistakes can be very harmful but can be corrected when the majority of society finds them but those who are determined to suppress people and continue their rule are not easy to overthrow, even if the majority wishes this.


The party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems.

yes, when “The party” is bourgeois – reactionary, it should resort to peaceful coexistence with bourgeoisie and deal with proletariat using an iron fist.


They can destroy themselves and they have already done so with the destruction of the USSR.

This statement comes from a person who previously said that capitalism is superior to “soviet socialism”!


Saddam? Claimed to be Socialist. Assad? Claimed to be Socialist. Gaddafi? Claimed to be Socialist. Kim? Claimed to be Socialist. Nasser? Claimed to be Socialist. More false arguments and lies by you.

1- a Marxist judges about people according to their deeds not what they claim.

2- governments of Indonesia, India, Peru, Iran, Israel and … didn’t even claimed to socialist, they are butchering their people but USSR sold arms to them for profit.


they would not have even bothered to join the Communist Party nor would they have been accepted.
[if they were not reactionaries]

That’s exactly the point. the ruling party was reactionary and was gathering reactionaries.


The Communists continued their political life or went into retirement in depression after the fall of the USSR.

If by “communists” you mean the members of USSR’s ruling party, your statement isn’t true. Those “communists” ruled and some of them are still ruling the “republic”s. they build golden statues of themselves, imprisoned and tortured anyone who protested against them and are heads of the most corrupt states in the world. Members of the party were active supporters of collapse of the USSR.


It was the people themselves that wanted a restoration of Capitalism, not the rulers. The new rulers merely followed what the people wanted.

Were people only demanding capitalism (if they were doing so at all)? Didn’t they want welfare and democracy? If so, why did the people “elected”(!) those who didn’t believed in capitalism in order to follow a capitalist road?


Thanks to your people.

Yes, if Saparmurat Niyazov builds a golden statue of himself, its peoples fault who have never elected him! If Saparmurat Niyazov was a member of USSR’s ruling party, it doesn’t mean that party was gathering reactionaries in itself whose purposes were gaining wealth and power against the interests of people! its completely natural for a “communist” party to have a pharaoh in its ranks! This is a party of the most educated and dedicated revolutionaries! Its peoples fault who force the rulers to build golden statues of themselves! Poor rulers!


Oh and yes, they actually TRIED TO CHANGE it, they tried to REFORM it to something better, they tried this but YOU called them revisionists and condemned them for it. They tried to implement freedom of speech, universal elections, more power to the Soviets and localities, more freedom, freedom to the republics, and so on

Poor, poor rulers of USSR! I might cry for them!
Besides, you already said that giving freedom to people would lead to mistakes, destruction of people by themselves, strengthening counter revolution and … why don’t you make up your mind?


To continue the imperialist war would mean continuing the line of the Tsarists in the war, trying to win over the Germans.

USSR did not acted according to “its own national interests”. Peace benefited proletariat of Russia and other countries. Continuation of war was what you said could have benefited German workers. are you going to change that as well?


Rest of Theophys statements are so childish and contradictory that answering them would be waste of time. My purpose was not answering a reactionary person, but showing were does such ideas come from and were do they lead.

[Old Bolshie]

There was an armed counterrevolution being praised by US propaganda.

We were at the beginning of the Cold War so it was natural that anything which went against soviet interests was praised by US propaganda pretty much like anything which went against american interests was praised by soviet propaganda or like it was normal when Stalin was being praised by US propaganda during the II World War when USSR and US were allies against Nazism.


The only real issue (as Hoxha notes) was that Nagy was tried by a Soviet court rather than a Hungarian one, and also the fact that it was the Soviet revisionists who laid the basis for this counterrevolution to begin with, to which Khrushchev responded by liquidating the old party and creating a new, revisionist one.

Actually Khrushchev expressed his concern about removing Rakosi leadership and even threatened to reinstall him as the leader of Hungary unless Kádár accepted the leadership of the country.



Which is to be expected when Kádár was an ally of Nagy and, as I noted, a fellow "victim" of "Stalinism." The opportunism of the revisionists (such as when Khrushchev showered Stalin with praises while the latter was alive) is well-known.

A "victim" of Stalinism who ended up being a Stalinist himself pretty much like Khrushchev.

[Tolstoy]

It really is a sad syndrome amongst certain elements of the radical left in the Western World to dismiss any leader who reforms economics even slightly or allows greater individual liberties as a "revisionist" and dismiss the entire historical figure. I beleive Krushchev was the greatest leader of the USSR and made the country far greater. Can you imagine how Stalin would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis? The endorsement of Josef Stalin and his ideas is easy for a person whose never been shot or imprisoned for his ideas or starved for that matter.

[Ismail]

Can you imagine how Stalin would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis?Well, for one thing, he'd probably not confuse a bourgeois nationalist like Castro with actual socialist leadership, just as the "Stalinist" assessment of Nasser, Naguib and Sadat (until the revisionist about-turn) was that they were agents of American imperialism and influenced by Nazism, quite a change from what came afterwards.

[Tolstoy]

Well, for one thing, he'd probably not confuse a bourgeois nationalist like Castro with actual socialist leadership, just as the "Stalinist" assessment of Nasser, Naguib and Sadat (until the revisionist about-turn) was that they were agents of American imperialism and influenced by Nazism, quite a change from what came afterwards.

Many great Socialist leaders came from wealthy backgrounds of some kind, Stalin being an exception. Additionally, a healthy dose of nationalism is understandable when your country was previously under the stranglehold of a US backed dictator. Castro is quite possibly one of the most important Socialists of all time, as he created a state that lasted into the 21st century without bowing to the forces of western capitalism:cubaflag:

[hashem]

It really is a sad syndrome amongst certain elements of the radical left in the Western World to dismiss any leader who reforms economics even slightly or allows greater individual liberties as a "revisionist" and dismiss the entire historical figure. I beleive Krushchev was the greatest leader of the USSR and made the country far greater. Can you imagine how Stalin would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis? The endorsement of Josef Stalin and his ideas is easy for a person whose never been shot or imprisoned for his ideas or starved for that matter.

serious criticism of Khrushchevism started in the east. communist party of China was leading the struggle against this new form of revisionism. a large majority of eastern and less developed countries communists denounced Khrushchevism, unlike countries like England or USA which opportunism had the deepest roots.

historically, Khrushchevism has supported reactionary bourgeoisie dictatorships and harmed the revolutionary movements.

[Geiseric]

serious criticism of Khrushchevism started in the east. communist party of China was leading the struggle against this new form of revisionism. a large majority of eastern and less developed countries communists denounced Khrushchevism, unlike countries like England or USA which opportunism had the deepest roots.

historically, Khrushchevism has supported reactionary bourgeoisie dictatorships and harmed the revolutionary movements.

Lol so did stalin through the 1920s. Ever heard of the canton revolution? Or the spanish civil war?

[Brutus]

historically, Stalinism has supported reactionary bourgeois dictatorships (Hitler) and harmed the revolutionary movements. (Spain)

Fixed...

[Ismail]

Fixed...Stalin supported Hitler by... sending troops to the Spanish Republic to fight rebels backed by him?

The USSR under Stalin denounced Nehru; Khrushchev praised him and declared that he was building "socialism." The USSR under Stalin denounced the military coup in Egypt; Khrushchev hailed its leaders as pursuing "non-capitalist development."

[Brutus]

Stalin supported Hitler by...

Supplying him with raw materials to build and supply his war machine.

[Ismail]

Supplying him with raw materials to build and supply his war machine.In exchange for materials that were helpful to the Soviets, such as machine tools.

You're also basically saying that the USSR trading with a state was a reactionary act. The Soviets under Lenin secretly armed Germany under the Rapallo agreement.

[Brutus]

In exchange for materials that were helpful to the Soviets, such as machine tools.

You're also basically saying that the USSR trading with a state was a reactionary act.

I'm saying that the USSR giving a state that declared it it's intention to destroy the USSR the means to increase its war machine is stupid.

[Theophys]

They did. The result was that the bourgeoisie was irritated and promptly backed the murder of Allende and thousands of other leftists.
Yes, which I already stated.



As Hoxha wrote (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/hoxhachile.htm) at the time:
Won't read that.



I was unaware Chile became a socialist state under Allende. I thought that his coalition won elections, carried out some progressive reforms, and was then drowned in blood because the proletariat had no ability to defend the few gains it had made.
It was a Socialist movement by every means. The proletariat had little to do with it, the proletariat failed to act and thus drowned itself in blood.




Er, the Popular Front in Spain was not only adopted months before Dimitrov called for it at the Seventh Comintern Congress, but the formation of such a Front found widespread support inside the PCE as noted by E.H. Carr and others. It wasn't "forced."
Note that I said "Popular Fronts" with an "s", not specifically referring to the unique case that was Spain.



You can defend colonialism under a similarly ridiculous "logic."
Tell that to Engels.



And then they themselves would be overthrown.
Yeah, like in 1991.



You seem to forget that the denunciation of Stalin and whatnot was done in tandem with demagogy about "returning to Leninist norms," "reestablishing socialist legality," and also Khrushchev's absurd claim that the USSR would achieve communism by 1980. The Soviet revisionists were also able to take advantage of the socialist construction of the 30's and successful reconstruction of the economy to project an image of economic progress towards that direction.
I see no issue here. They realized the mistakes done by Stalin, the iron grip he had, and so on and wanted to steer the country away from that. The very fact that they spoke of returning to Leninist norms, reestablishing socialist legality, striving to achieve communism, etc. show very well how "Capitalist" they really were. They were not by any means Capitalists.



And state-capitalism the Albanians referred to as private ownership of the means of production by the new bourgeoisie under the cover of state property.
I do not believe in the nonsense of "state capitalism" as being what you refer to. There is no such thing as "new bourgeoisie" in the Soviet Socialist countries. There was no "cover of state property", they were what they were - state property held in the name of the proletariat and their society.



Deng was such a soft-hearted man of the people that he invaded Vietnam in a failed bid to return Pol Pot back into power, and then collaborated with US imperialism in arming the Khmer Rouge for the rest of the decade.
Earnest has nothing to do with a soft-heart. The invasion of Vietnam has nothing to do with attempting to fix the shit Mao did.



Under your criteria practically every leader ever was a communist.
Which criteria?



But Marxists don't care what people think about themselves so much as what they actually do, especially when in leading positions.
Pragmatism forces itself over theory. History has shown that time and time again even in the case of Lenin.



After all, there was a case during the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in 1961 where this old associate of Lenin (and a "victim" of "Stalinism") spoke of him coming to her the night before and telling her that he couldn't bear sharing the same space with Stalin, and thus Khrushchev buried the latter while keeping Lenin in the mausoleum.
I don't see your point?



I don't think that's how Communists act.
No True Scotsman logical fallacy.



Because Khrushchev's "politics" and "diplomacy" were closely connected to his claim that imperialism had changed its nature owing to the advent of nuclear weaponry. The USSR was no longer pursuing a revolutionary policy in foreign affairs, but one of being a rival imperialist power to the USA.
By being a rival imperialist power it pursued a "secret" revolutionary policy in foreign affairs rather than calling for public world revolution, especially after Stalin took down the Comintern. The advent of nuclear weaponry forced the USSR and the US to attempt to ease tensions in order to not lead to a nuclear war. A nuclear war is not an anti-imperialist war.



Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there weren't even any PCF ministers in the French Popular Front government. That's the only other example (besides Spain) of a Popular Front "winning power" in 1930's Europe.
The French Popular Front was supported by the PCF and heavily backed by it.



The are, in fact, a viable example since Stanley Payne and other historians of the Spanish Civil War note that had the Republic survived it would have been "assimilated into the USSR" (whatever that means.)
Sure it would have, not before a civil war between Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists. There is absolutely no guarantee that Spain would have been assimilated by the USSR. Nevertheless, Spain was a failure.



Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also did you seriously compare the 1930's Popular Fronts with some random bourgeois Azerbaijani party? That's like denouncing the US Democratic Party by comparing it to the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan.
Yes I did, that does not by any means have to do with anything, a Popular Front is a Popular front, it has nothing to do with a comparison to the US Democrats to any other Democratic party. Oh and I used multiple example with only one including the Azerbaijani party, which you seem to believe is inferior or irrelevant. Oh and yes Wikipedia is a reliable source as long as you are able to read the citations given or question the information when necessary.



This is assuming that Spain's economy was uniformly capitalist.
This is assuming we were even talking about Spain.



People's Democracies were, as Stalin noted, under the dictatorship of the proletariat. They proceeded to liquidate the power of the capitalists and other measures similar to that which was undertaken by the Soviet government under Lenin.
Sure they were and of course they did, just like the DPRK, but post-Stalinist leaders were all bourgeois revisionists. :laugh: Perhaps you haven't yet realized that the post-Stalinist leaders also liquated the Capitalists "and other measures similar to that which was undertaken by the Soviet government under Lenin"?



Case in point, only an idiot would think that Albania's policies were mere "bourgeois-democratic reforms" in the 40's and 50's.
Such as an idiot who thinks anyone post-Stalin was a revisionist bourgeois Capitalist spy trying to overthrow the USSR.



People of Africa are hungry. Demand for food is skyrocketing. But they cant afford to buy food and capitalists will prefer to throw away their food than to give it to the Africans because there is no profit in it, so people will remain hungry.
Capitalists already give food to people and donate billions to try to aid them. An increased demand for food leads to increased supply for food, people just need to be able to pay for the costs, but that's what the aid organizations are doing there.



Science and technologies cant rely on systems. I don’t have enough time to prove any obvious thing to you!
Actually yes they do. They originate from specific systems, develop due to them, and rely on the specific mode of production. Compare the developments of technology under Feudalist modes of production and then under Capitalist modes of production. What machinery and technology we have today depends on exploitation, wage-labor, mass commodity production, operate on the basis of today's costs, prices, and price mechanisms.



Pure Malthusianism. Humans don’t have to rely on finite resources. They can use recycling, renewable energies and … to meet their needs without needing finite resources. Technology to do so already exists, but since its not profitable, its not used in large scale.
They have to rely on finite resources. As long as you have ONE single finite resource then you CANNOT have "according to need" production and would have to thus ration that ONE finite resource. Since we have numerous finite resources then that is sadly not the case and we must by every means adopt an "according to contribution" system. Recycling is not 100% efficient on returns. Renewable energies are much more costly and less efficient/productive than the alternatives. People require not only finite resources but finite land, finite time, and finite labor-power. Technology to do so does NOT exist, we need full automation to meet their full needs. Again see the thread on eliminating scarcity for luxury goods, there's an entire debate taking place there. If something is not profitable then it has no demand and is thus useless. Thanks to the pricing mechanisms we can know which alternatives are preferred, which are cheaper, and which are efficient.


We don’t have to wait for socialism to see falsity of this statement. In present time there are societies which produce more goods and meet more needs of their people while at the same time they do less damage to the environment, on the other hand there are societies which damage the environment more but are unable to meet the basic needs of people.
[/quote]
Nonsense. You speak of these societies as if they all produce for themselves and satisfy their own needs, that is not the case. Countries today all depend upon each other, if dirt industrial production takes place in China other countries due to outsourcing rather than in the US or other First World countries then that does not lead to the conclusion that pollution and whatnot has been averted but simply that it has been relocated. If you are to produce more goods, you inherently use up more resources. Countries which damage the environemtn but are uanble to meet the basic needs of people are being exploited or exporting to other countries whilst also employing their own people and eventually advancing them. See the case of Britain, the US, France, etc. during the Industrial Revolution.



Full automation is never possible and its not required to reduce the work hours. Many people are working with old methods because capitalists don’t share their profit (and as a result, their technology). By using advanced technology, its completely possible to produce more with lower work hours.
Actually yes full automation is essential to not only reduce work hours to the bare minimum but to also create an "according to need" system which would otherwise be impossible due to the issues of rationing, remuneration, incentives, and so on. Capitalists do not need and should never share their profits under a CAPITALIST system, thus people that rely on old methods have every incentive, as Marx himself explained, to resort to adopting newer technology due to the coercion of capital, markets, and competition. If people cannot afford them then they should not adopt them at the time being rather than brashly and destructively adopt all the latest technology and empty the Earth of its resources with massive overproduction and waste. This overproduction and waste is prevented under Capitalism and limited to those who actually have the means to pay for them. An "according to needs" system does not and thus mass chaos and disaster will follow as you attempt to supply the daily needs of 6 billion or more people on Earth using finite resources and literally hoping that each works to his best when no one does so.



Adam Smith wrote that China was wealthier than Europe in 18th century. But i already wrote that supremacy doesn’t depend on this.

Here's the quote and context:
"China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous countries in world. It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation, industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are described by travellers in the present times. It had perhaps, even long before his time, acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its laws and institutions permits it to acquire. The accounts of all travellers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of labour, and in the difficulty which a labourer finds in bringing up a family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented. The condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting indolently in their workhouses, for the calls of their customers, as in Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of their respective trades, offering their service, and as it were begging employment. The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence."

China was thus quite Capitalist according to Adam Smith, not a pre-Capitalist society. Nevertheless, here's what I specifically asked you to name, a society "with high standards of living, life expectancy, literacy, available goods, high productivity, etc. etc." According to Adam Smith China did not fulfill those conditions except perhaps the last one, but that "high productivity" is nothing compared to the productivity of Capitalism as it developed.



I didn’t wrote proletariat only cares about standards of living, you did. Besides, commodity production and entertainment cant be separated from standards of living. as a class, proletariat strives for political and social changes as well. It was not always the capitalists countries which had higher living standards. Living standards raised in USSR and China before they turned to capitalism. Even today, living standards are higher in villages which are controlled by Naxalities than those which are controlled by Indian government. even in European countries such as Greece, it has become clear for proletariat that high standards of living are in confliction with continuance of capitalism, thus, workers are turning towards socialism.

This is what you said: "Socialism is superior to capitalism from a proletarian view point. In time, It can and will provide people with higher living standards compared to capitalism but that is not the reason of its supremacy. Socialism turns people from objects which are only worthy when and if they produce profit, to the most valuable beings who freely cooperate with each other in order to develop themselves and the society."
Meaning that you outright disregard productivity, consumerism, etc. as having any effect on superiority "from a proletariat viewpoint" and instead it depends on turning people from production for profit to producing in an entirely Utopian and unrealistic fashion based on nothing more than "free cooperation" purely to "develop themselves and society". This by every means can be lobbed into standards of living by attempting to claim that this fulfills a human necessity. The proletariat only strives for political and social changes during times that require political and social changes, today, however, in First World countries thanks to the lovely reformists who fought for workers' rights and whatnot have destroyed the material basis for any struggle for political or social actions to unite and call the proletariat for any sort of action. The Capitalist countries went through a rough patch of super-exploitation before rapidly becoming the countries with the highest standards of living, power, development, and wealth. The end justifies the means. As for India, wait a few years and that will soon change. High standards of living are not acting in conflict with the existence of Capitalism as we have seen in numerous Capitalist countries today. Greece is fuck up because of its debts and too much social welfare on top of Capitalism until the government crippled itself. The US or the Nordic countries even have high standards of living thus forcing the proletariat into submitting to Capitalism rather than Socialism as was seen on the question of the labor movements.



In primitive tribes, hunters didn’t kept anything for themselves, that didn’t mean there was exploitation. No worker is willing to keep anything for himself either. Workers need public works which don’t belong to individuals. In every small community (for example people who live in a same house), members do some work for the community which benefits all of members. This is entirely different from exploitation which is based on taking away others peoples work for the benefit of someone who doesn’t do anything in return.
Primitive tribes have absolutely nothing to do with our modern society. We must never learn anything from primitive societies; they must learn from us. This is the 21st century, we need to act like it. No exploitation took place during primitive tribal societies but that's because of the simply fact that they were always on the verge of starvation, death, and were restricted to kin groups with kin altruism. They were small-scale, close knight societies that had nothing to do with what we have today. You cannot by any means meet the needs of everyone on Earth while at the same time speaking of primitive tribes or attempting to simulate their mode of production. That is ridiculous. Workers need public works, yes, but they cannot be decentralized and local workplaces, they need to be centralized and large-scale in order to be able to meet billions of demand. They need a pricing mechanism and/or artificial/non-artificial markets. Members of a community have absolutely no reason to work for the community when they already receive everything they need for free. This is not entirely different from exploitation because you do not even bother to examine nor analyze anything. Under your system it is still exploitation as the commune, the state, or any other entity takes and appropriates the fruits of labor of the workers against his wishes whether he likes it or not and yet you do not even bother to remunerate him accordingly. This is the issue.



In early stages of capitalism, when it was a progressive system, bourgeoisie was doing a useful job but that ages have passed. Modern bourgeoisie doesn’t even manages his capital himself, he employes educated workers to manage for him. He is a parasite which is no longer needed by society.

Capitalism is still progressive until you find a superior alternative such as a working Socialism. The modern bourgeoisie do still manage "capital" themselves, not all the bourgeoisie today are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. He is not a parasite that is no longer needed, he is the entrepreneur that was praised by Marx. Countries are still underdeveloped, this require more development by Capitalism such as in the case of developing and underdeveloped countries. Marx was referring to First World countries being the basis for revolution, sadly reformists destroyed that basis by fighting for workers' rights and thus making workers' life comfortable under Capitalism without any need for revolutionary change.



Where is the contradiction? I wrote “almost all of those who called themselves communist were united” which is true. If your English is not so good then you should know that “almost” means most, but not all. Also, Trotskyists and others like to call themselves “communist”, but in reality they are not, so they cant be united with communists, but they were and are very few compared to communists.
You cannot decide what is "almost", what is "very few", etc. That is the point of the contradiction, that you contradicted yourself and then attempted to fix it by claiming that all others were minorities and thus can be excluded. That is not the case at all. Communists were never united, not even those with the same tendency. Trotskyists ARE Communists whether you like it or not. This is what we call a No True Scotsman logical fallacy, good job.



Its true. Since then Khrushchevists have joined bourgeois government and sometimes seized the power themselves. Results of their works are obvious. They cooperated with fascist governments like Iran, Iraq and Syria against communists. After the collapse of USSR many of them including leaders of new republics, became reactionary rightist politicians who run the most corrupt states.
There is no such thing as a "Khrushchevist", specifically ones that "join bourgeois governments and sometimes seized the power themselves". Iran, Iraq, and Syria never had any fascist governments. Fascism is a specific ideology that you, as a "Communist", need to learn what the fuck it means, when to use, and what it refers to. Fascism was witnessed in Italy and Spain, even Nazism, but not in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Stop using these terms like a Leftist liberal hippie and learn how to use them. Nevertheless, it is far better to cooperate with Iran, Iraq, and Syria than it is to cooperate with actual Nazis and Fascists as in the case of the "non-revisionist" Stalin.


[FONT=Verdana]Besides, if what I claim is not right, why don’t you show us some examples of Khrushchevist revisionists having a progressive rule. You can point your finger to North Korea, Baath regimes of Iraq and Syria, Gaddafi, Castro and … but by doing so you only expose yourself further and ease my work!
Start reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Leader_.281955.E2.80.931964.29
From building thousands of homes for people to abolishing Stalin's authoritarian policies. North Korea has nothing at all to do with Khrushchevism, this clearly shows that you have no diea waht you're talking about and are emulating the other Revlefters on here by using terms which you know nothing about and start slapping on anyone you disagree with. Baath regimes have nothing to do with Khrushchevism. Gaddafi and Castro have nothing to do with Khrushchevism. Keep this up and you'll eventually call Lenin and Obama Khrushchev revisionists as well. :laugh:



In what fields are teachings of Marxism? economy and sociology. These are fields of science.
That's how you define science? By merely taking part and presenting theories RELATED to economics and sociology? Seriously do me a favor and look up what "science" is, specifically see the scientific method which has nothing to do with "scientific" Socialism.



[FONT=Verdana]Of course, for someone whose purpose is distortion, science is an enemy.

You know nothing about science, but you describe perfectly what your position is. You actually attempt to fuck over history, distort it, and spread your lies and propaganda within it. As your purpose is distortion, not only do you distort history but you also distort science and history. Science is you enemy.



Dictatorship of proletariat exists unceasing under socialism until communism and during this period, class struggle still exists. Aren’t you the one who supports violence against workers when they raise against your beloved state? Isn’t this dictatorship?
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat only temporarily exists and ends with the abolishment of classes, that takes place during Socialism such as in the case of the USSR eliminating the bourgeoisie and other classes. Yes I do support the violence against REACTIONARY workers who oppose the CLASS interests of the proletariat and the proletarian state. This is not a dictatorship because you have no idea what a dictatorship is. This is by every means authoritarian. Class struggle does not exist where classes do not exist.



Communists admit that class struggle exists under socialism and therefore dictatorship of proletariat is needed, but they believe that this dictatorship grants freedom to workers and suppresses their enemies, but revisionists deny the existence of class struggle, claim that they are ruling FOR the workers and suppress anyone who protests against them.
You really are a philistine. Class struggle only exists where classes exist. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is interpreted different from one person (such as Lenin) to another (such as Luxemburg). This dictatorship acts in the CLASS interests of the proletariat, not in the interests of the proletariat. There is a crucial difference which you seem to ignore. The proletariat can be affected and influenced by reactionary ideologies such as in the case of hte Polish Solidarity, the Nazi proletariat, the Fascist proletariat, the Capitalist proletariat, the anti-Communist proletariat, etc. The interests of the proletariat cannot be followed at all times, that is why we follow their class interests. The class interests of the proletariat are objective and the same at all times only varying according to localities and material conditions rather than beliefs and ideologies. Nevertheless, the freedom to the workers is limited inasmuch as they do not endanger themselves in the process. Their freedom cannot allow for the freedom of Nazi ideology, for instance. Revisionists do not deny the existence of class struggle, neither do I, I only deny it after it has already been done away with after the abolishment of classes (which was declared by Stalin himself, your "revisionist" IIRC), the vanguard party and executive committee always ruled FOR the proletariat ever since Lenin, and they also suppressed and killed anyone who protests against them ever since the Red Terror and Civil War.



This is a very childish argument. Imagine a factory which is owned by a government. the government appoints a manager (who doesn’t really manages but transfers managing duties to educated employees), gives higher salary to him, suppresses the workers who protest against him, forces workers to work long hours with a low salary in bad conditions. The government uses the surplus value which is made by workers, against their will in order to offer higher salary to the managers and hire more mercenaries to protect this system. What difference is between this system and capitalism? means of productions are called “governmental”, “state owned”, “national” or … instead of “private”. I don’t think any serious person agrees that these names determine the essence of economic formations.
And you called my argument childish? What do you think of the shit you just slapped here? Observe how it shall be destroyed. The government is not a private individual, it is a a public entity made up of elected public officials that are recallable and publicly responsible for their actions. The governments and its employees do not receive the surplus value as their own profits for their own personal and private use, but for public use. The surplus value extracted by the government is not used for profit bourgeois interests but purely for the interests of society as a whole, for the welfare, for the factories, and for the workers and their commodities. The government appoints managers, managers who are nothing like the bourgeoisie and have nothing to do with the bourgeoisie, who are under the intense control and accountability to the workers themselves (see "The Red Flag: A History of Communism" on the question of the manager-worker relationship). The manager does not receive the surplus value as his own private profit nor does he own the means of production. The government in this case is nothing more than society itself, its very basic organ. The government extracts surplus value from workers against their will not for its own interests, but for the interests of those workers and their society who would otherwise not bother to work unless they resorted to either coercion or incentives. The Bolsheviks dreamed, like you and other Utopians, that a Socialist society would instantly lead to super-productivity, all workers being happily producing without question, and so on. Reality slapped them in the face and forced the Bolsheviks to resort to pragmatism rather than Utopian theory and thus they suggested and even adopted Taylorism, large-scale factories, the NEP, grain requisitioning, underpaying labor, etc. even under Lenin. By hiring more mercenaries to protect this system, they are essentially protecting a Socialist proletarian society against any threats to it. There are numerous differences between this system and Capitalism, but you obviously have no idea what Marxism is nor have you read any works on Marxism before calling yourself a "Marxist". Capitalism bases itself on the existence of the bourgeoisie, Capitalist relations of production, private ownership of the means of production, private profit, existence of Capitalist markets, existence of free enterprise (ability to start your own business), and so on. The USSR had NONE of these, it had nothing to do with Capitalism. Names have nothing to do with anything, that is exactly why I criticize you for resorting to blanket terms and names when you yourself claim you're a "Marxist", "anti-revisionist", etc. when I've shown that you are not. Nevertheless, the names here do have a meaning. A governmental, state-owned, national means of production pertain the ownership of the means of production by society and its representative organ. In the case of a proletariat state, a Socialist state, then the means of production are owned by the proletariat and their state aimed at the progression towards Socialism and eventually communism. This is extremely different from the anarchy of production of a Capitalist mode of production where the means of production are owned by private individuals extracting surplus value for private interests rather than social interests with no social goal except accumulating capital.



Even in high stages of capitalism, means of production can hardly be called “private” because they don’t belong to a certain person, they belong to big companies which have influence on states. If these companies become one with the state (for example nationalization of banks and industries under economic crisis) and exploit the workers under a different name, this doesn’t affects the economical system.
The big companies are not publicly owned by society, by the proletariat, directed at socialism and communism, but purely owned and run by the bourgeoisie for private interests. The nationalization of banks and industries during economic crises has nothing to do with Socialism or the USSR, as I have already explained to Ismael on Engels' quote. It is not an issue of exploiting under a different name, but for what reasons, what purpose, where do the fruits of their labor, how, etc. are these workers exploited? Even under your own system they will be much more exploited than they are today as you take away their means of production AND fruits of labor without remuneration.



[FONT=Verdana]Because its not the bourgeoisie which sells the products, there can be no surplus value for bourgeoisie! Very logical! So, what if someone else does the selling for them and relieves them from this hard task?! What if few individuals take control of the government and use the products of public labor for the good of themselves? You don’t have to worry about that, do you? as long as the means of production are not called “private” and the state is called “proletarian”, the products of PUBLIC labor automatically goes to the PUBLIC and things will be fine!
Yes, exactly. It is because the bourgeoisie do not own the means of production, do not appropriate any surplus value, do not sell products, and do not even exist then there can be no surplus value for the bourgeoisie. That indeed very logical, something which seems alien to you. Typical. It is not a matter of selling, as I have already explained, there are many more questions that need to be raised and answered before we can determine the actual answer. If someone else does the selling for them then they are still bourgeois purely because they privately own the means of production, privately hire labor, extract private profits, use the private profits for their own private and personal interests, etc. etc. If a few individuals take over the government and use the products of public labor as their OWN PRIVATE AND PERSONAL products then they are by every means bourgeois. That was not the case in the USSR where all products were sold to people and other countries in order to build up the USSR and meet the needs of its population. Again, as you seem VERY ignorant and not by any means having read anything on Marxism yourself, it has nothing to do with names as much as it has to do with actual questions which you constantly ignore.



Practical conclusion: Tea party is the real revolutionary in USA and should be supported!
That's your own statement, not mine. Good job, reactionary.



[FONT=Verdana]If workers are kept backward and hungry, and if their class consciousness is messed up like this, instead of fighting with their enemy, they will fight with themselves for getting low paid jobs. They may even fight over ridiculous things like race and religion. Such workers can be employed by capitalist for imperialist rivalries as soldiers and against advanced sections of their own class. If workers don’t struggle for better conditions under capitalism and without the organization and class consciousness which is achieved during this struggle, even if they revolt, their rage will end with failure. On the other hand, workers have no reason to believe that a party which is not struggling for immediate improvement in their lives is their vanguard and support it.
Oh really now? That's why the most sizable, largest, and most famous revolutionaries and labor movements were from the 19th and early 20th century BEFORE the reforms that destroyed any and all revolutionary movements in First World countries? Learn what "material conditions" are and learn how to analyze history and society. They will not fight with themselves, they will fight against the system and attempt to impose another system that is more favorable for them as we have historically seen them do. Today they have absolutely no reason to fight for any other system, especially in the Nordic countries. They won't fight over things like race and religion if they can be united by a vanguard party with a proper alternative. It is not uncommon for workers in the army to revolt against their captain and state as we have seen time and time again. There's a reason why revolutions took place and succeeded in downtrodden, oppressed, poor, and super-exploited Third World and backwards countries with a state unable to support them rather than in rich First World countries which were hostile to Socialism and Communism. At least they will revolt, that is the most important issue here other than your SUBJECTIVE claim that they will "fail" as if you somehow know the future. A party which does not struggle for immediate improvement of their lives knows that any improvement of their immediate lives would be buttressing Capitalism (as Luxemburg explained) and making life comfortable UNDER CAPITALISM rather than offering the goal of Socialism and Communism. It is also not uncommon for such parties to forget the goal in favor of immediate reforms.



They are not building the material conditions for an advanced society, they are giving away raw materials and importing goods; they are destroying the means of production and turning their society to a consumer. they are as much progressive as Beverly Hillbillies.
Not raelly. By giving away raw materials, they are being paid and obtaining jobs better than and much more than what they had before. As for importing goods, that is a necessity that must be praised, especially if it is on the question of productive machinery and other such goods. Their societies cannot be turned into consumer-based societies because those already exist in First World countries, Capitalists actually outsource their means of production to such countries in order to create products FOR the consumer-based societies abroad. This process boosts the local and national economy rather than regresses it. They are creating a bourgeoisie where no bourgeoisie existed, they are modernizing their societies and economies, they are creating jobs, they are creating a proletariat, etc. all with the NECESSARY material conditions which the First World countries have ironically done away with by fighting for wrokers' rights.




[FONT=Verdana]robbery and drug trafficking are works as well but there are people who don’t do even easy, unproductive and unnecessary works but are richer than hard working people. Arabic countries around the gulf are full of them.
Yes, robbery and drug trafficking are work, but such types of work are a last resort or even multi-million dollar industries. Those super rich individuals are a minority, not the entirety of the bourgeoisie nor the rule of thumb.



This is against what has happened in history and against writings of Marx. Marx wrote in Capital that until the law banned the labor of women and children in coal mines (as a result of workers struggle), capitalists who could use unclothed women workers in mines with low wages, found it so satisfying that they did not used the existing machines. When workers are cheap and without rights while machines are expansive, why should capitalists who only care about profit, use the latter even if its more productive? Its not by accident that those countries which workers have more rights in them are technologically advanced as well.
Are you kidding me? First of all, I challenge you to show me a single mode of production that bases itself on nude working women. These women were EXCEPTIONS which were pointed out, they were not the rule of thumb nor were they even essential. They were not even halting production and advancement, merely used as any other workers was used. Secondly, show me where in Capital Marx writes this because I do not recall ever coming across it. Thirdly, have you ever taken a SINGLE course in economics? If something is more productive, even Marx claimed this due to the coercion of capital, markets, and competition, then it is adopted over less productive alternatives. It as the workers themselves who revolted against machines being used to replace workers, not the other way around, nor was it the bourgeoisie who revolted against the use of machinery in favor of manual workers. One expensive machine is worth 10+ workers, does not go on strike, does not fight for any rights, produces 24/7, produces much more than workers, can always be repaired and maintained, and so on. Your claims are ridiculous. It is not by accident that the advanced countries have more rights, it is purely because of the introduction of machinery and the displacement of workers, their unemployment, their poverty, etc. that they started to organize and revolt. Governments had to concede to these workers in order to PREVENT a revolution, not in favor of a revolution. The workers, the ignorant workers, took the bait and still remain to this day stuck with Capitalism.



I myself worked in a salt factory once. That factory used conscripts who were similar to slaves. They made them work hard with spade, pickax and hammer while more advanced technology existed for breaking the rocks more than a century ago and was available in market. But the owner preferred the slaves because they only required food, could easily be replaced and if they protested, they had to answer to a military court.
The owner could not afford to expensive machinery, soon he will as was the case in other countries. Machines produce 10x or more than a worker, require only the push of a button, no food, are easily replaced, and do not protest.



[FONT=&quot][FONT=Verdana]Capitalism is necessary and a historical progress as long as capitalists haven’t turned to parasites. exactly when they become parasites, the system needs to be changed.

Since when the hell are Capitalists not parasites



Exactly a parasites point of view. Even bourgeoisie, when it was progressive, held a different position. It condemned rich feudals who were earning money and goods without doing anything useful.
The bourgeoisie are still progressive as long as there are underdeveloped and developing countries. Rich Feudal lords have nothing to do with Capitalism nor the bourgeoisie. Feudal lords base themselves on castes, honor systems, have little to no social mobility, took part in a Feudalist mode of production, had Feudalist relations of production, and so on. That has nothing to do with Capitalism or the bourgeoisie with their displaced workers and so on.



[quote]Marx condemned Lassalle’s thesis about accusing peasantry and toilers who are not included in the ranks of worker class of being a “reactionary mass”. Marx even defended the woodcutters rights in his newspaper. Engels wrote that primitive communes in Russia can enter communism without passing through capitalism, if struggle of Russia’s peasants combines with the struggle of proletariat in west Europe.

Condemning criticism calling other classes a "reactionary mass" has nothing to do with supporting ALLIES of the proletariat. Defending woodcutters', i.e. WORKERS', rights has nothing to do with alliances. Also on the primitive communes in Russia? Have you EVER read anything by Engels or Marx? Here you go:


"In the Berlin Sozial-Politische Zentralblatt a Mr. B. V. Struve has a long article on your book; I must agree with him in this one point, that for me, too, the present capitalistic phase of development in Russia appears an unavoidable consequence of the historical conditions as created by the Crimean War, the way in which the change of 1861 in agrarian conditions was accomplished, and the political stagnation in Europe generally. Where he is decidedly wrong is in comparing the present state of Russia with that of the United States in order to refute what he calls your pessimistic views of the future. He says the evil consequences of modern capitalism in Russia will be as easily overcome as they are in the United States. There he quite forgets, that the U.S. are modern bourgeois from the very origin; that they were founded by petits bourgeois and peasants who ran away from European feudalism to establish a purely bourgeois society. Whereas in Russia we have a groundwork of a primitive communistic character, a precivilisation Gentilgesellschaft, crumbling to ruins, it is true, but still serving as the groundwork, the material upon which the capitalistic revolution (for it is a real social revolution) acts and operates. In America, Geldwirtschaft has been fully established for more than a century in Russia Naturalwirtschaft was all but exclusively the rule. Therefore it stands to reason that the change, in Russia, must be far more violent, far more incisive, and accompanied by immensely greater sufferings than it can be in America.


You yourself admit that "the social conditions in Russia after the Crimean War were not favourable to the development of the form of production inherited by us from our past history." I would go further, and say, that no more in Russia than anywhere else would it have been possible to develop a higher social form out of primitive agrarian communism unless – that higher form was already in existence in another country, so as to serve as a model. That higher form being, wherever it is historically possible, the necessary consequence of the capitalistic form of production and of the social dualistic antagonism created by it, it could not be developed directly out of the agrarian commune, unless in imitation of an example already in existence somewhere else. Had the West of Europe been ripe, 1860-70, for such a transformation, had that transformation then been taken in hand in England, France, etc., then the Russians would have been called upon to show what could have been made out of their commune, which was then more or less intact. But the West remained stagnant, no such transformation was attempted, and capitalism was more and more rapidly developed. And as Russia had no choice but this: either to develop the commune into a form of production from which it was separated by a number of historical stages, and for which not even in the West the conditions were then ripe – evidently an impossible task – or else to develop into capitalism; what remained to her but the latter chance?"



Proletariat doesn’t need to be in majority in order to accomplish the revolution, it can gain the support of majority who benefit from its rule.
It never needs a majority for any revolution, it only needs organization, mobilization, and the rest depends upon luck.



No. value of labor force is determined with that method. Value is not necessarily equal to the existing price, values can remain unchanged while prices change everyday. Wage is price of labor force in certain circumstances, not its value. If there is shortage of work force, materials which are needed for reproduction of the working class doesn’t change, but offer of labor force decreases which results to increase in wages.


Value is determined by the amount of work which is socially necessary for reproduction. If offer and demand are equal then: value = price. If not, the price vacillates around the value. This is a basic economic fact which Marx and bourgeoisie economists have accepted. Every worker strike proves this basic fact.
Show me where I ever spoke of a disequilibrium when I made that statement? I referred to the BASIS of the wages, the concept by which they are determined without taking into consideration any other specifics such as demand and supply, inflation, etc. In such a case, the wages are determined by values as value and prices are equal in the context of Marx's theories.



On the contrary: you answered your own “ridiculous argument” when you admitted that existence of backward workers makes low wages possible!
Firstly, nowhere did I admit that the existence of backward workers in OTHER coutnries makes low wages possible. The existence of "backwards" workers competiting with other works do make low wages possible, but this has NOTHING to do with First World coutnries and their wages versus Third World countries and their wages.



Besides, what happened to the wages which were supposed to be equal to something “necessary for the reproduction of the working class” when wages are determined by offer of cheap work force?
By "offer of cheap work force" I think you mean "a high supply of cheap work force", in that case you're referring to the price of labor-power today in the real-world, while I was referring in that quote to the price of labor-power being equal to value under Marx's theoretical framework.



If such workers didn’t existed in foreign countries, capitalist had to pay higher wages to workers in their own countries for same jobs.
No they wouldn't, they would have paid the same by pushing for deregulation and conditions similar to the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century. The class war would have ignited and reached high levels of conflict between the bourgeoisie pushing for less regulation, lower wages, lower workers' rights, etc. while the proletariat would push for more regulation, higher wagers, more workers' rights, etc. Instead, what we have today is the bourgeois entirely ignoring the class conflict and isntead venturing to dominate and find favorable conditions in other countries, creating a class conflict in those other countries.



They are capitalist countries but they are more developed in fields of means of productions and relationships which are created during the production.
Yes, still Capitalists.



Unlike countries which have nothing but raw material and extract it with foreign technology, Nordic countries have advanced industries.
They depend on the oil industry for around 40% of their exports, if I remember correctly.



On the other hand, proletariat is more class conscious and organized.
Class consciousness and organization change nothing here, they already have all they want with no desire for Socialism.



Unlike Arabia and UAE which still have significant remanents of pre capitalist formations, Bourgeoisie democratic reforms in Nordic countries have been carried to the end. So these countries are closer to socialism.
I find it hypocritical, ironic, and quite laughable how you claim that full-blown Capitalist countries are "closer to Socialism" while countries such as Iraq under Saddam, Syria, Libya under Gaddafi, and the DPRK are bourgeois-Khruschevist-Capitalist countries. Simply laughable.



You are the one who opposes the right to choose and support violent measures against workers from a government which is calling itself “socialist” (Hitler also called himself a socialist!). How can proletariat and its allies support a government which is indifferent to their choices and suppresses them when they don’t want it?
Hitler called himself a National Socialist and clearly explained the differences from Marxist Socialism and traditional Socialism. I oppose workers' rights to choose on the basis that it cannot choose the best decisions for itself and instead needs a vanguard party to do so for it. I support violent measures against workers only if they are reactionaries, side against the proletarian government, side against their class interests, oppose Socialism, oppose Communism, join the Nazis, join the Fascists, etc. etc. Only class conscious workers will support it when they realize what their class interests rather than ideological/personal beliefs and interests are. That was the case in every Communist revolution.



Your statements contradict with each other: “The Soviets were NOT abolished” yet they “were formal institutions”. What difference does it make for a formal institution to carry the name of “soviet” or circus? True soviets can not be formal institutions. Soviets “were formal institutions” yet “The delegates were ALL elected by people and they DID INDEED affect governmental policies”. Which one are we supposed to believe? Soviets were “the VICTORS and thus an entire society and state based on them was created” yet the society and state which are based on them, turn them to “formal institutions”.
A formal institution is an institution that has been formalized, i.e. made official. How the FUCK does that contradict the claim that they were "NOT abolished"? If anything that purely shows that they were NOT abolished, but instead made official, formal, and established as a necessary mechanism of Soviet society. "True soviets"? Is that ANOTHER No True Scotsman logical fallacy I see here? Oh why yes it is, good job resorting to constant logical fallacies. Soviets CAN and MUST be formal institutions otherwise they would be sidelined and completely unnecessary. Again, being formal institutions does not contradict the statement that "The delegates were ALL elected by people and they DID INDEED affect governmental policies". OF COURSE YOU TURN THEM INTO FORMAL INSTITUTIONS IF YOU BASE YOUR SOCIETY AND STAET ON THEM! Do you have the SLIGHTEST idea what a "formal institution" means? Google it because I'm pretty sure you have no idea what it means and seem to think that it means "on paper". Google the word "formal" and the word "institution".



In a class society, interests of people contradict with each other. Thus, there can be no voluntary collaboration. But in a socialist society, interests of different people complete each other. These two kind of societies have different cultural values.

The interests of people will always clash and conflict with each other regardless of classes. Classes are merely the most important contradictions in society that transform it, they are not the only contradictions in existence as there are numerous others. Voluntary collaboration can always exist but not between classes. The interests of different people "complete each other" in your Utopia? How nice, now tell me how Nazis and Jew will get along in your magical fairyland, I'll be waiting.




Some of these demands are progressive and I support them, although I should add that counter revolution was misusing the just demands of people. if USSR and its puppet government had paid attention to demands of people, social contradictions couldn’t have developed to an antagonistic level. Those just demands could have been asked and answered peacefully without giving an opportunity for riot to bourgeoisie. About 1956 events, I blame revisionists and followers of capitalism path in Eastern bloc
Those demands which you deem to be progressive are surely nothing more than steering AWAY from the USSR, gaining independence, creating "revisionist" "bourgeois" "Khrushchevist" liberal reforms, decentralization, etc. that would have paved the way for ACTUAL Capitalism. You criticize for the reforms by Khrushchev and onward as bourgeois, Capitalist, revisionist, etc. but you support the Hungarian counter-revolution of 1956! Laughable. The just demands of people? As you can see, fuck their demands. People are not inherently revolutionary, progressive, nor do they always know what's best. Go meet the nationalist and reactionary demands of the likes of Solidarity, the Hungarian counter-revolution of 1956, and other such reactionary movements.



I hadn’t seen such a childish statements from someone who claims to be a leftist, but im not worried about the left because im not judging people from what they claim they are. These statements do not belong to the left (of any kind). They don’t belong to a serious person at all! Just follow his argument and see where it leads: we should struggle for abolition of freedom of speech, worker rights, human rights in general, free elections and all of bourgeois democratic achievements of mankind in order to succeed in a revolution! It means we should support the reaction and at the same time call for a revolution!
Yes, which was ALSO you entire point, as I have previously explained. You argued for this as well without actually arguing for it due to your high intellectual level. You claimed that abolishing suppressing free speech, rights, etc. led to revolutions in the USSR and thus claimed that in order to extend the life of the USSR and prevent revolutions that we must not suppress freedom of speech and rights. Then you claim that we must give freedom of speech and rights to workers in CAPITALIST countries. By the alw of transitivity you are saying nothing other than wanting to extend the life of Capitalism, prevent revolutions, and support Capitalism. YOU are the childish one, YOU are the one falsely claiming to be a leftists, YOUR statements do not belong in the Left (of any kind), and YOUR statements of reaction don't belong to a serious person at all. This is what you said. You wanted to support counter-revolutions in the USSR but prevent revolutions in First World countries BY YOUR OWN FUCKING "LOGIC" as I have shown above.



The lack of freedom of speech and rights leads to revolution. a revolutionary supports bourgeois democratic reforms and tries to force the governments to accept them, but not all of governments are capable of doing so, because carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end can led to a peaceful socialist evolution and at some point and certain conditions it contradicts with the bourgeoisie system. For example there are free elections in usual situation, but what if a communist party is able to gain victory in it and change the system? Will bourgeoisie government remain so democratic to accept this? So carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end makes way for socialism.

And here we see this person expose himself for what he truly is: a reactionary counter-revolutionary reformist. He not only wants to do away with revolutions in Capitalist countries by supporting reforms that he believes PREVENT revolution, but he also wants to lead to a "peaceful socialist evolution" by fighting for bourgeois democratic reforms. Not only that, but he also stated that since the bourgeoisie do not desire a "peaceful socialist evolution" that they will oppose it and stop it. So what we can conclude from this, again, is that this philistine ignorant reactionary not only wants to oppose revolution in Capitalist countries by supporting bourgeois democratic reforms, but he wants to support bourgeois democratic reforms knowing very well that they will be eventually stopped and prevent the Communists and Socialists from gaining power! If he's not a closet reactionary/counter-revolutionary then I do not know what is. I honestly cannot believe what he's saying. I'll reiterate in a logical format for anyone reading and not understanding what I'm talking about.

The guy above:

- Claims that suppressing free speech and rights leads to revolution
- Claims that not suppressing but supporting free speech and rights prevents revolution
- Says that the Soviets should have supported free speech and rights to prevent revolution (Hungary 1956 for example)
- Wants workers and bourgeois governments to fight for free speech
- But he claimed before that granting free speech prevents revolution
- Ergo by extension, he wishes to prevent revolution by his own lovely claims and actions

- Claims that he wants to fight for bourgeois democratic reforms
- Knows that if a Communist Party is about to win it will be stopped and toppled
- Wishes to continue anyway

Seriously. What the fuck. We have either two possibilities here, one that he is very stupid and ignorant so as to not even see the consequences of his actions, or two that he's a closet counter-revolutionary, reformist, revisionist, and anti-Communist.



On the other hand workers get organized and class conscious during the struggle for reforms within the present system. Without this organization and class consciousness its impossible to accomplish the revolution. Even if unorganized and backward workers manage to overthrow a state, they cant replace it with a state of their own and will resort to the most achievable alternative which cant be anything than a bourgeoisie alternative, for example Khomeini during the 1979 revolution in Iran.

How the fuck will they get organized and class conscious if you already won the struggle for reforms and they no longer desire any other action? You are doing nothing but turning the revolutionary struggle into a REFORMIST struggle, one that is the same as the political scenario in the US. You are forcing the workers to turn to the bourgeois democratic government to meet their needs and demands rather than a Socialist/Communist revolutionary a alternative after making them realize that the bourgeois democratic government IS NOT the solution. Unorganized and backwards worker scan be moved on forwards by the vanguard party as in the case of the USSR and other Communist revolutions involving previously unorganized and backwards workers.



In a democratic socialist state, no one stops the most educated and dedicated revolutionaries in a vanguard party to explain the situation to people and show them the wrong paths which lead to mistakes.
Thus you create divisions in society, power struggle, and turn the Socialist state into parliamentary bourgeois democracy. You even WANT to cause civil unrest, protests, conflicts, and even civil war by not only permitting factions/parties in your "democratic socialist state" but by ENCOURAGING them and basing your entire system on them. Your "progressive" regime will turn into yet another US political system where politicians bash each other over personal issues which have nothing to do with anything in an attempt to undermine the opponent in order to win popular support rather than to advance society through constructive criticism and proposals.



So there is no need to fear mistakes when they can be avoided by free argument and election.
Revisionist. And you dared criticize Khrushchev who tried to do the same after Stalin's iron fisted rule as a revisionist? Laughable. Nevertheless, free argument only causes contradictions which lead to conflict. Free elections are a disaster.



Besides, do you even pay attention to what you say yourself? You claim that after decades of rule, those “educated and dedicated” people in the “vanguard” party found out that capitalism is superior to the system which they were supporting. In late 1980s they admitted that protesters of 1956 were right! If what you say is true, they weren’t the most “educated and dedicated” people, but the most stupid and opportunist people!
Yes I do. And yes, Capitalism turned out to be superior. Let them admit what they wish to admit. They actually were the "most educated and dedicated" people. The most "stupid and opportunist people" were people who did not realize what needed to change or thought that the change was to resort to the counter-revolution of 1956.



Its not mistakes which threatens the societies most, its deliberate harm which the rulers cause to the majority. Mistakes can be very harmful but can be corrected when the majority of society finds them but those who are determined to suppress people and continue their rule are not easy to overthrow, even if the majority wishes this.
Communist rulers do not deliberately cause harm to their own supporters or the proletariat for no reason. It is also mistakes which actually threaten society, such as the mistakes made by Mao by depending on proletarian mass movements and Stalin's faulty implementation of collectivization which starved millions. It was the majority who wished to topple the USSR and other republics. Your lovely majority. You need the context and reason for everything, stop resorting to ignorant Anarchist labeling bullshit and instead actually analyze shit.



yes, when “The party” is bourgeois – reactionary, it should resort to peaceful coexistence with bourgeoisie and deal with proletariat using an iron fist.
Stop using words which refer to your position and which you know nothing about. That is not an argument. Get me a proper one.



This statement comes from a person who previously said that capitalism is superior to “soviet socialism”!
Yes it is.



1- a Marxist judges about people according to their deeds not what they claim.
And needs to judge the deeds themselves in their proper context, something which you unable to do. This is also the reason why I do not bother with your claims about revisionism, reactionaries, the bourgeoisie, etc. which you are nothing but that.



2- governments of Indonesia, India, Peru, Iran, Israel and … didn’t even claimed to socialist, they are butchering their people but USSR sold arms to them for profit.
For profit in order to fund its own society and people, yes, not for private interests and private profit as in teh case of the bourgeoisie. This is why your claims of being a Marxist or whatever are false, you do not understand the difference between the forms of profit, do not ask why, do not ask where, do not ask how, all you care for is that there's profit, there's authoritarianism, etc. Petty labels which mean absolutely nothing and change from context to context.



That’s exactly the point. the ruling party was reactionary and was gathering reactionaries.
The ruling party was NOT reactionary and was NOT gathering reactionaries, you made the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Prove it.
The ignorance is strong in this one. Let's follow your logic and conclusion. If the Communist Party was reactionary and was gathering reactionaries then Lenin was a reactionary and was gathering reactionaries. Of course, typically, you'll claim that this only started AFTER Stalin's death and that Lenin's party was not reactionary, in which case I'll merely remind you that it was Stalin who purged the party of the "reactionaries" that existed during Lenin's time, and thus it was Stalin's fault, not Khrushchev's, for any reactionaries. But of course you'll try to deny this "logic" of yours and simply claim that Khrushchev was only responsible for this in which case I'll point out that Khrushchev was Stalin's supporter, took part in the purges, and so on as did other Communist Party members after Stalin's death thus they were not reactionaries and gathering reactionaries. You will try to make the ridiculous claim that they somehow became reactionaries instantly after Stalin's death, then I'll remind you that Khrushchev's policies were not reactionary but progressive from building houses for people to reforming the Soviet system to be more appealing and able to compete with the West and surpass it. I'll also note that the Soviet system was properly restored to what it was BEFORE Stalin's reign and returned to its "Leninist roots" rather than returned to Capitalism. All in all, your argument is bullshit.



If by “communists” you mean the members of USSR’s ruling party, your statement isn’t true. Those “communists” ruled and some of them are still ruling the “republic”s. they build golden statues of themselves, imprisoned and tortured anyone who protested against them and are heads of the most corrupt states in the world. Members of the party were active supporters of collapse of the USSR.
[/quoet]
What part of this statement is "not true"? Go ahead and tell me because your statement does NOT argue what was said by me:
"The Communists continued their political life or went into retirement in depression after the fall of the USSR." Those who build golden statues, etc. need not at all have taken part in the collapse of the USSR but merely profited from its fall post hoc after it was too late to save it or do anything but loot its corpse.


[quote] Were people only demanding capitalism (if they were doing so at all)?
I wonder what the USSR countries turned into. I bet it was Socialist. Of course Yeltsin never existed in your world nor did the collapse of the USSR ever exist in your little tiny world.



Didn’t they want welfare and democracy?
They already had welfare and democracy, especially the latter after perestroika and glasnost.



If so, why did the people “elected”(!) those who didn’t believed in capitalism in order to follow a capitalist road?
What the fuck are you talking about?




Yes, if Saparmurat Niyazov builds a golden statue of himself, its peoples fault who have never elected him! If Saparmurat Niyazov was a member of USSR’s ruling party, it doesn’t mean that party was gathering reactionaries in itself whose purposes were gaining wealth and power against the interests of people! its completely natural for a “communist” party to have a pharaoh in its ranks! This is a party of the most educated and dedicated revolutionaries! Its peoples fault who force the rulers to build golden statues of themselves! Poor rulers!


You claim that the USSR's Communist Party "was gathering reactionaries in itself whose purposes were gaining wealth and power against the interests of people"? If so then I DARE YOU to show me where in the USSR did Saparmurat Niyazov build a golden statue of himself. He didn't? You know why he didn't? Because the USSR's Communist Party was NOT "was gathering reactionaries in itself whose purposes were gaining wealth and power against the interests of people". Your ENTIRE argument is a No True Scotsman logical fallacy trying to make the USSR a state capitalist country in order to move it away from your beliefs rather than the other way around. Open your fucking eyes and see the USSR as it ACTUALLY WAS, not what you WANT IT TO BE in order to defend your pitiful "beliefs". It's not at all completely natural for a Communist Party to have a pharaoh in its ranks, and that is EXACTLY WHY SAPARMURAT NIYAZOV DID NOT BUILD A GOLDEN STATUE OF HIMSELF DURING THE USSR. By giving the example of Saparmurat Niyazov building a golden statue of himself AFTER the fall of the USSR You just destroyed your entire argument without even realizing it, how the hell did you not even notice? It's the people's fault for destroying that system which led to the Party members being FORCED to resort to Capitalist relations by using what they have at their disposal for their own personal interests. They used the positions they had and the relations and contacts they had during the USSR to cement their post-USSR positions and wealth because of Capitalism and the collapse of the USSR.. This would never have happened had the people, your fucking people, not destroyed the USSR.




Poor, poor rulers of USSR! I might cry for them!
Besides, you already said that giving freedom to people would lead to mistakes, destruction of people by themselves, strengthening counter revolution and … why don’t you make up your mind?
Yes, I said all that, and yet that has nothing to do with anything. I do not support Khrushchev and others, but I do defend them against reactionaries and idiots just as I defend Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, and even Qaddafi and Kim Jong-il against such individuals even though I support none of them besides Lenin. The point of my previous quote which you replied to above and did not even address nor understand the point of was that the USSR TRIED to fix itself through reforms just as you wanted, they very reforms which you ignorantly attack and call revisionism.



USSR did not acted according to “its own national interests”. Peace benefited proletariat of Russia and other countries. Continuation of war was what you said could have benefited German workers. are you going to change that as well?
The USSR DID act in its own national interests, I challenge you to show me otherwise. The USSR based its entire foreign policy on its foreign policy first. You did not even bother to present a counter-argument, you "argument" was simply saying that they "did not". Good job. No I'm not going to change that because I'm arguing against that, but you seem to be unable to read as with others like you. I would have supported peace for the Soviets to ensure their continued existence as a bigger and more imprtant objective than continuing the war in the "hopeful" interests of the German workers. I'm saying what KAUTSKY TOLD TROTSKY, but of course why am I bother to explain this shit to you?



Rest of Theophys statements are so childish and contradictory that answering them would be waste of time. My purpose was not answering a reactionary person, but showing were does such ideas come from and were do they lead.
I've already proven who's the reactionary, you, the one who supports counter-revolutions in Socialist countries such as the USSR on the question of the Hungarian counter-revolution of 1956 and yet supports the prevention of revolution in Capitalist countries by fighting for reforms knowing very well and admitting yourself that the Communists and Socialists will be suppressed if they may ever turn society into a Socialist/Communist society through "peaceful evolutionary" means or if they are about to win the elections.

[Ismail]

It was a Socialist movement by every means. The proletariat had little to do with it, the proletariat failed to act and thus drowned itself in blood.How could it act when the military and police were in the hands of the bourgeoisie?


Note that I said "Popular Fronts" with an "s", not specifically referring to the unique case that was Spain.Unless you'd like to note any dissensions in the PCF or Eastern European parties expressing contrary views, I'm pretty sure the Popular Front concept was welcomed in those places as well.


Yeah, like in 1991.Boris Yeltsin and practically every one of his team of "reformers" were CPSU bureaucrats. By that time the concept of "socialism" had been thoroughly bastardized and economic stagnation had given way, under Gorbachev, to economic collapse.


I see no issue here. They realized the mistakes done by Stalin, the iron grip he had, and so on and wanted to steer the country away from that. The very fact that they spoke of returning to Leninist norms, reestablishing socialist legality, striving to achieve communism, etc. show very well how "Capitalist" they really were. They were not by any means Capitalists.Gorbachev had no problem decking himself out in "communist" terminology and rhetoric either. In fact Gorby reiterated the Khrushev-era "return to Leninism" shit, the only difference is that now he was claiming that the Soviets had to emulate the NEP period and other "Leninist policies" which Stalin supposedly dismantled in opposition to Leninism.


Earnest has nothing to do with a soft-heart. The invasion of Vietnam has nothing to do with attempting to fix the shit Mao did.Deng was happily collaborating with US imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism, including coming to the defense of Pol Pot. Hua Guofeng before him had denounced the Iranian Revolution and called it a "plot" by the Soviets against the Shah who was supposedly opposed to "hegemonism" (i.e. was an asset to American imperialism and antagonistic to its Soviet counterpart.)


Which criteria?The criteria of "they claim it, ergo they must be."


I don't see your point?Drowning yourself in "glories to Lenin" doesn't have any effect on how Leninist one actually is.


No True Scotsman logical fallacy.Good point, the militant materialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin is obviously inferior to someone claiming that Lenin instructed them from beyond the grave to shit more on Stalin.


By being a rival imperialist power it pursued a "secret" revolutionary policy in foreign affairs rather than calling for public world revolution, especially after Stalin took down the Comintern. The advent of nuclear weaponry forced the USSR and the US to attempt to ease tensions in order to not lead to a nuclear war. A nuclear war is not an anti-imperialist war.There was nothing "secret" about Soviet social-imperialism or its goals: the occupations of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, of Angola via Cuba, etc.


The French Popular Front was supported by the PCF and heavily backed by it.No shit, I'm saying they weren't in the actual government last time I checked. This situation was, again, quite different from the PCE whose influence over the government steadily grew as the war continued.

[Theophys]

How could it act when the military and police were in the hands of the bourgeoisie?
By calling for a proletarian state, by taking part in a general strike to cripple the bourgeois state, by mass riots and protests, or even by a revolution.


Unless you'd like to note any dissensions in the PCF or Eastern European parties expressing contrary views, I'm pretty sure the Popular Front concept was welcomed in those places as well.
The Eastern European Popular Fronts were nothing more than countries dominated under a Communist Party and the USSR under the shroud of Popular Fronts with the USSR creating a "multi-party" system to appease the Allies. Nevertheless that is not the point, the point is that the Spanish Popular Front was unique with its unique circumstances hardly following the USSR's line with the Anarchists, moderate Leftists, and other Republicans as opposed to the PCF and other reformist Popular Fronts.


Boris Yeltsin and practically every one of his team of "reformers" were CPSU bureaucrats. By that time the concept of "socialism" had been thoroughly bastardized and economic stagnation had given way, under Gorbachev, to economic collapse.
Boris Yeltsin and Co. opposed Gorbachev and his line, that shows the extent of the difference between Yeltsin and Gorbachev as well as the rest of the CPSU which you accuse of revisionism and other such nonsense. You cannot lump Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and the others together, especially the hardliners. Khrushchev, Gorbachev, etc. had no interest in resoring Capitalism, they attempted to reform Socialism to actually make it WORK. The economic collapse came as a result of a failureo f policy implementation, much like Stalin's collectivization and Mao's lovely popular mass policies. Socialism was not bastardized, in fact it was already bastardized, that's why they attempted to reform it. If you speak of the liberal polciies put into place then you'll have to call Lenin the father of revisionism, reformism, and capitalist roaders. Economic stagnation was a result of the system, it could not constantly grow as it was.


Gorbachev had no problem decking himself out in "communist" terminology and rhetoric either. In fact Gorby reiterated the Khrushev-era "return to Leninism" shit, the only difference is that now he was claiming that the Soviets had to emulate the NEP period and other "Leninist policies" which Stalin supposedly dismantled in opposition to Leninism.
Yes and their policies were actually quiet Leninist as well as pragmatic as opposed to the disasters left to them by Stalin and his failed policies. Every single leader after Lenin wanted to "return to Leninism", even Stalin himself, and each one of them "returned to Leninism" differently.


Deng was happily collaborating with US imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism, including coming to the defense of Pol Pot. Hua Guofeng before him had denounced the Iranian Revolution and called it a "plot" by the Soviets against the Shah who was supposedly opposed to "hegemonism" (i.e. was an asset to American imperialism and antagonistic to its Soviet counterpart.)
Yes, much like how Stalin refused to support the Greek revolutionaries, fucked over the Spanish Civil War with the Anarchists, split with Tito, supported the Kuomintang and "opposed" the Communists, butchered Communists within the Party and the world, and so on. If anyone is the issue here, it is Stalin. As for Deng, Stalin also collaborated with the US imperialists at multiple times, even with Nazis and Fascists before World War 2. Nevertheless was you refer to took place after the Sino-Soviet split, those two countries were on the brink of war thanks to the lovely accusations of "revisionism".


The criteria of "they claim it, ergo they must be."
Not really, I never claimed so.


Drowning yourself in "glories to Lenin" doesn't have any effect on how Leninist one actually is.
It's a question of line, policies, and beliefs/ideology. Lenin himself imposed the NEP, is he thus no longer a Leninist? :laugh:


Good point, the militant materialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin is obviously inferior to someone claiming that Lenin instructed them from beyond the grave to shit more on Stalin.
That has nothing to do with anything. You still resorted to a No True Scotsman fallacy. They can very well still be Communists whether YOU like it or not.


There was nothing "secret" about Soviet social-imperialism or its goals: the occupations of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, of Angola via Cuba, etc.
The occupations of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and Angola were in the interests of extending the interests of the USSR and establishing Socialist states. Again see Engels on the question of historically reactionary and progressive nations with the need for assimilation. If you consider these to be "social-imperialism" then go have a look at the entirety of Eastern Europe under Stalin.


No shit, I'm saying they weren't in the actual government last time I checked. This situation was, again, quite different from the PCE whose influence over the government steadily grew as the war continued.
To support reformists then you are essentially towing their line, backing them up, and essentially SUPPORTING THEM. Again, the PCE was unique as it had to resort to revolutionary measures thanks to the war, but before the war and had they won the war then they would have resorted to reformist policies to accommodate the other moderate and reformist political parties in the government that "lead" the coalition and have the majority.

[Nevsky]

Boris Yeltsin and Co. opposed Gorbachev and his line, that shows the extent of the difference between Yeltsin and Gorbachev as well as the rest of the CPSU which you accuse of revisionism and other such nonsense. You cannot lump Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and the others together, especially the hardliners. Khrushchev, Gorbachev, etc. had no interest in resoring Capitalism, they attempted to reform Socialism to actually make it WORK. The economic collapse came as a result of a failureo f policy implementation, much like Stalin's collectivization and Mao's lovely popular mass policies. Socialism was not bastardized, in fact it was already bastardized, that's why they attempted to reform it. If you speak of the liberal polciies put into place then you'll have to call Lenin the father of revisionism, reformism, and capitalist roaders. Economic stagnation was a result of the system, it could not constantly grow as it was.


Yes and their policies were actually quiet Leninist as well as pragmatic as opposed to the disasters left to them by Stalin and his failed policies. Every single leader after Lenin wanted to "return to Leninism", even Stalin himself, and each one of them "returned to Leninism" differently.

"Returning to Leninism" was always a silly concept. Stalin didn't claim to "return to Leninism", he simply followed the marxist policies carried out by Lenin. Stalin's doctrine was marxism(-leninism) not "Leninism" as some sort of socialist theory independent from original marxism (like Titoism). The khrushchevite's "return to leninism" was an idealist illusion, made up to justify reforms which happened to crush the USSR's socialist system in the long term and to ideologically divide communists, "leninists" etc. significantly.

You defend Khrushchev, Gorbachev & Co by emphasizing that they reformed marxism to make it actually work. I would agree with you on this if their policies actually worked. But as a matter of fact their line failed and the Soviet Union collapsed, while the USSR under "anti-revisionist" Stalin was so powerful that even the "Land of the Free" started to introduce social reforms out of fear to be "buried" by the socialist alternative.

[Ismail]

Boris Yeltsin and Co. opposed Gorbachev and his line, that shows the extent of the difference between Yeltsin and Gorbachev as well as the rest of the CPSU which you accuse of revisionism and other such nonsense. You cannot lump Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and the others together, especially the hardliners. Khrushchev, Gorbachev, etc. had no interest in resoring Capitalism, they attempted to reform Socialism to actually make it WORK.You're defending Gorbachev now?

In December 1989 he said that: "And if we speak about the final goal, insofar as it is possible today to be definite, that is integration into the world community by peaceful means. By conviction I am close to social democracy." (quoted in Archie Brown, The Gorbachev Factor, p. 102.)

Gorbachev and Yeltsin belonged to two different wings of Soviet capital. No one "lumps" them together outside of the fact that they are capitalists, just as Obama and his Republican opponents are capitalists, or the Conservatives and Labourites are capitalist parties. Yeltsin was actually somewhat supportive of Gorby early on against the "hardliners" up until he saw how impotent Gorby was becoming and took the opportunity to latch onto Russian nationalism and the cause of neo-liberalism.


If you speak of the liberal polciies put into place then you'll have to call Lenin the father of revisionism, reformism, and capitalist roaders.Lenin didn't call the NEP socialism. Soviet "theorists" under Gorbachev called for reimplementing aspects of the NEP in order to "strengthen socialism" in the USSR against the supposed "deformities" in the economy produced by "Stalinism." It was just an opportunistic ploy to link Gorby with Lenin.


That has nothing to do with anything. You still resorted to a No True Scotsman fallacy. They can very well still be Communists whether YOU like it or not.Only in the sense that it is how they label themselves. Someone who claims to be a Communist but opposes Marxism-Leninism in practice is not, in fact, a Communist.


The occupations of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and Angola were in the interests of extending the interests of the USSR and establishing Socialist states. Again see Engels on the question of historically reactionary and progressive nations with the need for assimilation.The comparison is asinine unless you believe that Czechoslovaks, Angolans and Afghans are "reactionary nations" and that Soviet policy meant to "assimilate" them culturally rather than simply keep them in their sphere for the exploitation of their resources and/or geopolitical value.


If you consider these to be "social-imperialism" then go have a look at the entirety of Eastern Europe under Stalin.It was under Khrushchev that the so-called "international socialist division of labor" was concocted, wherein among other things Albania was told to undermine its industrial development in order to become the "orchard garden" of the Warsaw Treaty states. It was under Brezhnev that concepts such as "limited sovereignty" and the "international dictatorship of the proletariat" were promulgated.

[Theophys]

"Returning to Leninism" was always a silly concept. Stalin didn't claim to "return to Leninism", he simply followed the marxist policies carried out by Lenin. Stalin's doctrine was marxism(-leninism) not "Leninism" as some sort of socialist theory independent from original marxism (like Titoism). The khrushchevite's "return to leninism" was an idealist illusion, made up to justify reforms which happened to crush the USSR's socialist system in the long term and to ideologically divide communists, "leninists" etc. significantly.

Yes, whilst claiming that he was following the line of Lenin he was essentially "returning to Leninism". Lenin did not put forward purely Marxist policies but also imposed anti-Marxist policies, pragmatism over radical theory, as in the case of the NEP for example. Leninism is not independent from Marxism, but it deviates from it on multiple instances and adds a lot to Marxism from the issue of pragmatism to vanguards to many other such theories. Khrushchev's "return to Leninism" you see as an "idealist illusion made up to justify reforms which happened to crush the USR's socialist system in the long term and to ideologically divide communists" whilst I and most likely Khrushchev see it as a means of retreating from the actions of Stalin which were very out of line, from the issue of killing Communists to his foreign policy. By distancing himself from Stalin, Khrushchev tried to do what others who claim that the USSR was state capitalist, revisionist, or whatever do today - they distance themselves in order to escape from the actions and criticism related to what they move away from. By attacking Stalin and supporting Lenin, Khrushchev gave "hope" and an alternative to those who rallied against Stalin, were horrified by the actions of Stalin, and who wanted a more "liberal" USSR, a more humane one. People loved Lenin in the USSR whilst Stalin was controversial, "returning to Leninism" would be a rallying point around which people can organize and join after being horrified by Stalin and his actions as many Communists were.



You defend Khrushchev, Gorbachev & Co by emphasizing that they reformed marxism to make it actually work. I would agree with you on this if their policies actually worked. But as a matter of fact their line failed and the Soviet Union collapsed, while the USSR under "anti-revisionist" Stalin was so powerful that even the "Land of the Free" started to introduce social reforms out of fear to be "buried" by the socialist alternative.

Reformed Marxism? No. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and every single person after Marx reformed Marxism by making any addition or alternative interpretation to it. That is not the issue, the issue is reforming the USSR, not Marxism. The two are not synonymous. Whether or not their policies worked is not the matter of contention, the matter of contention is their INTENTIONS and the reasons behind their policies. A few laughable individuals claim that Khrushchev and so on wanted to DESTROY the USSR INTENTIONALLY and restore Capitalism.,I argue that such is not the case, hence the debate.

Oh and Stalin was powerful militaristically and purely due to the sudden rise of the USSR, but AFTER the USSR became a world superpower, the "shock" in the "Free World" was less severe and tensions rose escalating up to the point the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev rightly did not want to end the world in a nuclear nightmare just as he saw no reason to keep bolstering the military as Stalin did instead of focusing on more 'humane' alternatives such as building houses, putting forward social reforms, trying to surpass the West, trying to increase production and productivity, trying to find new sources of viable agricultural produce, and so on.



You're defending Gorbachev now?

Yes, just as I defend Stalin and Trotsky when I support neither.



In December 1989 he said that: "And if we speak about the final goal, insofar as it is possible today to be definite, that is integration into the world community by peaceful means. By conviction I am close to social democracy." (quoted in Archie Brown, The Gorbachev Factor, p. 102.)

So what is the issue here? Belonging to Social Democracy? He already saw the failure of Soviet Socialism, he tried to reform it by creating cost accountability, pricing mechanisms, gave more freedom to people, gave them the freedom of choice, freed up elections to an extent, made the government more transparent, etc. etc. If his implemented them correctly and people actually followed through then it would have still existed to this day and could have surpassed the West.



Gorbachev and Yeltsin belonged to two different wings of Soviet capital. No one "lumps" them together outside of the fact that they are capitalists, just as Obama and his Republican opponents are capitalists, or the Conservatives and Labourites are capitalist parties. Yeltsin was actually somewhat supportive of Gorby early on against the "hardliners" up until he saw how impotent Gorby was becoming and took the opportunity to latch onto Russian nationalism and the cause of neo-liberalism.

Gorbachev was not a Capitalist. Stop resorting to that No True Scotsman logical fallacy. The rest of your post tries to show that Gorbachev and Yeltsin were both Capitalist by speaking of Obama and the Republicans, etc. when clearly Obama and the Republicans and so on have NOTHING to do with Gorbachev and Yeltsin.



Lenin didn't call the NEP socialism. Soviet "theorists" under Gorbachev called for reimplementing aspects of the NEP in order to "strengthen socialism" in the USSR against the supposed "deformities" in the economy produced by "Stalinism." It was just an opportunistic ploy to link Gorby with Lenin.

I believe they were trying to say that the reforms would strengthen Socialism, i.e. the ideology of the USSR and the USSR as an extension of the economy, but not created or strengthened Socialism as a mode of production. Nevertheless, he created cooperatives and based his reforms on them, that is something extremely desirable by handing the means of production directly to the workers. He just failed with the implementation and didn't go far enough (as in vast amounts of the economy were still government-owned, prices were restricted, etc.) which led to his reforms not achieving success. He fucked it more when he supported regional autonomy, created massive public debt, and continued the price restrictions, preventing cooperatives from adjusting prices according to supply and demand thus making them unprofitable. You cannot restrict prices and expect independent cooperatives to be able to survive without subsidies.



Only in the sense that it is how they label themselves. Someone who claims to be a Communist but opposes Marxism-Leninism in practice is not, in fact, a Communist.

:laugh:

Do I even need to address this? Do I even need to inform him that Marx was not a Marxist-Leninist and yet was the founder of Communist? That Trotsky was a Communist? That Anarcho-Communists are ALSO Communists? I do not believe I do.

Again, No True Scotsman logical fallacy, look it up.



The comparison is asinine unless you believe that Czechoslovaks, Angolans and Afghans are "reactionary nations" and that Soviet policy meant to "assimilate" them culturally rather than simply keep them in their sphere for the exploitation of their resources and/or geopolitical value.

Assimilate them culturally, economically, geographically, and in every way. They actually were reactionary and the USSR was progressive and revolutionary. Again, read Engels on the question of the Germans and Magyars on the Slavs.



It was under Khrushchev that the so-called "international socialist division of labor" was concocted, wherein among other things Albania was told to undermine its industrial development in order to become the "orchard garden" of the Warsaw Treaty states. It was under Brezhnev that concepts such as "limited sovereignty" and the "international dictatorship of the proletariat" were promulgated.

You do not address what I had said. These are NOTHING in comparison to the occupation, puppeteering, and imperialism under Stalin. The international socialist division of labor was an attempt by Khrushchev to assign production to each country according to its specialization. I do not necessarily agree with this as I have not studied it, but I see no issue here other than nationalism against the USSR being the problem. Khrushchev can be justified here by attempting to create one single world country as the "proletariat have no nation" and that Socialism/Communist is international. If all of them produced the same goods then they would be creating needless surplus rather than meet each others' needs and demands.

[hashem]

Capitalists already give food to people and donate billions to try to aid them. An increased demand for food leads to increased supply for food, people just need to be able to pay for the costs, but that's what the aid organizations are doing there.

An increased demand for food doesn’t necessarily lead to increased supply for food. It only does so if supplying food is profitable. When we are talking about the poor people who don’t have jobs and money, its clear that supplying them with food is not profitable. Aid and donation have nothing to do with the capitalist system, they existed before capitalism and can only prove that capitalism is not capable to do away with poverty and unemployment.


What machinery and technology we have today depends on exploitation, wage-labor, mass commodity production, operate on the basis of today's costs, prices, and price mechanisms.

No body made them to be like this. If under capitalism they are used liked this, it doesn’t mean that they must be used like this in any conditions.


They have to rely on finite resources.

Humans don’t have to rely on finite resources. They can discover resources which are unimaginable today and they don’t even have to stay limited to Earth. For example nuclear fusion can provide infinite energy and compel the finite fossil fuels to follow the fate of whale oil.

Even when the resources are finite in a limited community and a certain time, they can be used optimally, unlike what we see under capitalism. Capitalism provides riches with luxuries and denies basic needs of poor people. it spends billions on military or for saving banks but when it comes to workers, it resorts to Malthusianism.


You speak of these societies as if they all produce for themselves and satisfy their own needs, that is not the case. Countries today all depend upon each other

In same fields of industry, there are different levels of productivity and different levels of polluting. For example fossil power plants which are used in undeveloped countries, consume more fuel and generate less electricity comparing to same type of plants in advanced countries because of outdated technology.


Capitalists do not need and should never share their profits under a CAPITALIST system, thus people that rely on old methods have every incentive, as Marx himself explained, to resort to adopting newer technology due to the coercion of capital, markets, and competition. If people cannot afford them then they should not adopt them at the time being rather than brashly and destructively adopt all the latest technology and empty the Earth of its resources with massive overproduction and waste. This overproduction and waste is prevented under Capitalism and limited to those who actually have the means to pay for them.

People will have incentive to resort to adopting newer technologies, not necessarily for profit, but also to meet their needs but capitalists don’t share their technology. Newer technologies doesn’t necessarily lead to overproduction, emptying Earth of its resources and higher pollution. They do so only under a system which sacrifices humans and nature for profit. Under a socialist system, new technologies will be used in order to produce more using less resources. Under such system overproduction and production of unnecessary things like arms and ammunition (when there are no classes and no borders) can not take place. Overproduction and waste cannot be avoided under capitalism. They lead to economical crisis as Marx explained. Capitalism also (even at the times which there are no crisis) overproduces for certain rich people beyond their usual and true needs but is indifferent to the needs of poor people who cannot pay.


China was thus quite Capitalist according to Adam Smith, not a pre-Capitalist society.

Capitalism existed in China but it was not the dominant system. Feudalism was still dominant back then. Still, the situation described by Adam Smith about China in 18th century is not much worse than todays India, Bangladesh, Colombia and many of African countries. standards of living, life expectancy, literacy, available goods and productivity of these capitalist countries (if we separate few industrial and tourist zones and the ruling class which is an insignificant minority comparing to hundreds of millions of poor people) is not higher than ancient Babylonia.


Meaning that you outright disregard productivity, consumerism, etc. as having any effect on superiority "from a proletariat viewpoint" and instead it depends on turning people from production for profit to producing in an entirely Utopian and unrealistic fashion based on nothing more than "free cooperation" purely to "develop themselves and society". This by every means can be lobbed into standards of living by attempting to claim that this fulfills a human necessity.

Productivity can have no effect on standards of living if its results are taken away by bourgeoisie. What difference does it make for a worker if his force of labor which he has sold with a certain price, is more or less productive? Sometimes higher productivity can harm him because it means there is no need for his force of labor. Thus, proletariat prefers less productivity and more social justice. This does not refute the fact that people who cooperate freely are capable to achieve higher productivity. They are more capable of doing so than parasites which sometimes sacrifice more productivity for profit and don’t share their technology in order to save their own profits.


Members of a community have absolutely no reason to work for the community when they already receive everything they need for free. This is not entirely different from exploitation

A mother takes care of her children while they don’t give something to her in return. When people are not fighting or competing with each other, they can cooperate with each other. When development and wellbeing of any individual doesn’t contradicts with the rest of society, but is necessary for the development and wellbeing of the society and vice versa, they will cooperate with each other. As long as classes as well as the old cultural values still exist under socialism, institutions which represent the will of proletariat will watch for those who wish to harm the society but the necessity for this keeping watch decreases in time until finally under communism there is no need for it.

Of course, a person who is carrying bourgeoisie ideology sees any work which is not profitable as exploitation, even if it benefits the society which the worker is a member of it and even if its voluntary.


The modern bourgeoisie do still manage "capital" themselves

Bourgeoisie is called modern exactly when it doesn’t manages or does anything useful. In modern and big companies, no capitalist makes the decision about the work, educated managers and office workers do that for the capitalist. If there still exists a capitalist who is actually a manager or does a useful job, this situation is a remnant of early stages of capitalism and in time it will be replaced by the first type. Even when bourgeoisie is still an active participant in production, it doesn’t automatically make him progressive; his rule can be replaced by workers, their institutions and their government who carry his job in a more efficient way. The only thing which modern bourgeoisie does is searching for fields of investments which can grant him highest profits.


Communists were never united, not even those with the same tendency.

There can be no tendency in scientific socialism. Just as there are no tendencies in physics or mathematics. Communists support the interests of proletariat as a class. These interests are same anywhere. a communist is follower of scientific socialism and sole interests of a certain class. Thus, if someone calls himself a communist but recognizes different tendencies, he is not supporting scientific socialism or interests of proletariat, no matter what he calls himself. He can be a Petty-Bourgeois Socialist or an idealist but his actions and way of thinking wont lead to communism.


There is no such thing as a "Khrushchevist", specifically ones that "join bourgeois governments and sometimes seized the power themselves". Iran, Iraq, and Syria never had any fascist governments. Fascism is a specific ideology that you, as a "Communist", need to learn what the fuck it means, when to use, and what it refers to. Fascism was witnessed in Italy and Spain, even Nazism, but not in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Stop using these terms like a Leftist liberal hippie and learn how to use them. Nevertheless, it is far better to cooperate with Iran, Iraq, and Syria than it is to cooperate with actual Nazis and Fascists as in the case of the "non-revisionist" Stalin.

a follower of 3 peaceful thesis is a Khrushchevist. The deeds of Khrushchevists which is a result of their ideology is obvious. If governments of Iran, Iraq, and Syria are not calling themselves fascist it doesn’t mean they are different from old and open fascists in practice. Baath parties have copied the ideology of fascist movements in Europe.

I never supported Stalin but his “cooperation” with fascist states was never against the interests of people. such “cooperation” lead to no harm to anti-fascist struggle. besides, what makes cooperation with Baath parties and other reactionaries better? they are willing but no strong enough to commit crimes as big as their ancestors.


From building thousands of homes for people to abolishing Stalin's authoritarian policies. North Korea has nothing at all to do with Khrushchevism, this clearly shows that you have no diea waht you're talking about and are emulating the other Revlefters on here by using terms which you know nothing about and start slapping on anyone you disagree with. Baath regimes have nothing to do with Khrushchevism. Gaddafi and Castro have nothing to do with Khrushchevism.

Building houses can also take place under slavery. It doesn’t mean the system which is building houses is progressive. Ahmadinejad also built houses in Iran but no sane person will call him progressive because of that. Khrushchev didn’t abolished Stalin's authoritarian policies, we continued them. When people came into streets to protest against his regime, he answered them with tanks and machine guns. He merely introduced 3 peaceful thesis which officially made USSR a counter revolutionary world power.

Castro, Kim, Gaddafi, Baath parties and other reactionaries were supported by Khrushchevists and sometimes own their existence to Khrushchevism. Therefore they are very related to each other.


That's how you define science? By merely taking part and presenting theories RELATED to economics and sociology?

Marx, Engels, Lenin and other people who have contributed to formation or evolution of scientific socialism didn’t merely presented theories. They proved their theories and experience of history showed them to be correct. You are the one who is supporting some theories which you have invented for yourself and history has already showed them to be false.


Yes I do support the violence against REACTIONARY workers who oppose the CLASS interests of the proletariat and the proletarian state. This is not a dictatorship because you have no idea what a dictatorship is.

Under socialism, contradicts within the ranks of people (for example between peasantry and proletariat or between different sections of proletariat) can and should be resolved peacefully. a communist party listens to people, finds the roots of problems and puts forward solutions. People who are organized in their councils and different institutions put these solutions into action, not by force but by their own will. If policies are forced to people while they don’t know why and how should they follow them, solutions will stay on paper to turn to something different in practice. But Khrushchevists push people to opposition by ignoring their demands, turn contradicts which can be solved peacefully into antagonistic contradicts which can only be solved by violence, drive people to use of violence by abolishing freedom of speech and the right to choose, call them reactionary (without showing why after decades of rule, huge masses of reactionaries exists) and suppress them.

If you claim that I don’t what a dictatorship is, why don’t you explain yourself? Dictating something to someone is always dictatorship, let alone the use of violence!


the freedom to the workers is limited inasmuch as they do not endanger themselves in the process. Their freedom cannot allow for the freedom of Nazi ideology, for instance. Revisionists do not deny the existence of class struggle, neither do I, I only deny it after it has already been done away with after the abolishment of classes

What is a class struggle? if a capitalist and a worker fight by beating each other in an alley, would this be a class struggle? class struggle is a struggle about putting different class policies into action, even if the people involved are unaware. If someone who is a worker defends bourgeois policies, he is actively supporting bourgeois system. If there are people in a socialist society who don’t hold any capital and are not bourgeoisie but are holding bourgeoisie ideas, class struggle continues in that society. If bourgeoisie ideas win and are able to determine the policies, socialism will be destroyed, no matter to whom do the means of production belong to on paper.

Proletariat cant win the class struggle without winning the ideological struggle which is an important part of class struggle. aim of ideological struggle for proletariat is ridding itself from the old ideas and old cultural values which belong to a class society. This struggle cant be won by banning other ideologies, even the most reactionary ones, on the contrary, freedom is necessary for proletariat in order to win this struggle. if a large number of workers are holding reactionary view points, ideological struggle cant be successful and as a result there can be no socialism. Until those reactionary ideas haven’t been corrected using freedom of speech which allows discussion, progress of socialism is impossible. Of course, you can ban the ideas and call the means of production governmental, but that doesn’t affect what is happening in reality.


The government is not a private individual, it is a a public entity made up of elected public officials that are recallable and publicly responsible for their actions. The governments and its employees do not receive the surplus value as their own profits for their own personal and private use, but for public use. The surplus value extracted by the government is not used for profit bourgeois interests but purely for the interests of society as a whole, for the welfare, for the factories, and for the workers and their commodities. The government appoints managers, managers who are nothing like the bourgeoisie and have nothing to do with the bourgeoisie, who are under the intense control and accountability to the workers themselves

at first you said that if there is no private sector in the economy, we can conclude that there is no bourgeoisie. then you assumed that there is ideal situation in a governmental factory in an imaginary country and after that you assumed that this situation can be generalized. By doing so, you didn’t destroyed my argument, you merely destroyed your reputation!

You already said that people could not choose the policies of government in Eastern bloc. “The party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems.” So, i guess we should assume that governments of these countries and their managers were all saints who were immune to mistakes and corruption. Why do you bother to argue? as I said before, you can just assume that you are right about everything and smile!


It is not an issue of exploiting under a different name, but for what reasons, what purpose, where do the fruits of their labor, how, etc. are these workers exploited?

That’s exactly why USSR was capitalist.


If a few individuals take over the government and use the products of public labor as their OWN PRIVATE AND PERSONAL products then they are by every means bourgeois.

Then you just admitted that bourgeoisie existed and ruled USSR. Because a small minority who were not obliged to listening to people and solving all their problems were ruling. They had higher income, mercenaries who protected them and could choose the policies without the participation of people. means of production didn’t belonged to them on paper but were actually working for their profit.


That was not the case in the USSR where all products were sold to people and other countries in order to build up the USSR and meet the needs of its population.

Ruling class of USSR benefited mostly from certain industries, especially those which allowed it to become a rival for other imperialists for world domination. They funded their heavy industries and military mostly and ignored those branches of industry which were producing things for ordinary people.


That's your own statement, not mine. [Tea party is the real revolutionary in USA and should be supported!]

That is what logical extension of your view points lead to, not mine!


A party which does not struggle for immediate improvement of their lives knows that any improvement of their immediate lives would be buttressing Capitalism (as Luxemburg explained) and making life comfortable UNDER CAPITALISM rather than offering the goal of Socialism and Communism.

a party which does not struggles for immediate improvement of workers lives, is a sect which is unrelated to workers and workers have no reason to follow it nor can they gain organization and class consciousness without the struggle for immediate improvements. Historically successful revolutions were carried out by parties which struggled for immediate improvements and the final aims of worker class. Bolsheviks struggled for lower work hours, better wages, insurance, democratic political rights and … therefore they managed to unite the workers. without this struggle, revolution and communism will become empty slogans and like dogmas which can only satisfy intellectuals who don’t participate in class struggles. a true revolutionary tries to gain reforms as much as possible and when further improvement is impossible under the existing system, he/she upholds revolution.


By giving away raw materials, they are being paid and obtaining jobs better than and much more than what they had before. As for importing goods, that is a necessity that must be praised, especially if it is on the question of productive machinery and other such goods.

On the contrary, jobs are being destroyed in countries which depend on exportation of raw materials and especially oil. National industry and agriculture are being destroyed by importation of foreign goods. Unemployment is raising. No productive machinery is among the imports. You can hardly find a factory in Arabia, UAE and such countries. they don’t even hold the technology for excavation of oil and are dependent on foreign countries for excavation. This leads to a economic crisis known as Dutch disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease) especially in countries with more population like Iran.


They are creating a bourgeoisie where no bourgeoisie existed, they are modernizing their societies and economies, they are creating jobs, they are creating a proletariat, etc. all with the NECESSARY material conditions which the First World countries have ironically done away with by fighting for wrokers' rights.

They are creating bourgeoisie but a parasite bourgeoisie which is not interested in production (other than oil for exportation). They destroy their countries productivity and turn it into a consumer society. They are building modern malls not modern factories or a modern government. jobs are being destroyed and workers which are needed for construction of malls, villas and skyscrapers are imported from abroad.


These women were EXCEPTIONS which were pointed out, they were not the rule of thumb nor were they even essential.

All of historians have wrote that before worker rights were recognized in 19th century, finding jobs was easier for women and children who worked for lesser money compared to grown men. Machinery were used more after recognition of worker rights, although they existed before that date.


show me where in Capital Marx writes this because I do not recall ever coming across it.

look at Capital, Vol 1.


It as the workers themselves who revolted against machines being used to replace workers, not the other way around, nor was it the bourgeoisie who revolted against the use of machinery in favor of manual workers.

Usage of machinery under capitalism leads to unemployment and as a result, wages decrease. Bourgeoisie uses machinery in order to exploit more. capitalists will resort to the method which is more profitable regardless of its effects on workers. until workers are kept backward, they will see machines as their enemies, that doesn’t mean they are opposed to machinery as a class.


The owner could not afford to expensive machinery, soon he will as was the case in other countries. Machines produce 10x or more than a worker, require only the push of a button, no food, are easily replaced, and do not protest.

He could afford machines. Drillers are not so expansive and even individuals can buy them, but what reason did he had to pay for them? He could force the conscripts to work for him 17 hours a day. Besides, machines require repair and maintenance, they require skilled workers who cannot be easily dismissed whenever the capitalist wishes. unlike those conscripts who are like slaves or cheap uneducated workers which a large army of them are waiting to be employed, skilled workers are stronger and can make more demands.


Condemning criticism calling other classes a "reactionary mass" has nothing to do with supporting ALLIES of the proletariat. Defending woodcutters', i.e. WORKERS', rights has nothing to do with alliances.

Marx Condemned others for calling peasants and non proletarian toilers reactionaries because they weren’t a "reactionary mass" and were capable to support a proletarian revolution. Woodcutters which Marx defended were not proletarians either, they were German petit-bourgeoisie but capable of fighting as an ally of proletariat.


Also on the primitive communes in Russia? Have you EVER read anything by Engels or Marx?

Yes. They stated that primitive communes can jump from their primitive forms into communism if they were backed by a proletarian revolution in the West. I copy a part of your own quote:

“no more in Russia than anywhere else would it have been possible to develop a higher social form out of primitive agrarian communism unless – that higher form was already in existence in another country, so as to serve as a model. That higher form being, wherever it is historically possible, the necessary consequence of the capitalistic form of production and of the social dualistic antagonism created by it, it could not be developed directly out of the agrarian commune, unless in imitation of an example already in existence somewhere else.”

It means if revolution was successful in the West, the existing model or an example would have been a socialist one.

Engels wrote in PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION OF 1882 of manifesto that :

“If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”


Show me where I ever spoke of a disequilibrium when I made that statement? I referred to the BASIS of the wages, the concept by which they are determined without taking into consideration any other specifics such as demand and supply, inflation, etc.

nowhere did I admit that the existence of backward workers in OTHER coutnries makes low wages possible. The existence of "backwards" workers competiting with other works do make low wages possible, but this has NOTHING to do with First World coutnries and their wages versus Third World countries and their wages.


When we talk about foreign workers who accept low paid jobs, we are talking about a disequilibrium. They offer more workforce with low prices, thus the wages (price of labor force) decreases to something lower than the value of labor force for certain jobs in advanced countries and as a result workers don’t accept jobs which their wages are lower than what is needed for reproduction of their labor force as long as they haven’t been forced to lower their standards of living. this situation leads to unemployment and decrease in wages in advanced countries.


No they wouldn't, they would have paid the same by pushing for deregulation and conditions similar to the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century. The class war would have ignited and reached high levels of conflict between the bourgeoisie pushing for less regulation, lower wages, lower workers' rights, etc.

Not necessarily. workers of advanced countries have trade unions to fight for better conditions since the 19th century which allows them to force the bourgeoisie to cut its profit instead of accepting a decrease in wages.


I find it hypocritical, ironic, and quite laughable how you claim that full-blown Capitalist countries are "closer to Socialism" while countries such as Iraq under Saddam, Syria, Libya under Gaddafi, and the DPRK are bourgeois-Khruschevist-Capitalist countries.

In advanced capitalists countries, workers have more rights, class differences are lower and the state is more democratic as well. But in countries such as Iraq under Saddam, Syria, Libya under Gaddafi, and the DPRK worker associations are banned, government is undemocratic and significant remanents of pre capitalist formations (in culture, production mode and the form of state) continue to exist.


A formal institution is an institution that has been formalized, i.e. made official. How the FUCK does that contradict the claim that they were "NOT abolished"? If anything that purely shows that they were NOT abolished, but instead made official, formal, and established as a necessary mechanism of Soviet society. "True soviets"? Is that ANOTHER No True Scotsman logical fallacy I see here? Oh why yes it is, good job resorting to constant logical fallacies. Soviets CAN and MUST be formal institutions otherwise they would be sidelined and completely unnecessary. Again, being formal institutions does not contradict the statement that "The delegates were ALL elected by people and they DID INDEED affect governmental policies". OF COURSE YOU TURN THEM INTO FORMAL INSTITUTIONS IF YOU BASE YOUR SOCIETY AND STAET ON THEM!

You are playing with words. By a formal institution, I meant an institution which exists legally on paper but has no rule in running the society. You have a same thing in mind too: “The party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems.” Thus, soviets which are formally so high regarded that a state takes it name from them, in reality can be only insignificant institutions which have no legislative or executive power. They exist only to cover a bourgeoisie dictatorship.


The interests of different people "complete each other" in your Utopia? How nice, now tell me how Nazis and Jew will get along in your magical fairyland, I'll be waiting.

Religious and racial differences were created, as Marx explained, due to class contradictions. When classes are abolished, the contradictions which are made by them start to demolish. This process can take some time because of deep roots which these contradictions have in history which covers their essence, but eventually they will destroy too, as a result of destruction of their social-economical base and the ideological struggle against them.


You claimed that abolishing suppressing free speech, rights, etc. led to revolutions in the USSR and thus claimed that in order to extend the life of the USSR and prevent revolutions that we must not suppress freedom of speech and rights. Then you claim that we must give freedom of speech and rights to workers in CAPITALIST countries.

I didn’t said that. True communists supported a socialist revolution in USSR after it became capitalist, they had no interest in extending the life of USSR as long as it was a social imperialist country. Exactly in order to end the social imperialists life, a revolution was needed but not the type which bourgeoisie had in mind.


The guy above:

- Claims that suppressing free speech and rights leads to revolution
- Claims that not suppressing but supporting free speech and rights prevents revolution
- Says that the Soviets should have supported free speech and rights to prevent revolution (Hungary 1956 for example)
- Wants workers and bourgeois governments to fight for free speech
- But he claimed before that granting free speech prevents revolution
- Ergo by extension, he wishes to prevent revolution by his own lovely claims and actions
- Claims that he wants to fight for bourgeois democratic reforms
- Knows that if a Communist Party is about to win it will be stopped and toppled
- Wishes to continue anyway

This is what all of communists have done. They fought for reforms while they never forgot the final aim. Reforms are a mean to fight for the final aim. If reforms are carried to the end, there will be a peaceful socialist evolution which is also by all means a social revolution. There have been peaceful social revolutions in history and there can be socialist ones in certain circumstances: if organized proletariat which has become a class for itself is too powerful and international situation is favorable, bourgeoisie sees that resistance is fruitless and prefers not to resort to violence which can have fatal results for it. But if bourgeoisie wouldn’t tolerate a peaceful evolution, then and only then the communist party resorts to violence. If bourgeoisie rises against its own bourgeois democratic rules, it will lose its legitimacy in eyes of people, even those sections of petit bourgeoisie which were previously supporting it or were neutral. It shows to people who cant learn from mere theory, that a peaceful evolution is not possible and there is need for a violent revolution.

Lenin wrote:
“Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.

The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled.

And conversely, workers who have assimilated Marx’s theory, i.e., realised the inevitability of wage-slavery so long as capitalist rule remains, will not be fooled by any bourgeois reforms. Understanding that where capitalism continues to exist reforms cannot be either enduring or farreaching, the workers fight for better conditions and use them to intensify the fight against wage-slavery. The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers, to divert them from the class struggle by petty concessions. But the workers, having seen through the falsity of reformism, utilise reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle.” (Marxism and Reformism, collected works, Vol 19)

This clearly explains tactics of communists about reforms.


Thus you create divisions in society, power struggle

free argument only causes contradictions which lead to conflict. Free elections are a disaster.

On the contrary, freedom of speech and responsibility of government, stops conflicts from becoming antagonistic in a socialist country. power struggle cannot be avoided with abolishment of democracy. Even in bourgeois democracies, freedom of speech and elections will guide the power struggle into peaceful ways, unlike undemocratic countries which power struggles are solved by coups, civil wars, conspiracies and …


For profit in order to fund its own society and people, yes, not for private interests and private profit as in teh case of the bourgeoisie.[the reason which USSR sold weapons to reactionary and criminal bourgeoisie dictatorships]

Marx wrote in manifesto that:
“The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”

Compare this with the attitude of revisionists regarding bourgeoisie dictatorships. The needs of USSR’s people don’t justify these crimes. Before revisionists victory, people of USSR were more needy but they never resorted to such ways. Even poor people would have preferred to stay needy than to participate in massacre of their brothers in other countries. selling arms to criminals for profit is something which only indecent people who have nothing but personal interest in mind will resort to.

Besides why should the kind of people who justify this crime with the excuse of profit, act differently about the people within their border? Especially in a large country like USSR which was composed of different nationalities who lived far from each other and had different languages? a bureaucrat in Moscow could have easily justified his crimes against farmers in Tajikistan or workers in Vladivostok with a similar excuse: profit, profit in order to fund his own family.


The ruling party was NOT reactionary and was NOT gathering reactionaries, you made the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

They proved to be reactionaries before and after the collapse by their own deeds. They openly supported reactionary ideas and deeds like nationalism, absolutism, totalitarian rule, corruption, justifying crimes with profit, abuse of human rights, militarism, police state and …


I'll also note that the Soviet system was properly restored to what it was BEFORE Stalin's reign and returned to its "Leninist roots" rather than returned to Capitalism.

“you made the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you”. I just note that I don’t support all of Stalin’s policies, I already wrote that class essence of the USSR's state began to change in early 1920s and bourgeoisie influence was growing during Stalin’s rule.


SAPARMURAT NIYAZOV DID NOT BUILD A GOLDEN STATUE OF HIMSELF DURING THE USSR. By giving the example of Saparmurat Niyazov building a golden statue of himself AFTER the fall of the USSR You just destroyed your entire argument without even realizing it

Saparmurat Niyazov was a member of USSR’s ruling party. What kind of person is capable of building a golden statue of himself while people of his country are poor, hungry and sick? He who has never had interests of people in mind. He who believes that ordinary people are made to produce profit for him. He who hasn’t accepted even bourgeois democratic cultural values and his mind works like a pharaoh. Niyazov was a reactionary all the time. Before the collapse he was forced to cover his true personality and work under shadows. If he was truly a communist and had just realized that his ideal communist society is impossible, he would have at least tried to find ways to be a good bourgeois democrat reformist, not a pharaoh.


It's the people's fault for destroying that system which led to the Party members being FORCED to resort to Capitalist relations by using what they have at their disposal for their own personal interests. They used the positions they had and the relations and contacts they had during the USSR to cement their post-USSR positions and wealth because of Capitalism and the collapse of the USSR.

Someone claims that capitalism is superior to “soviet socialism” yet he blames people for wanting capitalism!

No body forced the former members of CPSU to follow a capitalist path. They could have stayed like before. You speak as if they have followed and are following the demands of people word by word. Ordinary people of USSR were kept uneducated in the fields of politics, economy and sociology. Only the governmental propaganda was available for them which was taught in a scholastic way and people had to follow it like a dogma. They didn’t even knew the difference between socialism and capitalism and couldn’t have requested capitalism. They only wanted welfare, justice and freedom (all of them in a very general meaning). Members of CPSU were the ones who deliberately followed the path of capitalism and denied the demands of people. members of former USSR’s ruling party were the persons who forced people to follow their capitalist paths.


I would have supported peace for the Soviets to ensure their continued existence as a bigger and more imprtant objective than continuing the war in the "hopeful" interests of the German workers.

You are saying that continuation of war could have benefited the German workers. that is a social chauvinist view point. Peace benefited workers of Russia and Germany, as well as other countries. besides, if we accept your views, the logical conclusion would be:

1- Tsarists were more revolutionary than Bolsheviks because they started the war and were willingly to continue it.

2- Bolsheviks acted counter revolutionary by stopping the revolution in Germany which was a more advanced and important country compared to Russia.

[Questionable]

So what is the issue here? Belonging to Social Democracy? He already saw the failure of Soviet Socialism, he tried to reform it by creating cost accountability, pricing mechanisms, gave more freedom to people, gave them the freedom of choice, freed up elections to an extent, made the government more transparent, etc. etc. If his implemented them correctly and people actually followed through then it would have still existed to this day and could have surpassed the West.

What the hell? So liberal capitalism is the answer to socialism?

Shouldn't this guy be restricted? I mean, I know we've got quite a few USSR haters on here, but this is the first time I've ever seen someone blatantly support capitalist reforms as the solution.


Do I even need to address this? Do I even need to inform him that Marx was not a Marxist-Leninist and yet was the founder of Communist? That Trotsky was a Communist? That Anarcho-Communists are ALSO Communists? I do not believe I do.

Marxist-Leninists adhere to the line of Marx, as opposed to Anarcho-Communists who reject essential features of his theories such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, or Trotskyists who bastardized his concept of 'permanent revolution' for their own purposes.

[Ismail]

What the hell? So liberal capitalism is the answer to socialism?

Shouldn't this guy be restricted? I mean, I know we've got quite a few USSR haters on here, but this is the first time I've ever seen someone blatantly support capitalist reforms as the solution.I think the whole "Czechs, Slovaks, Angolans and Afghans are reactionary peoples whose future is to be assimilated into Russian culture" bit is much weirder.

[Theophys]

What the hell? So liberal capitalism is the answer to socialism?
Liberal Capitalism? :laugh: Apparently now cooperatives independent from the government are the basis for Liberal Capitalism! :laugh: Come back when you know what "Liberal Capitalism" is. I support a unique system based on credits and remuneration according to contribution and Market Socialism, but of course to you these are all "Liberal Socialism".



Shouldn't this guy be restricted? I mean, I know we've got quite a few USSR haters on here, but this is the first time I've ever seen someone blatantly support capitalist reforms as the solution.
Firstly I do not hate the USSR.
Secondly those were not Capitalist reforms.
Thirdly, go ahead and restrict me. Last thing I'd like to see is me being end up with people who do not know the difference between Gorbachev reforms and Liberal Capitalism.



Marxist-Leninists adhere to the line of Marx, as opposed to Anarcho-Communists who reject essential features of his theories such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, or Trotskyists who bastardized his concept of 'permanent revolution' for their own purposes.
Oh please. Every single individual after Marx bastardized Marxism or Communism in one form or another by either revising, going backwards, or adding new elements to the theory. Oh and even then, they're still Communists if they support communism, whether that applies to your No True Scotsman logical fallacy or not.


An increased demand for food doesn’t necessarily lead to increased supply for food. It only does so if supplying food is profitable. When we are talking about the poor people who don’t have jobs and money, its clear that supplying them with food is not profitable. Aid and donation have nothing to do with the capitalist system, they existed before capitalism and can only prove that capitalism is not capable to do away with poverty and unemployment.
Actually an increased demand for food rewards individuals and incentivizes individuals to supply food as prices increase, the market tends to balance itself. Oh and yes, supplying food is profitable if demand outweighs supply. If you had ever taken a single basic course in economics you would have realized that when demand outweighs supply, prices increase and thus profits potentially increase in proportion. It doesn't matter if it's poor people or rich people demanding food, the issue is the price. Poor people are still going to purchase basic necessity (in-elastic) goods in accordance with the price elasticity of demand. Supplying them with food is still profitable as long there is a demand, i.e. people willing to purchase it. Aid and donation are not unique to Capitalism, yes, which is exactly why they existed in the Soviet Socialist countries as well.



No body made them to be like this. If under capitalism they are used liked this, it doesn’t mean that they must be used like this in any conditions.

Actually yes they were made to be like this and cannot function in any different fashion and yield the same results that they do today. If you do away with "exploitation, wage-labor, mass commodity production, operate on the basis of today's costs, prices, and price mechanisms" then you have absolutely no guarantee or basis to claim that your system will yield the same or better results. In fact I can assure you that your system will perform worse due to the lack of super-exploitation, wage-labor, mass commodity production operating on the basis of markets and profits, have no cost accounting, have no economic calculation, have no prices, and have no pricing mechanisms. For a full discussion of this see the other thread on "Eliminating Scarcity For Luxury Goods?" thread as I discussed that extensively there.



Humans don’t have to rely on finite resources. They can discover resources which are unimaginable today and they don’t even have to stay limited to Earth. For example nuclear fusion can provide infinite energy and compel the finite fossil fuels to follow the fate of whale oil.
Bullshit Utopianism and idealism. Humans HAVE NOT discovered alternative infinite resources which are unimaginable today. Since that is a fact, then you CANNOT rely on what has not been achieved and what you IMAGINE or HOPE will be achieved in the future. To build any system on such facile false assumptions seems to be relied upon by many "Communists" who have not bothered to take any reality check. Since we do not have these infinite resources and yet have finite resources then we must rely on pricing mecahnisms, demand restrictions, rationing, etc. to prevent instant depletion of all resources with an influx of massive demand thanks to your "according to need" Utopia that will end in suicide. Nuclear fusion speaks nothing of the millions of other finite resources. You also state that "they don't even have to stay limited to Earth", oh that Utopianism, I wonder how you people (Utopians) don't see the irony of your nonsense. We are still limited to Earth, and since we are still limited to Earth then you cannot come up with such nonsense for your theory in order to make more false assumptions than what you already have.



Even when the resources are finite in a limited community and a certain time, they can be used optimally, unlike what we see under capitalism. Capitalism provides riches with luxuries and denies basic needs of poor people. it spends billions on military or for saving banks but when it comes to workers, it resorts to Malthusianism.
The only means by which to use them optimally is to follow an "according to contribution" system with pricing mechanism, price signals, cost accounting, and so on to ensure that only the most efficient, productive, and contributive workers are provided for. Of course you will need to eliminate artificial entries on contribution, but that can easily be solved through the formation of cooperatives and nationalized means of production rather than private property. Capitalism uses resources much more optimally than your Utopia, I admit this even as a Communist (deal with it, before your No True Scotsman logical fallacy). Capitalism provides riches to people who have money, i.e. social memory of contribution, but such a system is perverted on the basis of artificial restrictions and remuneration according to passive ownership rather than direct contribution through labor. Capitalism supplies many of the basic needs of people and more, even with unsurpassed luxuries that the USSR was unable to compete with, sadly. Yes, the US spends billions of its military, but not every other country of the multitude of those existing. Nevertheless are you in any way, shape, or form attempting to imply that only Capitalist countries spend on the military? Do I need to bring up the Socialist and Communist (not communism) countries or will you resort to a No True Scotsman logical fallacy by claiming that they are neither Socialist nor Communist? :laugh: Anyway, yes, Capitalism relies on imperialism, that is basic knowledge, but even then it was and still is superior to Soviet Socialism because of vital aspects and features which Soviet Socialism ignored to its own demise, much like you do now.



In same fields of industry, there are different levels of productivity and different levels of polluting. For example fossil power plants which are used in undeveloped countries, consume more fuel and generate less electricity comparing to same type of plants in advanced countries because of outdated technology.
Fossil fuel is used in developing and underdeveloped (?) countries because it has low costs, is widely available, is easy to extract, and is easy to utilize with cheap machinery in comparison to the alternatives. As you can see, markets (artificial or otherwise) with pricing mechanisms and pricing signals are more than capable of allocating resources and determining what should and what can be used by people, something an "according to need" system can never do. If coal were to be running out, prices would increase and people would have every reason to look for viable alternatives. Such a system can account and compare the costs of various means of production, their scarcity, their availability, the costs of their resources, the costs of their output, etc. to make the most optimal decisions.



People will have incentive to resort to adopting newer technologies, not necessarily for profit, but also to meet their needs but capitalists don’t share their technology. Newer technologies doesn’t necessarily lead to overproduction, emptying Earth of its resources and higher pollution. They do so only under a system which sacrifices humans and nature for profit. Under a socialist system, new technologies will be used in order to produce more using less resources. Under such system overproduction and production of unnecessary things like arms and ammunition (when there are no classes and no borders) can not take place. Overproduction and waste cannot be avoided under capitalism. They lead to economical crisis as Marx explained. Capitalism also (even at the times which there are no crisis) overproduces for certain rich people beyond their usual and true needs but is indifferent to the needs of poor people who cannot pay.
You speak of altruism. I addressed the issue of social altruism as opposed to kin altruism and tribal/small scale social altruism properly in the above named thread, which you are more than welcome to read. The gist of the argument was that altruism on the large-scale does not and cannot exist and must either degenerate from mutual aid into a parasitical relationship and thus severely discourage cooperation as you do not have memory to ensure loyalty and faithfulness in that relationship (money solves this, see "Money Is Memory" by NR Kocherlakota) or not be even utilized on such a scale in the first place. See Trivers (71) on kin and tribal altruism. Your system cannot depend on altruism as you have no memory accounting and are limited by Dunbar's Number as well. That is to say, no, people would not and do not have any reason or justification whatsoever to produce or adopt newer technologies to meet anyone's needs but theirs alone and their kin/peer groups. Capitalists do not share their technology because should they do so, they would be destroying the very basis of the economy and society by rewarding freeloaders who have not contributed to society (calculated in terms of money) and thus are not profitable to be able to compete with companies that are the opposite.

If you give technology to every single company today or in the future then you resort to mass destruction of the environment and the super-exploitation of labor in order to try to achieve the advanced technology to every single factory, workplace, and mine. Advanced technology costs a lot for a reason, and it's not because sellers are greedy but due to the costs of the machinery to invent, obtain the resources, obtain the skills, obtain the labor, build, deliver, and assemble. Newer technology DOES lead to overproduction if you surpass demand, since demand is unpredictable to the last individual then overproduction is unavoidable if you have a high productivity to be able to surpass demand. But, don't fret yourself, you'll never be able to surpass demand as you'll never be able to even get out of mass starvation and shortages with your disaster of a system that is not even thought out at all. You'll have to worry about how exactly you'll be able to run your system and incentivize individuals rather than worry about something you will never achieve (overproduction), especially since you have no restrictions on demand and thus it can be abused. Oh and yes, overproduction would necessarily have to empty Earth at some time, just as any production, but at a much quicker rate with more waste and resources gone untouched. Higher pollution would also be a necessity as you attempt to extract enough resources and create a large enough supply in order to meet the TRILLIONS of demands of BILLIONS of people all over the world.

Pollution and environmental destruction is still managed today because of restrictions on entry, restrictions on demand, and regulation by the government, market, and the pricing mechanism. A system that sacrifices humans and nature for profit? Much better than a system that sacrifices humans and nature for dogmatism and trying to meet their needs and failing, no? Under any system new technologies are used to "produce more using less resources", the difference is that systems with markets, cost accounting, pricing mechanisms, etc. have direct and unavoidable INCENTIVES to produce more for less, your system does not and purely relies on social altruism that people will merely "want" to use less resources knowing full well that people do not give a shit and all they care about is receiving the goods they want. Yes, that is actually the case, see something called "information asymmetry" and read up on public choice theory as well as on individuals being different from collectives, having different desires, and do not think the same as collectives (Arrow's impossibility theory, Condorcet paradox, etc.). The production of arms and ammunition is NOT unnecessary as long as you have a DEMAND for it. Seriously, go take a course in economics, it would do you good. Under ANY Socialist or Communist system, you WILL still have borders unless you plan to direct the ENTIRE Earth as a whole rather than divided regions for easier management. If you have divided regions that are autonomous, most likely the case with you as other Utopianist adventurist idealists, then wars and conflicts as well problems in planning are UNAVOIDABLE. Overproduction cannot be avoided under Capitalism, but I do not support Capitalism, but there is every reason to prevent overproduction as it leads to waste, lost profits, and lost money. Waste has every reason to be avoided under Capitalism because it is costly to the Capitalists, workers, and society. People can go broke and bankrupt under Capitalism if they constantly resort to wasteful activities and overproduction, unless they're extremely rich, but that is an exception that barely takes place in reality except in the case of a handful of individuals out of billions. Your system, on the other hand, has not means, no objective means, by which to prevent or desire to prevent overproduction and waste because all costs are socialized, there is no risk of going bankrupt, there is no cost in terms of money, there is no loss of profits, etc. But who am I kidding? Obviously your Everything-Is-Possible (EIP) system, much like Ckaihatsu's in the other thread, will just "make it happen" by depending on altruism which cannot even properly exist under such a scale.



Capitalism existed in China but it was not the dominant system. Feudalism was still dominant back then. Still, the situation described by Adam Smith about China in 18th century is not much worse than todays India, Bangladesh, Colombia and many of African countries. standards of living, life expectancy, literacy, available goods and productivity of these capitalist countries (if we separate few industrial and tourist zones and the ruling class which is an insignificant minority comparing to hundreds of millions of poor people) is not higher than ancient Babylonia.
If Capitalism was not dominant in China then China did not have a Capitalist mode of production just as a cooperative or two or a nationalized company or two today do not make entire countries Socialist. Yes, India, Bangladesh, Colombia, and African countries whilst entirely ignoring the numerous successful Capitalist countries. Sounds so logical and unbiased. Oh and please, you're comparing ancient Babylonia, successful and one of the most advanced in its time if I remember correctly, to the most backwards and failed countries of today. Lovely. Go and take a look at the Scandinavian countries, the Western European countries, the United States, etc. or even take a look at the majority of countries today. They all have a higher standard of living than 18th century China and ancient Babylonia except for the underdeveloped countries. India, Bangladesh, Colombia, and multiple African countries have higher standards of living, literacy, available goods and productivity, etc. than 18th century China and ancient Babylonia. To deny this is to deny reality. They all have commodity production, cars, airplanes, healthcare, industrial production, service sectors, a good number of literacy, higher productivity, etc. etc.



Productivity can have no effect on standards of living if its results are taken away by bourgeoisie. What difference does it make for a worker if his force of labor which he has sold with a certain price, is more or less productive? Sometimes higher productivity can harm him because it means there is no need for his force of labor. Thus, proletariat prefers less productivity and more social justice. This does not refute the fact that people who cooperate freely are capable to achieve higher productivity. They are more capable of doing so than parasites which sometimes sacrifice more productivity for profit and don’t share their technology in order to save their own profits.
Productivity CAN have a LARGE effect on standards of living even if the bourgeoisie take away the products. Why? Because, had you read any book on economics, Capitalists do not hoard their products, they sell them and exchange them in order to make profits. When products are sold, they are not destroyed, they are used by others thus increasing standards of living. Increasing productivity leads to increased supply, decreased prices, and thus a larger availability and higher consumption of such goods. The difference is that if a worker is more productive, he creates better and more products with less waste thus benefiting society as a whole in the long-run whilst not intending to do so directly but instead merely attempting to get more money for himself to do whatever with them. In an "according to contribution" system, this notion is vital as it leads to workers working as much as they need or want and being paid as much as they work according to their contribution which DIRECTLY benefits society as a whole. He gets paid and does whatever he wants with his money. Under Capitalism, money is paid to those who do not directly contribute or speculate, that's the problem thanks to private property. Actually higher productivity doesn't harm him by making his labor power useless, in fact higher productivity is DESIRABLE and in HIGH DEMAND, he would actually be paid more for his productive skills than the average worker. The proletariat desire social justice with little in return for class selfish reasons just as the Capitalists desire social justice, profits, money, etc. for class selfish reasons. It's called the "class war", read up on it. The fact? The FACT that people who cooperate rely are capable to achieve higher productivity in their OWN system? Prove it. I'll be waiting. No, in fact, I CHALLENGE YOU to prove it. Oh and don't bother by using cooperatives under Capitalism as they are utilizing Capitalism as a framework with pricing mechanisms, competition, pricing signals, markets, etc. I want you to get me a non-Capitalist example of cooperatives leading to superior productivity than that under Capitalism. Just do remember that productivity CAN be increased in small scale cooperatives that depend on THEMSELVES due to altruism, but as soon as you attempt to do away with that in favor including society as a whole then all the problems start to set in.



A mother takes care of her children while they don’t give something to her in return.
Kin altruism. Kin altruism does not exist on the scale of a society of BILLIONS or past Dunbar's Number.



When people are not fighting or competing with each other, they can cooperate with each other.
Only when memory accountability, cooperation, faithfulness, loyalty, and a MUTUAL aid can be ensured such as in the case of kin altruism and small scale groupings (tribes for instance). On a social scale of BILLIONS of people or past Dunbar's Number memory is lost and it would be a disaster.

From my other post:

"The "symbiotic interest" of yours is nonsense. If that were the case then people today would already operate on that basis rather than requiring markets and pricing mechanisms. In fact, symbiotic interest would only be relevant if the system were based on survival and threat of extinction where everyone depends on another living in small communities such as tribes. In a fully-fledged economy this symbiotic interest is done away as altruism and memory no longer exist as they did in kin-based societies. You cannot count on any other, others are not basing their existence on you, and you have little to no direct contact to know and judge if they are working properly or not as in the case of tribal and kin-based societies. You need an accounting mechanism, such as a pricing mechanism with or without a market (Market Socialist or even State-owned and created), to ensure that other individuals are actually contributing to society in that "symbiotic interest" of yours to ensure that others will do the same. Money, pricing mechanisms, and the market are capable of doing so through the remuneration of work and labor with the appropriate credits. In other words, I fundamentally believe that a significantly high enough populations you need something approximating markets to have cooperation. Benefits must be proportional to aid given or cooperation breaks down. At small enough or simple enough scales cooperation can be maintained though altruism because memory is an effective accounting mechanism. Memory keeps tabs on who helped me and who didn't. When the size of society exceeds a certain threshold and the complexity along with the complexity of production there are limits to the memories capacity to police who is producing value and who isn't. Something must stand in for memory in a "meta conscious", that is, "beyond a singular consciousness". This is a price system. The market serves as an extended mind aggregating information because no "one person" possesses all the necessary information to organize society and then position us like pawns to engage in these tasks, there are no human gods. Your assumptions based on cooperation which you claim to be "symbiotic interest" are ridiculous as soon as you surpass the human limitation of the number of active human relationships you have known as Dunbar's number. "

They only cooperate on the local scale, where memory allows for accountability, where information asymmetry does not exist, where mutual benefits are directly observable and given, and so on. Altruism only exists with those conditions, specifically only proper in the case of kin altruism. From another post:


"I disagree with the conception those with the greatest ability will serve those with the greatest need. Humans and organisms in general tend to engage in risk-offsetting, money and property has not relevance to this, that is they will perform certain behaviors with higher frequency that have adverse outcomes when the cost of those outcomes are diminished by technology, the environmental conditions or by socializing the cost to other parties. This is a good enough reason for one to reject the concept of communism.


Most families operate based on socialism, but this sort of arrangement is stabilized by kin altruism and the gains are indirect fitness in the case of sibling altruism or direct in the case of parent offspring directed altruism. kin altruism is not a viable means of directing cooperation at a GLOBAL scale or national scale and the more genetically diverse the social system is the more we should expect altruism to break down unless, as game theory predicts, interactions are repeated but then your operating off a "reciprocal altruism" (Trivers 71) which requires small scale, high exit costs, and social evaluation to be handled by individual brains directly via trust, honor , respect and other such social constructs that serve as an archaic analogue of the price system. Since scale, exit and cognitive limitations cannot be grafted onto a global exchange system some other social enforcement structure needs to exist to ensure benefits are proportion to contributions and sanctions are proportional to lack of contributions.""



When development and wellbeing of any individual doesn’t contradicts with the rest of society, but is necessary for the development and wellbeing of the society and vice versa, they will cooperate with each other.
Ogod that Kropotkinism. Did he really? :laugh: All that rhetoric leaves no place for logic. Typical. Anyway, no, the development and well-being of any individual contradicts with the rest of society as long as he is extracting from society without giving anything proportional in return such as in the case of "according to contribution" system where aid given is return with proportional contribution. When an individual takes anything he wants at no cost and with nothing or little in return then his development and well-being contradicts with the rest of society, especially so since resources, products and production are finite at any one time. Oh and by the way, the interests of the individual contradict the interests of society, be it preferences, prioritization, or needs as I have explained in the "Eliminating Scarcity For Luxury Goods?" thread where I critiqued the notion of individual demand, preferences, and priorities as being by any means compatible with the demand, preferences, and priorities of any collective they are in. What one person may have high as a priority may end up the lowest on the list of priorities and ergo his priorities and most valuable needs would not be met by social production. This can be solved in market economies or economies with a pricing mechanism on consumption. Cooperation on such a level of ensuring well-being and development can only exist in on the basis on altruism which cannot exist on such a scale.



As long as classes as well as the old cultural values still exist under socialism, institutions which represent the will of proletariat will watch for those who wish to harm the society but the necessity for this keeping watch decreases in time until finally under communism there is no need for it.
Yes, which is why a proletarian state like the one in the USSR, the "institution which represents the will [class interests] of [the] proletariat will watch for those who wish to harm the society", you just ended the debate and destroyed you ENTIRE argument on the question of the proletariat and the party/bureaucrats/state. Good job.



Of course, a person who is carrying bourgeoisie ideology sees any work which is not profitable as exploitation, even if it benefits the society which the worker is a member of it and even if its voluntary.
You have no idea what exploitation is, do you? Exploitation is when workers are paid for less than the actual value of their labor, when the fruits of the labor is taken away and surplus value is extracted. I do not care if it is profitable or not or whether it benefits society or not, those are not considerations taken by Marx on the question of the exploitation of labor.



Bourgeoisie is called modern exactly when it doesn’t manages or does anything useful. In modern and big companies, no capitalist makes the decision about the work, educated managers and office workers do that for the capitalist. If there still exists a capitalist who is actually a manager or does a useful job, this situation is a remnant of early stages of capitalism and in time it will be replaced by the first type. Even when bourgeoisie is still an active participant in production, it doesn’t automatically make him progressive; his rule can be replaced by workers, their institutions and their government who carry his job in a more efficient way. The only thing which modern bourgeoisie does is searching for fields of investments which can grant him highest profits.
The bourgeoisie today STILL manage and do a lot of useful things from managing the supervisors, the managers, the company, the shareholders, the means of production, assigning new production, assigning new means of production, etc. The bourgeoisie of today are not completely passive as in the case of certain ultra-rich individuals, many of the bourgeoisie of today maintain direct control over the production process. Educated managers and office workers follow the orders of the bourgeoisie; they do not act independently of them. What we have seen historically is that he bourgeoisie reached a stage of monopolies before coming down and doing away with the monopolies thanks to government intervention and regulation. Monopolies do not exist today to the same extent that they did in the 19th and early 20th century before the anti-trust laws. A bourgeois who is active or passive in production is still much more progressive in terms of historical development than a Feudal lord or a pre-Capitalist mode of production as they lead to Capitalism, create proletariat, and create the material conditions for Socialism. You cannot state that the replacement of the rule of the bourgeoisie by workers' rule, government, etc. are more "efficient", since as we have historically seen that is not the case. The issue is not with the replacement of the bourgeoisie that leads to increased efficiency, but the system in question that leads to increased efficiency. If you replace the rule of the bourgeoisie by the rule of the workers, their institutions, and their governments, then that ALONE does NOT lead to increased efficiency, you could merely destroy everything and hand a few tools to a few workers and their institution, they won't become more efficient. You need to take a thousand and one considerations into question.



There can be no tendency in scientific socialism. Just as there are no tendencies in physics or mathematics.
Are you fucking KIDDING ME? Firstly, there is no such thing as scientific socialism. Secondly, there ARE tendencies in socialism, physics, and mathematics.

Mathematics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics
http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PErnest/pome17/handal.htm

Physics:
http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=The_Two_Schools_of_Thought_in_Modern_Phy sics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Socialism:
Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
To the left click on "models" and "variants".



Communists support the interests of proletariat as a class. These interests are same anywhere.
I already said this before.



a communist is follower of scientific socialism and sole interests of a certain class. Thus, if someone calls himself a communist but recognizes different tendencies, he is not supporting scientific socialism or interests of proletariat, no matter what he calls himself. He can be a Petty-Bourgeois Socialist or an idealist but his actions and way of thinking wont lead to communism.
And you have no idea what you are talking about. Socialists and Communists have DIFFERENT interpretations of how BEST and most effectively to achieve the objective class interests of the proletariat. Thus schools of thought (tendencies) are formed with those supporting the end of hierarchy, those utilizing hierarchy, those opposing vanguards, those support vangaurds, those supporting a state, those opposing a state, those favoring reformism, those favoring revolution, those favoring Market Socialism, those favoring no Market Socialism, etc. etc. etc. Seriously, go ahead and read up on Socialism and Communism, it'll do you good as you seem to be quite ignorant on those subjects. What you are resorting to is a logical fallacy called a No True Scotsman fallacy. Look it up. Good job.



If governments of Iran, Iraq, and Syria are not calling themselves fascist it doesn’t mean they are different from old and open fascists in practice. Baath parties have copied the ideology of fascist movements in Europe.
I do not care what they call themselves, merely examining and analyzing their system we can objectively see that they are NOT Fascists. Here's what Fascism is, start reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
If after reading that you want to debate whether or not they are Fascists, then I will inform you that I know very well what Fascism is as I have debated actual Fascists, so please do read up on Fascism BEFORE speaking of Fascism and resorting to strawman logical fallacies again.



I never supported Stalin but his “cooperation” with fascist states was never against the interests of people. such “cooperation” lead to no harm to anti-fascist struggle. besides, what makes cooperation with Baath parties and other reactionaries better? they are willing but no strong enough to commit crimes as big as their ancestors.
LOL? ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING? Stalin led to the DESTRUCTION of the anti-Fascists by ignoring Fascism, banning anti-Fascism, and leading to struggle and conflict between the Socialists and Communists rather than against Fascism. It was only after the Fascists BETRAYED Stalin that he reversed the policy and called for Popular Fronts against Fascism. By then it was too late as in the case of the SPD and KPD against the Nazis. Stalin's cooperation with Fascist states was expected and made in the interests of the USSR at the expense of other countries, it later turned out to be against the interests of the USSR and the rest of the countries. Stalin wanted the Nazis and the Capitalists to fight an imperialist war with him swooping in at the last second to win against the Capitalists and Fascists after exhausting themselves. He not only fucked over the SPD and KPD and the proletariat but he also fucked up his own country. Such a smart fellow. Cooperation with Ba'athist Parties is in the interests of opposing Western and bourgeois Capitalist influence in certain regions as well as finding allies and gaining influence in certain regions of interest without which the USSR would be turned into a DPRK or Albania.



Building houses can also take place under slavery. It doesn’t mean the system which is building houses is progressive. Ahmadinejad also built houses in Iran but no sane person will call him progressive because of that. Khrushchev didn’t abolished Stalin's authoritarian policies, we continued them. When people came into streets to protest against his regime, he answered them with tanks and machine guns. He merely introduced 3 peaceful thesis which officially made USSR a counter revolutionary world power.

Of course not, but in that superficial and ignorant assessment you forget that the system that is building the houses IS progressive, IS Socialist, and IS doing so in the interests of its people. Building houses under slavery has NOTHING to do with building houses in a Socialist country. Building houses under slavery means that the measure and policy was progressive and the actions leading to the building of houses is progressive regardless of the system. As for Ahmadinejad, you seem to think of "progressive" as being "progressive" in the BOURGEOIS LIBERAL sense, as in supporting human rights, supporting civil rights, supporting homosexual rights, supporting abortion, etc. Those have little to nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, etc. cared little for human rights, the "sacredness" of human life, civil rights, political rights, etc. but instead called for their suppression in the class interests of the proletariat. Khrushchev DID abolish Stalin's authoritarian policies, are you fucking kidding me? Start reading some excerpts though I insist that you read the entire entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Domestic_policies

The 3 peaceful theses have nothing to do with counter-revolution, as I have already explained.



Castro, Kim, Gaddafi, Baath parties and other reactionaries were supported by Khrushchevists and sometimes own their existence to Khrushchevism. Therefore they are very related to each other.
Castro is not a reactionary. Kim is not a reactionary. Gaddafi was not a reactionary. The Ba'ath parties are not reactionaries. I have already explained their systems and achievements that destroy your entire false assertions. Oh and you still have to prove that they're reactionaries. And yes indeed, Khrushchev secured their power and gained allies for the USSR against the Western countries of reaction.



Marx, Engels, Lenin and other people who have contributed to formation or evolution of scientific socialism didn’t merely presented theories. They proved their theories and experience of history showed them to be correct. You are the one who is supporting some theories which you have invented for yourself and history has already showed them to be false.
No such thing as scientific socialism. They were not proven correct in history, such as many of Marx's, Engels', and Lenin's predictions ranging from the question of the immeserization of the proletariat, the fall in the rate of profit, the formation and domination by monopolies, the fall of Capitalism, the superiority of their form of Socialism, the rise of revolutions in First World countries rather than Third World countries, and so on and so forth. I base my theories on what has been achieved and what I find to be the best.



Under socialism, contradicts within the ranks of people (for example between peasantry and proletariat or between different sections of proletariat) can and should be resolved peacefully. a communist party listens to people, finds the roots of problems and puts forward solutions. People who are organized in their councils and different institutions put these solutions into action, not by force but by their own will. If policies are forced to people while they don’t know why and how should they follow them, solutions will stay on paper to turn to something different in practice. But Khrushchevists push people to opposition by ignoring their demands, turn contradicts which can be solved peacefully into antagonistic contradicts which can only be solved by violence, drive people to use of violence by abolishing freedom of speech and the right to choose, call them reactionary (without showing why after decades of rule, huge masses of reactionaries exists) and suppress them.
Actually Khrushchev and Gorbachev attempted to do what you suggest by decentralization, liberalization, giving more rights, more freedom of speech, more government transparency, etc. I'm surprised how you are so ignorant as to not realize that the greatest abuser here is STALIN not anyone else as it was he who resorted to "force" rather than "their own will", it was he who pushed policies which are "forced to people while they don't know why and how they should follow them", and so on. Do I need to remind you of Stalin's policies that range from ignoring Fascists, opposing Fascists, then cooperation with Fascists, before returning to opposition to Fascists, splitting relations with Yugoslavia, forcing collectivization, resorting to mass arrests, the Great Purge, the maximization of the use of the Gulags, etc. etc.? No, I do not need to do so. What you are suggesting should be done is liberal reforms, liberal reforms which Khrushchev and Gorbachev attempted to do and did, the very policies which you criticize ignorantly and yet support at the same time.



If you claim that I don’t what a dictatorship is, why don’t you explain yourself? Dictating something to someone is always dictatorship, let alone the use of violence!
You claimed that "violence against workers when they raise against your beloved state" is a dictatorship.
I denied that is a dictatorship.

The one who states the positive assertion has the burden of proof upon him, not the one who puts forward a negative. You just resorted to a burden of proof logical fallacy. Good job again. :laugh: The burden of proof is upon YOU, not ME. You said a dictatorship is "violence against workers when they raise against your beloved state", YOU need to prove that it is, not me. I only denied it.



What is a class struggle? if a capitalist and a worker fight by beating each other in an alley, would this be a class struggle? class struggle is a struggle about putting different class policies into action, even if the people involved are unaware. If someone who is a worker defends bourgeois policies, he is actively supporting bourgeois system. If there are people in a socialist society who don’t hold any capital and are not bourgeoisie but are holding bourgeoisie ideas, class struggle continues in that society. If bourgeoisie ideas win and are able to determine the policies, socialism will be destroyed, no matter to whom do the means of production belong to on paper.
Yes, and you just reiterated exactly what I had said using this line: "putting different class policies into action, even if the people involved are unaware". By acting in the CLASS INTERESTS of the proletariat, you DISREGARD what they subjectively want in favor of what their OBJECTIVE CLASS INTERESTS are, something which you claimed before. Good job, yet again, you just destroyed your entire argument. The class struggle is NOT a struggle of ideas without a material basis, you just fucking butchered materialism and Marxism. Ridiculous. You cannot have a class struggle with NO CLASSES. If you believe the class struggle to be a struggle of ideas rather than a material struggle then you are resorting to Hegelian's realm of ideals rather than Marx's materialism. Bourgeoisie ideas necessitate BOURGEOIS IDEAS which base themselves on private property, private profit, Capitalist markets, and so on, things which did NOT and NEVER existed within the USSR.



Proletariat cant win the class struggle without winning the ideological struggle which is an important part of class struggle. aim of ideological struggle for proletariat is ridding itself from the old ideas and old cultural values which belong to a class society. This struggle cant be won by banning other ideologies, even the most reactionary ones, on the contrary, freedom is necessary for proletariat in order to win this struggle. if a large number of workers are holding reactionary view points, ideological struggle cant be successful and as a result there can be no socialism. Until those reactionary ideas haven’t been corrected using freedom of speech which allows discussion, progress of socialism is impossible. Of course, you can ban the ideas and call the means of production governmental, but that doesn’t affect what is happening in reality.
The ideological struggle is bullshit inasmuch as the class struggle, the material basis for it, is done away with through the annihilation of classes. Actually the struggle of ideas CAN and IS won by banning other ideologies, something Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin spoke of clearly when they spoke against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of elections, etc. Read "Terrorism and Communism" by Trotsky, an excellent book before he turned into a soft-hearted Utopian idiot. If you give freedom to the proletariat, you give them the ability to be INFLUENCED by ideas AGAINST their CLASS INTERESTS such as in the case of the Germany with Nazism being followed by the proletariat against the SPD and KPD, in Italy following the Fascists, and in Capitalist countries following the Capitalists. By banning these ideologies, you hinder and even prevent the progress of these ideas in society in order to negatively influence the proletariat. It is NOT a coincidence that when freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on were legalized in the USSR that the USSR collapsed and was replaced with Capitalism. Freedom of speech CANNOT lead to correction because people are RARELY, IF EVER convinced otherwise even if they are correct and arguing against false ideas. Have you EVER tried convincing people? I thought as much. If you say that you convinced a person or two then these person or two are NOTHING compared to the BILLIONS of people who oppose or do not support your ideology. Try arguing against a religion person for example or a bonehead and you'll understand exactly why freedom of speech in order to spread your OWN ideas is bullshit.



at first you said that if there is no private sector in the economy, we can conclude that there is no bourgeoisie. then you assumed that there is ideal situation in a governmental factory in an imaginary country and after that you assumed that this situation can be generalized. By doing so, you didn’t destroyed my argument, you merely destroyed your reputation!
No I have not. If there is no private PROPERTY in the economy, amongst other conditions, there can be no bourgeoisie. I NEVER changed my position on that matter. You said that I "assumed that there is ideal situation in a governmental factory in an imaginary country and after that you assumed that this situation can be generalized"? Where the fuck did I do so that would contradict my earlier statements on the bourgeoisie and private property? Go ahead and show me. YOU destroyed your arguments time and time again, not me. In fact, in the quote you used I was explaining why the USSR was NOT a bourgeois government and how it had no bourgeoisie because it had no private property, etc.



You already said that people could not choose the policies of government in Eastern bloc. “The party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems.” So, i guess we should assume that governments of these countries and their managers were all saints who were immune to mistakes and corruption. Why do you bother to argue? as I said before, you can just assume that you are right about everything and smile!
No, but mistakes and corruption were limited as opposed to a complete anarchy and decentralization. I bother to argue because this shit is simply too easy. I need to prove people such as you wrong in order to SAVE the Left rather than have it destroyed by Utopian idealist adventurists who have not studied anything about anything whilst they try to play economists, revolutionaries, and politicians. I assume I am right about everything on the basis of past debates and current debates with my ability to defend my position with arguments. As we have clearly seen so far, it doesn't bode well for your case.



That’s exactly why USSR was capitalist.
Are you simply UNABLE TO READ? Since WHEN THE FUCK is Capitalism defined by purely having exploitation? Exploitation existed BEFORE and OUTSIDE OF CAPITALISM, even under Feudalism. Does that make Feudalism Capitalist? Fuck no. Does that make the USSR and other Socialist countries Capitalist because they have exploitation? Fuck no. Exploitation is unavoidable unless you want to have markets and workers' direct ownership of the means of production. What I said in the quote you used was that you need to know the CONTEXT of exploitation and analyze it properly like a fucking Marxist. Exploitation is NOT the same in all system and all cases, it differs.



Then you just admitted that bourgeoisie existed and ruled USSR. Because a small minority who were not obliged to listening to people and solving all their problems were ruling. They had higher income, mercenaries who protected them and could choose the policies without the participation of people. means of production didn’t belonged to them on paper but were actually working for their profit.
Bullshit. Apparently now you define the bourgeoisie not according to PRIVATE ownership of the means of production for the extraction of PRIVATE profits and surplus value from workers hired PRIVATELY for PRIVATE production, but by simply "not obliged to listening to people and solving all their problems", "had higher income", "mercenaries who protected them", and "could choose the policies without the participation of people". And you DARE call yourself a Marxist? You are a SHAME to Marxism. Not listening to people has NOTHING to do with being a bourgeois. Not solving all the people's problems has NOTHING to do with being a bourgeois. Having a higher income has NOTHING to do with being a bourgeois (workers do not receive the same wage). Mercenaries being hired to protect them has NOTHING to do with being a bourgeois because armies and policemen were existent since the first civilized society that had NO BOURGEOISIE. Choosing policies without the participation of people has NOTHING to do with being a bourgeois, Capitalist countries HAVE the participation of people on the question of policies but they are still BOURGEOIS countries WITH a bourgeoisie.

NONE of the things you mentioned have ANYTHING to do with being a bourgeois. You just butchered Marxism and perverted it. You are a disgrace. You do not even fucking realize that every class-based mode of production had the things you described WITHOUT necessarily having a bourgeoisie. In fact, Feudalism has all that you described WITHOUT a bourgeoisie.

Where do such people come from, seriously? One would expect them to read up on Marxism and Communism before calling themselves as such. But when they fail to even know what a bourgeois is... I just...



Ruling class of USSR benefited mostly from certain industries, especially those which allowed it to become a rival for other imperialists for world domination. They funded their heavy industries and military mostly and ignored those branches of industry which were producing things for ordinary people.
Yes, and the issue here? That all started with Stalin. Khrushchev, Gorbachev, etc. tried to move AWAY from heavy industry and the military in favor of focusing on consumer products. Oh my, it turns out you're a revisionist Khrushchevist/Gorbachevist. You support liberal reforms in the USSR, a move away form heavy industry, a move away from militarism, and so on as in the case of Khrushchev and Gorbachev. Simply fucking laughable. Why are YOU even arguing at all?



[Tea party is the real revolutionary in USA and should be supported!]
Right... He didn't even bother to read what I had said and simply disregarded what I had said in favor of that shit above. Nice.



That is what logical extension of your view points lead to, not mine!
Say that to Marx and Engels who wanted to aggravation the class struggle by bringing contradictions and antagonisms to the fore such as on the question of free trade. I'd quote the context, but it's large, see it here: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/free-trade/index.htm

The quote is as follows: "But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."



a party which does not struggles for immediate improvement of workers lives, is a sect which is unrelated to workers and workers have no reason to follow it nor can they gain organization and class consciousness without the struggle for immediate improvements.
Immediate improvements must not be focused on nor struggled for without putting the END of Capitalism and its replacement with Socialism and Communism as the goal. That is what many of the labor movements have historically done. It is also my main disagreement with certain reformists like Lenin (yes, he actually support immediate reforms for Capitalism but wanted Socialism to be the goal) as I follow the adage that the end justifies the means. It could be related or unrelated workers according to you all you want, but without the proper material conditions for revolution, a revolution will not take place and the party of yours would have already destroyed the material basis. There's a reason, again, why the 19th and early 20th century had MASSIVE labor movements and were then extinguished after achieving a few reforms. Reformists like yourself made them believe that Capitalism can actually meet their needs through reforms, that the bourgeoisie could be cooperated and collaborated with without considering them as enemies, and so on. By giving reforms to workers, you have killed them.



Historically successful revolutions were carried out by parties which struggled for immediate improvements and the final aims of worker class. Bolsheviks struggled for lower work hours, better wages, insurance, democratic political rights and … therefore they managed to unite the workers. without this struggle, revolution and communism will become empty slogans and like dogmas which can only satisfy intellectuals who don’t participate in class struggles. a true revolutionary tries to gain reforms as much as possible and when further improvement is impossible under the existing system, he/she upholds revolution.
They wouldn't at all become empty slogans, they would instead be all the more fulfilling and give workers without lower work hours, better wages, insurance, democratic political rights, etc. to see that CAPITALISM DOES NOT HAVE THEM and that SOCIALISM HAS THEM. If Capitalism has all those then they have NO REASON TO FIGHT FOR SOCIALISM. Do you understand or do I have to repeat the shit until you do? The Bolsheviks had the proper material conditions with the government UNABLE to meet the demands of the workers with reforms and instead they looked for an alternative OUTSIDE of Capitalism to meet those reforms. Who was calling for those reforms? The Bolsheviks. If you, however, attempt to achieve the reforms within Capitalism then you fuck up the working class and the social revolution. Oh and don't speak of a fucking "true revolutionary" as that is nothing more than more No True Scotsman logical fallacies coming from you.



On the contrary, jobs are being destroyed in countries which depend on exportation of raw materials and especially oil.
Prove it. Tell me WHO extracts, processes, and exports the raw materials and especially oil? If you DARE say that it is workers from OTHER countries then you just destroyed any notion of the super-exploitation of the native proletariat in Third World countries AND went against reality.



National industry and agriculture are being destroyed by importation of foreign goods.
Same as above.



Unemployment is raising. No productive machinery is among the imports. You can hardly find a factory in Arabia, UAE and such countries.
They do NOT need productive machinery because production is being done ELSEWHERE. Arabia, UAE, and so on depend on the SERVICE sector and the petroleum industry. The service sector in developed countries is larger than the productive sector. The production industry is being moved to Third World countries.



they don’t even hold the technology for excavation of oil and are dependent on foreign countries for excavation.
And yet they are extremely wealthy and advanced.

"Saudi Arabia's command economy is petroleum-based; roughly 75% of budget revenues and 90% of export earnings come from the oil industry. The oil industry comprises about 45% of Saudi Arabia's nominal gross domestic product, compared with 40% from the private sector (see below). Saudi Arabia officially has about 260 billion barrels (4.1×1010 m3) of oil reserves, comprising about one-fifth of the world's proven total petroleum reserves.[170]

In the 1990s, Saudi Arabia experienced a significant contraction of oil revenues combined with a high rate of population growth. Per capita income fell from a high of $11,700 at the height of the oil boom in 1981 to $6,300 in 1998.[171] Increases in oil prices since 2000 have helped boost per capita GDP to $17,000 in 2007 dollars, or about $7,400 adjusted for inflation.[172] Taking into account the impact of the real oil price changes on the Kingdom's real gross domestic income, the real command-basis GDP was computed to be 330.381 billion 1999 USD in 2010.[173]
Oil price increases of 2008–2009 have triggered a second oil boom, pushing Saudi Arabia's budget surplus to $28 billion (110SR billion) in 2005. Tadawul (the Saudi stock market index) finished 2004 with a massive 76.23% to close at 4437.58 points. Market capitalization was up 110.14% from a year earlier to stand at $157.3 billion (589.93SR billion), which makes it the biggest stock market in the Middle East.‏"

"The UAE has a relatively high Human Development Index among Asian continent, ranking forty-first globally.[91] In 2011, UAE is ranked as the 14th best nation in the world for doing business based on its economy and regulatory environment, ranked by the Doing Business 2011 Report published by the World Bank Group[92]

The GDP growth rate for 2010 was 3.20%.[93] CPI inflation in the April 2008 — April 2009 year was 1.9%.[94] The national debt as of June 2009 was $142 billion.[95] In 2009, its GDP, as measured by purchasing power parity, stood at US$ 400.4 billion.[3] With a population of just under 900,000 Abu Dhabi was labeled "The richest city in the world" by a CNN article.[96]
Petroleum and natural gas exports play an important role in the economy, especially in Abu Dhabi. More than 85% of the UAE's economy was based on the exports of natural resources in 2009.[3][97] The UAE has tried to reduce its dependency on oil exports by diversifying the economy, particularly in the financial, tourism and construction sectors. While Abu Dhabi remained relatively conservative in its approach, Dubai, which has far smaller oil reserves, was bolder in its diversification policy.[9]"

Just read up on those countries.



This leads to a economic crisis known as Dutch disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease) especially in countries with more population like Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease#Examples

Next.



They are creating bourgeoisie but a parasite bourgeoisie which is not interested in production (other than oil for exportation). They destroy their countries productivity and turn it into a consumer society. They are building modern malls not modern factories or a modern government. jobs are being destroyed and workers which are needed for construction of malls, villas and skyscrapers are imported from abroad.
The bourgeoisie are always interested in production as their profits are at stake, to state otherwise is due to ignorance on your part. By turning their countries into a consumer society, a service-based society, they advance their country develop it while outsourcing manufacture and industrial production elsewhere such as Third World countries. Local self-sufficiency is bullshit as we have seen in the case of Albania and the DPRK, it is better to rely on international trade for certain products whilst exporting your own than to depend entirely on your country to provide EVERYTHING. Modern malls create jobs and merchant capital profit whilst also supply production and commodities to people, no issue here. Jobs are not being destroyed by introducing malls instead of factories. Workers are imported from abroad because the local and native population cannot compete with the foreign workers. Importing workers from abroad paradoxically is much cheaper than local labor.



All of historians have wrote that before worker rights were recognized in 19th century, finding jobs was easier for women and children who worked for lesser money compared to grown men.
You ignore my argument entirely. Those NUDE women were EXCEPTIONS or did not even exist at all. "These women were EXCEPTIONS which were pointed out, they were not the rule of thumb nor were they even essential." These women as in the unproductive nude women replacing machines. I am not denying that children and women used to have jobs or were paid less.



Machinery were used more after recognition of worker rights, although they existed before that date.
No. Workers' labor movements exist well into the early 20th century until the threat of revolution was a reality due to the Bolsheviks. The workers' rights and reforms as well as welfare states and so on are modern concepts from the LATE 19th century to the EARLY 20th century to even today in developing countries. Machinery were used to replace workers ever since the invention of the FIRST machine and the Industrial Revolution, do the Luddites remind you of anything?



look at Capital, Vol 1.
No don't tell me to "look at Capital, Vol 1", I want you to CITE IT.



Usage of machinery under capitalism leads to unemployment and as a result, wages decrease.
And yet wages are high in countries that utilzie automation and machienry forcing the bourgeoisie to use foreign workers or outsource, thus your argument is bullshit.



Bourgeoisie uses machinery in order to exploit more. capitalists will resort to the method which is more profitable regardless of its effects on workers.
Yes and by doing so they lead to the results we have today which Marx praised.



until workers are kept backward, they will see machines as their enemies, that doesn’t mean they are opposed to machinery as a class.
I did not state that workers oppose machinery as a class, but that workers HAVE opposed machinery in the past. I do not care if they're kept backwards or whatnot, all I care about is proving you wrong by stating that it was the workers who opposed machinery.



He could afford machines. Drillers are not so expansive and even individuals can buy them, but what reason did he had to pay for them? He could force the conscripts to work for him 17 hours a day.
What reason? They INCREASE efficiency, productivity, production, output, use less labor, and cost him less in the long-run whilst simulateneously increasing his profits. Economics, learn it.



Besides, machines require repair and maintenance, they require skilled workers who cannot be easily dismissed whenever the capitalist wishes.
Machinery do not require skilled workers, but if they do they can be taught with ease for the same pay. Machines require repair IF they breakdown and maintenance, this is nothing compared to the wage of a worker.


unlike those conscripts who are like slaves or cheap uneducated workers which a large army of them are waiting to be employed, skilled workers are stronger and can make more demands.
Operating a machine has little need of skill except the know-how to operate them. That is usually taught with ease with wages remaining the same as in the case of workers in sweatshops or in Third World countries utilizing machinery. If anything, it is machines which force workers to have a decreased wage as they spend less labor to operate a machine, but regulation and the government do away with this.



Marx Condemned others for calling peasants and non proletarian toilers reactionaries because they weren’t a "reactionary mass" and were capable to support a proletarian revolution. Woodcutters which Marx defended were not proletarians either, they were German petit-bourgeoisie but capable of fighting as an ally of proletariat.
I told you to cite it. Show me where Marx condemned other for calling peasants and non-proletarian toilers reactionaries. The peasantry were considered reactionary up until Lenin proposed to ally the proletariat with certain aspects of the peasantry. The peasantry had been considered reactionary because they did not have a separate mode of production for their own, they had no revolutionary sentiments and ideals but clung to their reactionary cultures and conservatism, they were divided and not united, they were self-sufficient, and they were backwards.

"f. Peasantry and Farmers. Marx considered the peasantry to be disorganized, dispersed, and incapable of carrying out change. Marx also expected that this class would tend to disappear, with most becoming displaced from the land and joining the proletariat. The more successful might become landowners or capitalist farmers. With respect to family farmers as a group, much the same could be said. However, Marx was not really very familiar with these as a group, and had little to say about these. The various analyses of the role of farmers in the Prairies constitute a more adequate view of what may be expected from this group. They could be considered to form a class when they act together as a group. In the early days of Prairie settlement, farms were of similar size, farmers had generally similar interests, and the farm population acted together to create the cooperative movement and the Wheat Board. More recently, Prairie farmers are often considered to be split into different groups or strata, dependent on type of farming, size of farm, and whether or not they employ labour. Farmers have not been able to act together as a class in political and economic actions in recent years. Lobbying by some farm groups have been successful, but these do not usually represent farmers as a whole."
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htm

"The problem posed by the peasantry, as far as Marx was concerned, was that they seemed in danger of standing in opposition to the full development of capitalism, and might therefore stand in opposition to the achievement of the socialist millenium. As far as Marx was concerned, the development of the capitalist mode of production was dependent on the dispossession and proletarianization of the peasantry. Peasants who succeeded in resisting that process, and clung on to their land by means of armed resistance, for example, might, in fact, be delaying the possibility of socialism being achieved, however worthy their struggle might be in its own terms. As both Marx and Lenin suggested, peasant producers might also sustain the continued dominance of archaic, merchant capitalist, forms of rural exploitation, or the dominance of landlord classes. The latter might manipulate the peasantry for reactionary political ends, and, by definition, archaic forms of capitalism had to be replaced by industrial capitalism if history was to progress. Ultimately, any process which checked the growth of the proletariat was putting off the day when all humanity could be liberated finally and completely from exploitation."
http://jg.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/Peasants/theory02.html

Marx criticized the peasantry, a criticism which was the basis of why we believed Russia to be backwards and incapable of revolution. He believed that the peasantry were doomed to become landless proletarian thanks to enclosures and government intervention against them.



When we talk about foreign workers who accept low paid jobs, we are talking about a disequilibrium. They offer more workforce with low prices, thus the wages (price of labor force) decreases to something lower than the value of labor force for certain jobs in advanced countries and as a result workers don’t accept jobs which their wages are lower than what is needed for reproduction of their labor force as long as they haven’t been forced to lower their standards of living. this situation leads to unemployment and decrease in wages in advanced countries.

We are talking about a disequilibrium in the reserve army of labor and labor supply, which I previously mentioned. When foreign workers travel to a country and accept wages less than the value of the labor, this has nothing to do with what I said when I stated that I took wages as being equal to value in an equilibrium. The disequilibrium of foreign labor offering labor power for lower wages has nothing to do with what I said, I stated that "wages are determined by subsistence wags necessary for the reproduction of the working class". I spoke of a theoretical framework as the one taken by Marx that was NOT a disequilibrium, I did not speak of a disequilibrium. In fact, this is what I had said:

"the proletariat of First World countries can suffer from the lack of jobs due to outsourcing, but no. Outsourced jobs are generally cheap manual labor that are employed on the minimum wage."

To which you replied by saying:

"how are the wage rates determined? By offer and demand of labor force. If workers don’t offer their work force with low wages, bourgeoisie has to increase the wages. This happens when workers are united against their enemy. No job (as long as its required by society) is bound to have a low wage. Jobs turn to “cheap manual labor” when they are offered to hungry, unorganized and backward workers who need them so badly that they compete with each other and will accept them with worst conditions."

You COMPLETELY ignored what I had been saying and this led to the confusion on your part that derailed the point entirely. I do not care about how wage rates are determined, I stated that workers in First World countries are not affected by outsourcing as the jobs would already be minimum wage jobs which are even less in countries where the jobs are outsourced to. There is a surplus of minimum wage jobs. If the jobs that were outsourced were left in the home country then they would have had to remain on the minimum wage or the minimum wage laws would be repealed or decreased in accordance with demands from the bourgeoisie. Again, I did not speak of wage rates, foreign labor traveling to the country, or whatnot. The very fact that the First World countries does NOT have "hungry, unorganized and backward workers" means that your claim is false by every means. "Yes and since the First World countries do not have a proletariat that are "hungry, unorganized, and backward workers who need them so badly that they compete with each other and will accept them with worst conditions" then you just answered your own ridiculous argument and destroyed it. The First World countries do not have this type of proletariat and thus such jobs do not take root in the First World countries meaning that the outsourcing of jobs does not affect the proletariat of First World countries in the form that you make it to be. "

I did NOT talk about foreign workers in First World countries, I did not talk about wage rates, I did not talk about disequilibriums, YOU brought them up and changed the ENTIRE point and argument.

Workers in First World countries who cannot compete with foreign workers already do not accept wages below the minimum wage and thus would still receive higher wages if they are employed. Their wages are NOT affected because of the minimum wage. Since that is the case, the outsourced jobs are based on the minimum wage. Since that is also the case then employment can be found elsewhere through finding ANY other minimum wage job.



Not necessarily. workers of advanced countries have trade unions to fight for better conditions since the 19th century which allows them to force the bourgeoisie to cut its profit instead of accepting a decrease in wages.
My argument was NEVER that they would have to have a decrease in wages. I stated that wages would remain the same regardless because of the minimum wage and because of the class conflict. Trade unions cannot simply "force" the bourgeoisie to do anything as they damn well please, the bourgeoisie also struggle for counter-reforms.



In advanced capitalists countries, workers have more rights, class differences are lower and the state is more democratic as well. But in countries such as Iraq under Saddam, Syria, Libya under Gaddafi, and the DPRK worker associations are banned, government is undemocratic and significant remanents of pre capitalist formations (in culture, production mode and the form of state) continue to exist.
OMFG? UNDEMOCRATIC? First of all, the OPTIMUM democracy and direct democracy was found in Libya under Gaddafi. I told you to fucking read the text in the spoilers on each one of those countries. Iraq was democratic. Syria is and was democratic. The DPRK is democratic. Workers' associations are banned because they are integrated with the state as in the case of the USSR. Remnants of pre-Capitalist formations? Like what?



You are playing with words. By a formal institution, I meant an institution which exists legally on paper but has no rule in running the society. You have a same thing in mind too: “The party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems.” Thus, soviets which are formally so high regarded that a state takes it name from them, in reality can be only insignificant institutions which have no legislative or executive power. They exist only to cover a bourgeoisie dictatorship.
YOU ARE FUCKING PLAYING AT WORDS. I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU MEAN, I CARE WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID FORMAL. A formal institution has NOTHIGN TO DO with "legally on paper but has no rule in running society", a formal insitituion is an insitituion which has been FORMALIZED IN THE GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY, making it OFFICIAL. Learn fucking English, you are pissing me off. A formal institution is one that has been formalized and made official by government and society. Yes, I stated that the Party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems? Why? Because if the most popular decision is NOT always the best decision, the party knows better than the people who are uneducated, undedicated, and unspecialized in government, theory, and society. This has NOTHING to do with what you are falsely interpreting from my use of the term "formal institution". It is not my fault if you cannot read English. Oh and the Soviets already had legislative powers, but NOT executive power. The executive power could NOT be performed by the Soviets due to the necessity of swift action, organization, specialization, and coordination, something which CANNOT be done by sending thousands of delegates from all over the country to one room and have them manage and organize everything. Even during legislative sessions Congresses had to be ended because delegates started leaving after the Party under Lenin gave everyone the ability to voice their concerns, taking them days and a lot of time and discussion.

"An institution is any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community — may it be human or a specific animal one. Institutions are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern cooperative living behavior.[1]

The term "institution" is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public services. As structures and mechanisms of social order among certain species, institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences, such as political science, anthropology, economics, and sociology (the latter being described by Durkheim as the "science of institutions, their genesis and their functioning").[2] Institutions are also a central concern for law, the formal mechanism for political rule-making and enforcement."



Religious and racial differences were created, as Marx explained, due to class contradictions. When classes are abolished, the contradictions which are made by them start to demolish. This process can take some time because of deep roots which these contradictions have in history which covers their essence, but eventually they will destroy too, as a result of destruction of their social-economical base and the ideological struggle against them.
I do not believe religion and racism are due to class contradiction. Contradictions are not solely due to racisma nd religion but due to a thousand and one differences in beliefs, ideals, and whatnot. Unless you somehow claim that a classless society will be dominated by clones all thinking and acting the same then contradictions cannot be done away with, only the major contradiction (classes) would.



I didn’t said that. True communists supported a socialist revolution in USSR after it became capitalist, they had no interest in extending the life of USSR as long as it was a social imperialist country. Exactly in order to end the social imperialists life, a revolution was needed but not the type which bourgeoisie had in mind.
The USSR NEVER became Capitalist. I, again, CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE THE USSR BECAME CAPITALIST. I already explained to you extensively how the USSR had nothing to do with Capitalism but you seem hell-bent on proving that you are unable to read nor comprehend basic English.

"You claimed that abolishing suppressing free speech, rights, etc. led to revolutions in the USSR and thus claimed that in order to extend the life of the USSR and prevent revolutions that we must not suppress freedom of speech and rights. Then you claim that we must give freedom of speech and rights to workers in CAPITALIST countries."

You didn't say that? Now you are resorting to outright lies? Fucking pathetic.

You claimed that abolishing suppressing free speech, rights, etc. led to revolutions in the USSR and thus claimed that in order to extend the life of the USSR and prevent revolutions that we must not suppress freedom of speech and rights:

YOU SAID THIS ON PAGE 2:
"In case of Hungary in 1956, it was USSR and its puppet government which drove people into an uprising. If people were able to freely express their wants and need and decide for themselves, the uprising couldn’t have happened."

You said this on page 3:
"The lack of freedom of speech and rights leads to revolution."

Then you claim that we must give freedom of speech and rights to workers in CAPITALIST countries:
"a revolutionary supports bourgeois democratic reforms and tries to force the governments to accept them, but not all of governments are capable of doing so, because carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end can led to a peaceful socialist evolution and at some point and certain conditions it contradicts with the bourgeoisie system. For example there are free elections in usual situation, but what if a communist party is able to gain victory in it and change the system? Will bourgeoisie government remain so democratic to accept this? So carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end makes way for socialism."

So WHERE is the FUCKING LIE? Tell me. Go ahead. The only lie is YOU, the liar.



This is what all of communists have done. They fought for reforms while they never forgot the final aim.
And yet as we can see today, they fought for the reforms and final aim was lost.



Reforms are a mean to fight for the final aim. If reforms are carried to the end, there will be a peaceful socialist evolution which is also by all means a social revolution.
Oh really now? A fucking reformist amongst us. How nice. Did you even BOTHER to realize what you had said and how you contradicted yourself? Here's what you previously sadi about a "peaceful socailist evolution":

"a revolutionary supports bourgeois democratic reforms and tries to force the governments to accept them, but not all of governments are capable of doing so, because carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end can led to a peaceful socialist evolution and at some point and certain conditions it contradicts with the bourgeoisie system. For example there are free elections in usual situation, but what if a communist party is able to gain victory in it and change the system? Will bourgeoisie government remain so democratic to accept this? So carrying bourgeois democratic reforms to the end makes way for socialism."

Since the answer to your question is NO, the bourgeois government will not remain democratic to accept this then you just denied a "peaceful socialist evolution" while at the same time supporting a "peaceful socialist evolution"! How fucking ridiculous. Thus you willfully and intentionally want to doom the proletarian and Leftist movement by calling for them to resort to reforms and a peaceful socialist evolution knowing very well that the government will oppose them and stop them.



There have been peaceful social revolutions in history and there can be socialist ones in certain circumstances:
Like Chile? Like Venezuela? France? Germany? Western Europe?Whenever Socialists/Communists have had a sizeable majority or had been in power, they failed to move towards a "peaceful socialist evolution" and instead were stuck in bourgeois parliamentary politics.



if organized proletariat which has become a class for itself is too powerful and international situation is favorable, bourgeoisie sees that resistance is fruitless and prefers not to resort to violence which can have fatal results for it.
Oh really? Like where? When the international situation allowed for revolutions in the 19th century and 20th century, a bit of reforms silenced the organized proletariat in many countries, especially the US.



But if bourgeoisie wouldn’t tolerate a peaceful evolution, then and only then the communist party resorts to violence.
Yeah, that works very well, especially in every country that had a Socialist and Communist majority without transitioning to Socialism whilst remaining Capitalist.



If bourgeoisie rises against its own bourgeois democratic rules, it will lose its legitimacy in eyes of people, even those sections of petit bourgeoisie which were previously supporting it or were neutral.
Lol? You actually think that people will give a shit? Look what happened in Chile, Spain, etc. The bourgeoisie rose against bourgeois democratic rules and yet they won with people following them.



It shows to people who cant learn from mere theory, that a peaceful evolution is not possible and there is need for a violent revolution.
Yeah, given that the already many examples in history aren't proof enough of this fact.



Lenin wrote:
“Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.

The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled.

And conversely, workers who have assimilated Marx’s theory, i.e., realised the inevitability of wage-slavery so long as capitalist rule remains, will not be fooled by any bourgeois reforms. Understanding that where capitalism continues to exist reforms cannot be either enduring or farreaching, the workers fight for better conditions and use them to intensify the fight against wage-slavery. The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers, to divert them from the class struggle by petty concessions. But the workers, having seen through the falsity of reformism, utilise reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle.” (Marxism and Reformism, collected works, Vol 19)
Oh and as we can see here Lenin ADDRESSES YOU, the one who struggles for reforms and plans on winning reforms for a peaceful socialist evolution. You are a reformist.



On the contrary, freedom of speech and responsibility of government, stops conflicts from becoming antagonistic in a socialist country.
Are you fucking shitting me here? Are you saying that in your Socialist Utopian people all have the same ideas, beliefs, and so on with absolutely NO contradictions or differences that would rise to the surface and cause conflict!? The government CANNOT ensure freedom of speech AND AT THE SAME TIME stop conflict that arises from freedom of speech without limiting or banning freedom of speech.



power struggle cannot be avoided with abolishment of democracy.
They can be limited.



Even in bourgeois democracies, freedom of speech and elections will guide the power struggle into peaceful ways, unlike undemocratic countries which power struggles are solved by coups, civil wars, conspiracies and …
Prove that undemocratic countries solve power struggles by coups, civil wars, conspiracies, etc. whilst democratic countries GUIDE power struggles into PEACEFUL WAYS rather than coups, civil wars, conspiracies, international wars, imperialism, conflict, division, and so on. Just do remember that it was freedom of speech which allowed the Nazis to take power through free elections before banning free speech and free elections.




Marx wrote in manifesto that:
“The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”


[quote]Compare this with the attitude of revisionists regarding bourgeoisie dictatorships. The needs of USSR’s people don’t justify these crimes. Before revisionists victory, people of USSR were more needy but they never resorted to such ways. Even poor people would have preferred to stay needy than to participate in massacre of their brothers in other countries. selling arms to criminals for profit is something which only indecent people who have nothing but personal interest in mind will resort to.
Firstly, the attitude of the revisionists is much less of a problem in this aspect than the attitude of Stalin.

Secondly, Marx's quotes does not speak of Socialist/Communist countries versus reactionary Capitalist countries, but of COMMUNIST PARTIES WITHIN COUNTRIES. They disregard national struggles in favor of international struggles if there isn't a proletarian country that needs to be prioritized, followed, and defended. The question of internationalism above only applies to bourgeois countries and bourgeois nationalism.

Thirdly, what fucking "bourgeois dictatorships" are you referring to? I seriously hope you're not referring to Gaddafi, Kim, etc. because I have already explained to you how they are NEITHER bourgeois NOR dictatorships.

Fourthly, I want you to fucking cite this shit RIGHT NOW: "Before revisionists victory, people of USSR were more needy but they never resorted to such ways. Even poor people would have preferred to stay needy than to participate in massacre of their brothers in other countries. selling arms to criminals for profit is something which only indecent people who have nothing but personal interest in mind will resort to."
I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE IT.

Fifthly, the "massacre of their own brothers in other countries" was already taking place BEFORE the "victory of revisionists" bullshit, under Lenin, under Stalin, and under the Bolsheviks as a whole when they continued killing Germans before Brest-Listovsk, when they killed the Whites that included proletarians and peasantry, when they killed proletarians who resisted them, when Stalin killed numerous and countless people from the Great Purges to World War 2 in numerous other countries. Wake. The. Fuck. Up.



Besides why should the kind of people who justify this crime with the excuse of profit, act differently about the people within their border? Especially in a large country like USSR which was composed of different nationalities who lived far from each other and had different languages? a bureaucrat in Moscow could have easily justified his crimes against farmers in Tajikistan or workers in Vladivostok with a similar excuse: profit, profit in order to fund his own family.
Profit? In order to profit his own family? Are you kidding me? Are you seriously fucking shitting the fuck out of me? Why am I bothering to debate such a philistine? Go ahead and prove that the profits from the exports of the USSR's products were PRIVATE PROFITS for the bureaucrats and their families and was NOT for the country or the public. I'll be waiting until you do.



They proved to be reactionaries before and after the collapse by their own deeds. They openly supported reactionary ideas and deeds like nationalism, absolutism, totalitarian rule, corruption, justifying crimes with profit, abuse of human rights, militarism, police state and …

khrushchev, Gorbachev, etc. attempted to REDUCE nationalism by giving more rights to republics, to reduce absolutism and totalitarianism by denouncing Stalin's absolutism and totalitarian rule as well as making the party more demcoratic, not reinstating purges, and accepting forced resignation. Corruption? Name ONE USSR leader that supported corruption. ALL of the leaders of the USSR justified crimes with profit. ALL the leaders of the USSR abused human rights, but Khrushchevm, Gorbachev, etc. attempted to REDUCE the abuse of human rights, unlike Stalin the greatest abuser in this aspect. Khrushchev and Gorbachev attempted to REDUCE militarism in favor of consumer products and light industry for more "humane" reasons, it was STALIN who supported militarism and started it all. As for the police state, Khrushchev and Gorbachev struck it a huge blow, but it was Stalin who abused it.

By your ridiculous extension and logic, it was Stalin who supported nationalism, absolutism, totalitarian rule, corruption, justifying crimes with profit, abuse of human rights, militarism, police state, etc. and was the greatest abuser of them all. It was the revisionists who attempted to do away with those, not the other way around. You took history, perverted it, twisted it, and mangled it and turned it upside down.



“you made the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you”. I just note that I don’t support all of Stalin’s policies, I already wrote that class essence of the USSR's state began to change in early 1920s and bourgeoisie influence was growing during Stalin’s rule.

Right. Stalin created a "police state", filled the Gulags to the brim, killed Party members and Communists, resorted to vast militarism, abolished the NEP, empowered the secret police, resorted to imperialism, silenced opposition and dissent, and so on. Khrushchev and Gorbachev attempted to restore ASPECTS of the NEP, did away with many aspects of the "police state" and the secret police, released many from the Gulags and did not fill them to the brim as in the case of Stalin, they did not kill a single Party member and did not kill Communists, they moved away from militarism, they moved away from imperialism, they did not silence opposition and dissent, they supported and returned Democratic Centralism to the party, and so on. They reversed a lot of what Stalin created and perverted.



Saparmurat Niyazov was a member of USSR’s ruling party. What kind of person is capable of building a golden statue of himself while people of his country are poor, hungry and sick? He who has never had interests of people in mind. He who believes that ordinary people are made to produce profit for him. He who hasn’t accepted even bourgeois democratic cultural values and his mind works like a pharaoh. Niyazov was a reactionary all the time. Before the collapse he was forced to cover his true personality and work under shadows. If he was truly a communist and had just realized that his ideal communist society is impossible, he would have at least tried to find ways to be a good bourgeois democrat reformist, not a pharaoh.
Again, he WAS a member of the USSR's ruling party and DID NOT build a golden statue during that time. This proves once and for all that hte USSR SUPPRESSED such sentiments rather than based itself on them. He was only able to build a golden statue AFTER THE FALL of the USSR not DURING the USSR. Oh and it's the kind of person that has a lot of power AFTER THE FALL of the USSR, not during it. This goes to show, again, that the USSR suppressed such people and that after it fell they were no longer suppressed. He was not a reactionary all the time, he took advantage of the collapse of the USSR later on. Forced to cover his true personality means that he USSR SUPPRESSED THEM and was NOT controlled by them. Good job.



Someone claims that capitalism is superior to “soviet socialism” yet he blames people for wanting capitalism!
Capitalism has been proved to be superior to Soviet Socialism, yes. I do not blame people for wanting Capitalism, I blame people like YOU who make Socialism inferior and reject any attempts to make it superior and yet still struggle to restore an inferior form of the system.



No body forced the former members of CPSU to follow a capitalist path.
Yes, conditions and reality did with the fall of the USSR they had to fend for themselves, so they used what they had at their disposal from the remnants of the USSR.



They could have stayed like before
They CANNOT stay like before because NOTHING was like before.



You speak as if they have followed and are following the demands of people word by word.
Word by word? No.



Ordinary people of USSR were kept uneducated in the fields of politics, economy and sociology.
Prove it.



Only the governmental propaganda was available for them which was taught in a scholastic way and people had to follow it like a dogma.
Every government has propaganda. Your point? Nevertheless, this was changed under Gorbachev but enforced under Stalin. You are a revisionist. You share all your views and have no differences with them it seems. Lovely.



They didn’t even knew the difference between socialism and capitalism and couldn’t have requested capitalism.
They knew the difference and they did what they did, especially after Gorbachev gave them more rights and freedom, two things you fucking desire, which led to the collapse of the USSR as they saw things as they really were, saw the difference between the USSR and the West, and so on. That's why they did not revolt before. Your freedom bullshit and rights led to the revolt.



They only wanted welfare, justice and freedom (all of them in a very general meaning).
They alraedy had welfare. They already had justice after Stalin. They were already given freedom due to Gorbachev. They wanted more than that.



Members of CPSU were the ones who deliberately followed the path of capitalism and denied the demands of people. members of former USSR’s ruling party were the persons who forced people to follow their capitalist paths.

Members of the CPSU did not follow nor force anything, people voted for Capitalist and the bourgeoisie who pursued such reforms. How the fuck can they even force anything if they are no longer in power and taking part in free elections? You amaze me with that level of stupidity.



You are saying that continuation of war could have benefited the German workers.
No, I am saying what KAUTSKY said, not what I said or believe. Here's what I said because you are unable to read nor comprehend:
"You are repeating what Kautsky criticized the USSR for when they signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty for dooming the international proletariat and the proletariat of Germany."

"Here's what Kautsky said"

"The USSR DID act in its own national interests, I challenge you to show me otherwise. The USSR based its entire foreign policy on its foreign policy first. You did not even bother to present a counter-argument, you "argument" was simply saying that they "did not". Good job. No I'm not going to change that because I'm arguing against that, but you seem to be unable to read as with others like you. I would have supported peace for the Soviets to ensure their continued existence as a bigger and more imprtant objective than continuing the war in the "hopeful" interests of the German workers. I'm saying what KAUTSKY TOLD TROTSKY, but of course why am I bother to explain this shit to you?"



that is a social chauvinist view point.
Tell that to Kautsky.



Peace benefited workers of Russia and Germany, as well as other countries.
Yeah, so much Germany to such an extent that they had a successful revolution and became Communist.



besides, if we accept your views, the logical conclusion would be:
My views? Those were KAUTSKY'S FUCKING VIEWS.



1- Tsarists were more revolutionary than Bolsheviks because they started the war and were willingly to continue it.
No, that has nothing to do with anything. Wars do not make revolutionaries.



2- Bolsheviks acted counter revolutionary by stopping the revolution in Germany which was a more advanced and important country compared to Russia.
No, that's what KAUTSKY said.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So you're telling me stalinism (such as they have in China, Soviet Union, etc, etc.) wasn't capitalist?
I never equated anybody to bourgeois, but I did equate Stalinism to capitalism which supports the bourgeoisie, yes. (As we saw in the Soviet Union)

You equated Stalinists to being pro-capitalists. And I regarded Stalinism, the stalinism set up by Stalin when he took ontrol of soviet Russia, as capitalist. Of course Ismail doesn't want to see capitalism live on, but in a way you contradict yourself (if you're stalinst) by bring anti-capitalist, yet being sympathic to what stalin set up in soviet Russia during his time.

Oh lord....

At least Left-Communists have good arguments on the class nature of the USSR, and you know they aren't doing it to win a popularity contest since they call every actually existing tendency "the left-wing of capital" (yea I know you left-comms say that deleonists and impossiblists aren't the left wing of capital, they're just wrong, but be honest you're only doing that to cover your ass, not that I am objecting to it). But this is just moronic. What, Stalin was a capitalist because he was a meanie? OK sure Stalin made mistakes, even Grover Fur refered to the USSR under Stalin in the 30's as degenerated(Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform). But to say that all Marxist Leninists are Stalinists is simply absurd; there is a massive gap between Stalin's political line and Khrushchev's political line and everything else descendant from Marxist-Leninism. I mean, anyone who even makes the most cursory study of the history of the USSR knows that, because as most people know, it was so divergent that the "Stalinist" countries split from the Soviet bloc even though this led to massive economic problems. And "Stalinism" doesn't exist outside of the Stalin era, as China diverged from this path radically even though they denounced soviet revisionism. Heck, even most smart Trotskyites don't refer to "Stalinism" outside of the context of the debates of the 20's because doing so is absurd.

And Stalinism is "just" capitalism? Any arguments to back that up? Because I've seen plenty of debate in this thread based on historical evidence. And what have you contributed? Nothing, Zilch, Nada, other than some blithering about how Stalinism=Capitalism.

But of course you didn't try to actually argue that point. Theoretical debate is for Left-Comm nerds and making fun of the Stalinists scores you points in the cool kid club. Am I wrong? Prove it. Engage in the debate on it's own terms and show me that I am wrong.

[Questionable]

I support a unique system based on credits and remuneration according to contribution and Market Socialism, but of course to you these are all "Liberal Socialism".

Yes, market socialism, combined with all your support for multi-party systems and whatnot, will be liberal capitalism in practice.


Oh please. Every single individual after Marx bastardized Marxism or Communism in one form or another by either revising, going backwards, or adding new elements to the theory. Oh and even then, they're still Communists if they support communism, whether that applies to your No True Scotsman logical fallacy or not.

So essentially your argument is that everyone who calls them self a communist is indeed a communist, regardless of the content of their beliefs. So I could create a theory about how the white workers are the vanguard of the proletariat and blacks and gays are reactionary enemies, and I would still be a Marxist since I'm just another individual who has revised, or gone backwards, or added new elements to the theory. Kind of a reverse of the No True Scotsman, don't you think?

[Ismail]

"There is no going back either to old theses or the slogans which reflected the conditions of past periods. The concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has ceased to correspond to reality, and I hereby inform you and all those who did not know about it that several years ago, a plenum of our Central Committee adopted an ideological programme from which we excluded the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was deemed inappropriate from many points of view. We must not for a moment identify the dictatorship of the proletariat with the power of workers and peasants, the power of the people; those are things which should not be mixed up. The way towards socialism really does pass, as it should, through democratic reform; however, such reform should have the backing of the majority of the people. Otherwise, the victory of socialism would be impossible."
(Nicolae Ceaușescu, quoted in Meeting of Representatives of the Parties and Movements Participating in the Celebration of the 70th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House. 1988. p. 113.)

I now await Theophys comparing Ceaușescu's revisionism to Lenin's development of Marxism.

[Theophys]

Yes, market socialism, combined with all your support for multi-party systems and whatnot, will be liberal capitalism in practice.
I do not solely support Market Socialism as my system, but my system CAN have either markets with cooperatives solely or a state-managed market that acts similar to the Lange model, bases itself on remuneration according to contribution, the ability to workers to keep what they produce or sell to the state (the mediator of the artificial market), and so on. I do not support multi-party systems, I oppose them and strictly oppose free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. in favor of a one party which itself bases itself on free speech and debate/discussion. Liberal Capitalism has nothing, again, to do with what I'm supporting. Liberal Capitalism necessitates a private sector (by individuals as in the case of the bourgeoisie, not cooperatives) bourgeois, private ownership of the means of production, private profits, private hiring of labor, remuneration of labor regardless of contribution, Capitalist markets, free enterprise (ability to start your own business), workers cannot keep what they produce, surplus value is extracted by the bourgeoisie for private interests, workers do not own the means of production or have it owned by a public entity but by a private one, etc. etc.


So essentially your argument is that everyone who calls them self a communist is indeed a communist, regardless of the content of their beliefs.
I never said that. I said that if they support Communism then they are Communsits regardless of what you call them. If they call themselves Communists and yet support Capitalist rather than Communism then they are not Communists.


So I could create a theory about how the white workers are the vanguard of the proletariat and blacks and gays are reactionary enemies, and I would still be a Marxist since I'm just another individual who has revised, or gone backwards, or added new elements to the theory.
As much as I believe that is disgusting, sadly, yes. Marx and Engels did not speak of racism or oppose it, nor of homosexuality and oppose it, so that is quite open in that regards even though I would oppose it on the basis of its discrimination using non-Marxist or Marxist arguments even if Marx and Engels never directly said anything related to supporting anti-racism or anti-homophobia. To claim that if you create such a theory and base everything on Marxism, even Marx and Engels' comments on blacks, homosexuals, etc. as insults then I cannot call you an anti-Marxist as I am in no position to do so against sound theory. Though, of course, I could however debate with you and state that Marx spoke of classes as entities with class interests, and thus act regardless of race, even though Marx and Engels spoke negatively of certain races. This is my answer, if you wish to discuss the words of Marx then there's already another thread in the Opposing Ideologies section where we discussed the question of the Slavs, Irish, races, and homosexuality in Marx and Engels' words.


Kind of a reverse of the No True Scotsman, don't you think?
No.


"There is no going back either to old theses or the slogans which reflected the conditions of past periods. The concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has ceased to correspond to reality, and I hereby inform you and all those who did not know about it that several years ago, a plenum of our Central Committee adopted an ideological programme from which we excluded the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was deemed inappropriate from many points of view. We must not for a moment identify the dictatorship of the proletariat with the power of workers and peasants, the power of the people; those are things which should not be mixed up. The way towards socialism really does pass, as it should, through democratic reform; however, such reform should have the backing of the majority of the people. Otherwise, the victory of socialism would be impossible."
(Nicolae Ceaușescu, quoted in Meeting of Representatives of the Parties and Movements Participating in the Celebration of the 70th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House. 1988. p. 113.)

I now await Theophys comparing Ceaușescu's revisionism to Lenin's development of Marxism.
I do not recall ever supporting Ceausescu. I do not know the context of his claims either, he could very well be referring to his society AFTER a Dictatorship of the Proletariat were classes have been abolished and it is no longer a Dictatorship of the Proletariat but a classless society. But either way, I was clearly speaking of Khrushchev and Gorbachev, the so-called "revisionists". I do not care much about the extent of the revisionism as much as I care about revisionism taking place and thus be able to show that every Communist leader or theoretician after Marx is a revisionist in one form or another including Lenin's. I do this simply in order to show that the title of "revisionism" is a bullshit term that is nothing but comparable to "Anarcho-Trotskyism" and the various other false and blanket terms used by Communists to label others falsely.

[Ismail]

I do not recall ever supporting Ceausescu. I do not know the context of his claims either, he could very well be referring to his society AFTER a Dictatorship of the Proletariat were classes have been abolished and it is no longer a Dictatorship of the Proletariat but a classless society.He isn't, because the line taken by the Soviets revisionists and their Eastern European followers after 1961 was that the DOTP had "fulfilled its historical role" with the construction of socialism and thus ceased existence, ergo the USSR and whatnot had become "states of the whole people."

He's attacking the very concept of the DOTP itself as "outdated."

My point in quoting Ceaușescu was to see if you'd make apologia for him as well, which you are clearly doing. It's asinine because you are essentially saying that Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Deng and presumably Ceaușescu are as Marxist and as revolutionary as Lenin. You only admit that someone was full of shit in their "Marxist" pretensions if they became open anti-communists later on in life.

[Theophys]

He isn't, because the line taken by the Soviets revisionists and their Eastern European followers after 1961 was that the DOTP had "fulfilled its historical role" with the construction of socialism and thus ceased existence, ergo the USSR and whatnot had become "states of the whole people."
Lenin and Marx based their theories on socialism and the state being transitional directly withering away since their inception to give way to a communist society.

"“The proletariat needs a state – this all the opportunists can tell you,” wrote Lenin in 1917, two months before the seizure of power, “but they, the opportunists, forget to add that the proletariat needs only a dying state – that is, a state constructed in such a way that it immediately begins to die away and cannot help dying away." - Lenin, "The State and Revolution"

"The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary." - Lenin, "The State and Revolution"

The USSR's state should not have been strengthened under Stalin according to Marxist and Leninist theory, it should have instead, as Trotsky correctly argued, began to die away and wither away instead of being bolstered and strengthened. Pragmatism dominated theory again.

Thus the Soviet "revisionists" were correct in stating that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat had fulfilled its historical role (i.e. suppressing the bourgeoisie and their lackeys by the proletariat through its state) after classes were done away with in the USSR. There was no one class to be suppressed. The enemy no longer remained in the country but remained in other countries, thus the class war became an international war fought by the USSR against the West through influence and domination. This influence and domination led to the Cold War which risked nuclear annihilation, forcing the Soviets and the Americans to negotiate to prevent a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario.

This is why I asked if Ceausescu had passed through a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, abolished classes, and THEN made that statement.


He's attacking the very concept of the DOTP itself as "outdated."
I need the historical context, I do not know if he used a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and said that it is no longer needed in his country or that he rejected it outright. I know very little about Ceausescu as he isn't a matter of interests for me.


My point in quoting Ceaușescu was to see if you'd make apologia for him as well, which you are clearly doing. It's asinine because you are essentially saying that Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Deng and presumably Ceaușescu are as Marxist and as revolutionary as Lenin. You only admit that someone was full of shit in their "Marxist" pretensions if they became open anti-communists later on in life.
I "apologize", i.e. defend, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, and any other figure against false pretenses and arguments. I already extensively defended Stalin in the "Views of Stalin as a Person and his Actions?" thread against anti-Stalinists just as I attacked Stalin here and defended Khrushchev and Gorbachev. Whenever I find an argument being directed against a figure that is outrightly false and ridiculous then I debate the person making the argument whether I support the figure in question or not. I do not give a shit about blind dogmatism or "lines", I use concepts from Stalin and Trotsky into Leninism not giving a shit if they're Trotskyist or Stalinist. Oh and no, they do not always contradict each other.

I am not making any apologies for Ceausescu other than first knowing the CONTEXT of what he said and IF it is defensible. If it is not then I cannot and will not defend him, but if the context is in his favor then I will defend him on that basis even if I do not support him and know little of him.

I did not state that Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Deng, etc. are "as Marxist and as revolutionary as Lenin", I only stated that they are Marxists and Communists inasmuch as they are supporting Marxism and Communism. I'd be more worried about those No True Scotsman logical fallacies you use when you call them Capitalists, revisionists, anti-Marxists, bourgeois, and other such nonsense used by cheesy Maoists/Stalinists trying to play revolutionaries.

Oh and no, I do not admit that someone was "full of shit" in their "Marxist" pretensions if they became open anti-Communists later in life. I only state that if they became so later in life:
1) Under the Party, they were suppressed and thus not an issue. They were forced to follow the Party and not the other way around.
2) They only became anti-Communists AFTER the collapse of the party which could have very well disillusioned them and then turned them into anti-Communists.
3) They changed their views. I myself used to be an Anarcho-Capitalist then an Anarcho-Communist before moving on to Marxism-Leninism (currently, not a Stalinist) or whatever you want to call it (revisionism, anti-Marxist, anti-Leninism, anti-Stalinism, anti-Communist) because I honestly do not care about labels from such people at this point.
4) After the collapse of the USSR, they had no allegiance to the Socialist state but were forced to live under a Capitalist state and as such they chose to use what previous relations of power they had to abuse the Capitalist system and maximize their power/wealth.

[Captain Ahab]

Theophys is guilty of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy. Just because Ismail uses No True Scotsman does not mean that what he says is not true.

[Theophys]

Theophys is guilty of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy. Just because Ismail uses No True Scotsman does not mean that what he says is not true.
You do realize that I never disregard any arguments even if they're fallacious, right? This entire thread does not consist of me saying "not true, you used a logical fallacy" but thousands of arguments. I only point out that a fallacy has been used as a SIDELINE to inform the other of his use of one and thus that he is guilty of it. I do not, again, use any argument from fallacy and if I do then point it out and I shall alter my post. I base no arguments on pointing out fallacies, I use arguments for that because shit's too easy. Furthermore, I do not say that if X is a fallacy then X is false, I merely point out that the person used a logical fallacy, use actual arguments and counter-arguments, and state that what he says or claims by using the No True Scotsman logical fallacy thus does not have to be true whether he likes it or not. I have already pointed out that these men are Communists in policy, beliefs, and actions.

[Questionable]

Marx and Engels did not speak of racism or oppose it,

This is incorrect. My goodness, is this incorrect. I mean, what do you think their support for the American Civil War was all about? They spent a great amount of their time analyzing it, actually.


"In the United States of America, every independent movement of the workers was paralyzed as long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the Black it is branded."


The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of Black skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.




Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that has given the colonies their value; it is the colonies that have created world trade, and it is world trade that is the pre-condition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.
Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe out North America from the map of the world, and you will have anarchy--the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations. Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World.


My only conclusion is that you have not read very much of Marx. While it is true that they occasionally made reactionary remarks in their private writings, they never included it in their political programmes, and were always pro-equality on the issues of race and gender when it appeared in their writings. Drawing divisions between race is incompatible with the concept of the complete emancipation of the proletariat as a class.


I know none of this will get through to you since, according to your own views, as long as I say "I believe in communism" I can create a theory about monkeys crawling out of my anus and bringing about a glorious socialist revolution. But I wanted to explain this for anyone reading who may be on the fence.

[The Intransigent Faction]

This is a pretty good summary of the Marxist-Leninist perspective on Khrushchev.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm

Of course, for non-Leninists, all of that stuff about a "transitional state" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as "workers' class rule through a vanguard party" won't fly. Still, I think there's probably something to be said for the idea that Khrushchev exploited anti-Stalin attitudes, whether or not one is sympathetic to them, as a means of liberalization, or at least "reform".

This doesn't mean the way things were run before Khrushchev were good, but if what I've read is true and he's the guy who actually started referring to the USSR as "communist", he's still not a capitalist in the "traditional" sense, but can hardly be called a Marxist-Leninist, either. He dropped something fundamental to Marxist-Leninism, but wasn't exactly just an early incarnation of Yeltsin. He was more of a "state capitalist" than your typical factory-owning-jackass-in-a-suit competing against other factory-owning-jackasses-in-suits.

[Akshay!]

Also, I would suggest that 'Marxist-Leninist' and 'Capitalist' are not mutually exclusive.

What? :confused:

[Theophys]

This is incorrect. My goodness, is this incorrect. I mean, what do you think their support for the American Civil War was all about? They spent a great amount of their time analyzing it, actually.








My only conclusion is that you have not read very much of Marx. While it is true that they occasionally made reactionary remarks in their private writings, they never included it in their political programmes, and were always pro-equality on the issues of race and gender when it appeared in their writings. Drawing divisions between race is incompatible with the concept of the complete emancipation of the proletariat as a class.


I know none of this will get through to you since, according to your own views, as long as I say "I believe in communism" I can create a theory about monkeys crawling out of my anus and bringing about a glorious socialist revolution. But I wanted to explain this for anyone reading who may be on the fence.

[/INDENT]
YOU are incorrect, my goodness, YOU are incorrect. In ALL of those quotes not a single instance did I see ANYTHING about anti-racism but only about anti-slavery. Those quotes are related to SLAVERY, not RACISM or the opposition of it. Learn the fucking difference, it is you who is unable to read and has not read anything, not me. even referring to Africans as "Black skins". You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or getting into. Observe how I'll destroy the very fabrics of your nonsense:

Let us examine the quotes to see the ACTUAL point here:

""In the United States of America, every independent movement of the workers was paralyzed as long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the Black it is branded.""

This is in relation to LABOR AND SLAVERY, not skin color or races. "White skin" and "Black" are sidelined, "slavery" and "labor" are the main issues here. This has nothing to do with opposing slavery, as we can see, because it is an issue of the emancipation of LABOR, not the end of racism. "Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the Black it is branded", thus if there are BLACK WORKERS who are still enslaved then they are still enslaved REGARDLESS of their race. The ONLY reason why the "Black" and "white skin" were mentioned was because of SLAVERY being institutionalized based on races, otherwise Marx and Engels would not have spoken of it. The support for the end of slavery was NOT based on anti-racism but on the interests of the emancipation of LABOR.

"The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of Black skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production."

Says nothing about races or anti-racism, has to do with colonialism, slavery, and so on.

"Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that has given the colonies their value; it is the colonies that have created world trade, and it is world trade that is the pre-condition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.
Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe out North America from the map of the world, and you will have anarchy--the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations. Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples. Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World."

Says absolutely nothing about races or anti-slavery, has to do with colonialism, slavery, and so on.

So not only are you not well read in Marx and Engels' works, but you also are unable to read and comprehend when you provide your own information. Ridiculous.

Do these sound familiar to you? Don't even try apologism.

"After that event all the South-Slav races, following the example of the Croats, put themselves at the disposal of Austrian reaction. Those leaders of the South-Slav movement who continue to talk drivel about the equality of nations, about democratic Austria, and so on, are either stupid dreamers, such as, for example, many journalists, or they are scoundrels like Jellachich."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

"They have become so weak that, for example, the race which in the Middle Ages was the strongest and most terrible, the Bulgarians, are now in Turkey known only for their mildness and soft-heartedness and set great store on being called dobre chrisztian, good Christians! Is there a single one of these races, not excluding the Czechs and Serbs, that possesses a national historical tradition which is kept alive among the people and stands above the pettiest local struggles?"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

"The possibility is here presented for definite economic development taking place, depending, of course, upon favourable circumstances, inborn racial characteristics, etc."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm

"This does not prevent the same economic basis — the same from the standpoint of its main conditions — due to innumerable different empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial relations, external historical influences, etc. from showing infinite variations and gradations in appearance, which can be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm

"And as for the Jews, who since the emancipation of their sect have everywhere put themselves, at least in the person of their eminent representatives, at the head of the counter-revolution -- what awaits them?"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/17a.htm

"Engels. "Notes to Anti-Duehring": "On the other hand, modern natural science has extended the principle of the origin of all thought content from experience in a way that breaks down its old metaphysical limitation and formulation. By recognising the inheritance of acquired characters, it extends the subject of experience from the individual to the genus; the single individual that must have experienced is no longer necessary, its individual experience can be replaced to a certain extent by the results of the experiences of a number of its ancestors. If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of 'accumulated inheritance.' It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro". "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/appendix1.htm

Marx to Antoinette Philips, March 24, 1861: "This young lady, who instantly overwhelmed me with her kindness, is the ugliest creature I have seen in my entire life, with repulsive Jewish facial features."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/volume41/

"Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the human trash of peoples. . . . The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is progress."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

And so on.

We have already discussed this issue on such words and comments by Marx and Engels in another thread in the Opposing Ideologies section, you can check my post history for more information. My stance was that Marx and Engels said these, we must not act as if they did not or cop-out but admit that they did and choose whether to support such statements or not whilst claiming that hey were insignificant to general theory. I do not support these statements, except on the question of the assimilation of the Slavic semi-nations into progressive rather than reactionary countries (see Engels on 'The Magyar Struggle' and pan-Slavism".

Not only were Marx and Engels NOT anti-racists, but they did not speak of anti-racism and instead were racists and spoke of racism and races. That was common during their time, but not by any means an excuse. ERGO, anti-racism, ant-homophobia, and so on have NOTHING to do with Marxism, they only have to do with Liberal Left Communists or the Liberal Left. Hard, but true.

In other words, owned.

[hashem]

increased demand for food rewards individuals and incentivizes individuals to supply food as prices increase, the market tends to balance itself. Oh and yes, supplying food is profitable if demand outweighs supply.
Any kind of demand is only taken into consideration by capitalists if its combined by profit. When there is demand for food but demanders are people who cant pay for it, their demand is easily ignored. In backward countries where industry and primitive agriculture cannot compete with the advanced countries, shortages are common. By shortage I don’t mean unavailability in general, but unavailability for those who see the goods but are unable to buy them.


Actually yes they were made to be like this and cannot function in any different fashion and yield the same results that they do today.

When the workers don’t sell their force of labor but utilize it themselves by means of production which belongs to them as a class, they become interested in what they produce, unlike under capitalism where workers are alienated to result of their work. Under socialism, they gain some of their works results directly and another part which is used for common good of the society indirectly. But under capitalism, workers receive price of their labor force (wage) and are indifferent of its productivity. Even if their labor produces much more than their wage, they receive nothing more than their wage and surplus value belongs to bourgeoisie, some of it individually and some of it collectively which is used for class interests of bourgeoisie.


Humans HAVE NOT discovered alternative infinite resources which are unimaginable today. Since that is a fact, then you CANNOT rely on what has not been achieved and what you IMAGINE or HOPE will be achieved in the future. To build any system on such facile false assumptions seems to be relied upon by many "Communists" who have not bothered to take any reality check. Since we do not have these infinite resources and yet have finite resources then we must rely on pricing mecahnisms, demand restrictions, rationing, etc. to prevent instant depletion of all resources with an influx of massive demand thanks to your "according to need" Utopia that will end in suicide.

This is what also Malthus said in order to justify his theory which demanded sacrifices from workers and poor people in order to provide luxuries for riches. a proletarian point of view is completely different. Earth’s resources are already sufficient for its population. with better technologies, humans can produce more using lesser resources. Unlike capitalism which encourages people to buy luxuries which they don’t truly need for profit and at the cost of more exploitation and damaging the environment, socialism provides all of people with their true needs and expands their needs when providing more has become possible. This is not a result of wishful thinking, it’s the result of class essences of different systems. capitalism is based on profits for a minority, from its viewpoint its completely logical and beneficial to ruin the environment and exhaust the resources in order to provide capitalists with luxuries. Socialism is based on a class which benefits from abolishment of exploitation and its aim is to provide the true needs of anyone. Since damaging the environment and exhausting resources is against the interests of an overwhelming majority, socialism is against such things.


The only means by which to use them optimally is to follow an "according to contribution" system with pricing mechanism, price signals, cost accounting, and so on to ensure that only the most efficient, productive, and contributive workers are provided for.
This only happens is the early stages of socialism. Socialism is an "according to contribution" system while communism is an "according to need" system. Socialism also provides equal opportunities for everyone. Of course, if very few people have access to education, welfare, healthcare, connections to the rulers who provide them better jobs and … they can become more productive, but if so, they don’t deserve more income. their exclusive opportunities should be given to anyone and only then an "according to contribution" system becomes socialism.

equal opportunities + according to contribution = socialism

Marx wrote that equal opportunities cannot fully exist for anyone (for example for a crippled or a less intelligent person), so if anyone contributes anything which he/she is able to, when the means of production are advanced and its possible for more productive workers to provide him/her with what he/she needs, its would be possible and ethic to fulfill his/her needs without expecting something equal in return. Thus, a socialist society, if class struggle is carried out correctly, will turn into a communist society.

equal opportunities + Voluntary contribution + according to need = communism.

Note that anyone who wishes to be a freerider, is stopped by society. During the socialism period this act is done by dictatorship of proletariat, institutions which reflect the will of proletariat as a class against the bourgeoisies counter revolutionary movements and culture. During the communism, new cultural values stop people from being a freerider. You think this is an utopia? Look around. People are more comfortable in pyjamas and pyjamas are cheaper than formal clothes, but you don’t see anyone walking in streets wearing pyjamas even when its not banned. Cultural values of the present society compel people to dress properly. Those few people who don’t respect these cultural values don’t change the norms and functions of society.


I admit this even as a Communist (deal with it, before your No True Scotsman logical fallacy).

I judge people according to their deeds not what they claim about themselves.


Capitalism provides riches to people who have money, i.e. social memory of contribution
I claim that riches have contributed to society, without explaining their social rule or how they have achieved their wealth. I also claim that money is social memory of contribution without explaining what is the source of that money and why its necessarily a contribution. and at the end im a communist and those who say otherwise are using No True Scotsman logical fallacy!


As you can see, markets (artificial or otherwise) with pricing mechanisms and pricing signals are more than capable of allocating resources and determining what should and what can be used by people, something an "according to need" system can never do.
Science has already proved that these mechanisms are ineffective and even destructive. If such mechanisms are used unconditionally, human race will be destroyed. Even those sections of bourgeoisie which see their future interests admit this. They try to limit their profit in order to save themselves. They limit the use of fossil fuels and use renewable energies and recyclable materials although its against pricing mechanisms and pricing signals. They have to act against the rules and mechanisms of their system to save their children and grandchildren. The difference of environmental policies under capitalism and socialism is: first type is an extraordinary act against the mechanisms of a system but the second one is a natural response to the mechanisms of a system; if people need the environment, a system which is based on their needs, fulfills this basic need.

In all of field, capitalism encourages people to use things and adopt certain ways of living which is profitable for it, despite what maybe harmful for them. This process is already admitted by bourgeoisie (although they don’t admit it has roots in bourgeois system). Science has shown that many products (food, cosmetics, entertaining things and …) are harmful for people and environment and can be replaced but a system which is based on profit encourages their use.


Such a system can account and compare the costs of various means of production, their scarcity, their availability, the costs of their resources, the costs of their output, etc. to make the most optimal decisions.

That’s just the point. All of these standards are based on profit and are indifferent to wellbeing of people.


people would not and do not have any reason or justification whatsoever to produce or adopt newer technologies to meet anyone's needs but theirs alone and their kin/peer groups.

Under socialism, new technologies mean more products with lesser work hours, lesser use of resources and lesser polluting. this makes a social incentive for new technologies. as I explained before, under socialism new inventions will be rewarded (according to contribution), which makes individual incentive for researchers. but under communism, researchers don’t demand rewards. I don’t expect a reactionary to imagine communism, so you can ignore the things which I wrote about communism and only see the advantages of proletarian socialism comparing to capitalism.


If you give technology to every single company today or in the future then you resort to mass destruction of the environment and the super-exploitation of labor
Even under capitalism, advanced technologies produce more with less resources and less labor. Otherwise, why should they be called advanced? You can also claim that in the past, when the technology was not as advanced as today and fewer people had access to it, when jungles were burned for agriculture, large amounts of DDT were poured into open waters everyday and people worked 14 hours a day for scraps of food, destruction of the environment and the super-exploitation of labor was lesser than today.

Besides, who talked about giving “technology to every single company”? Communists support socialization of these rival companies, establishing worker control in them and an economic planning which aims to fulfill the needs of people.


Yes, India, Bangladesh, Colombia, and African countries whilst entirely ignoring the numerous successful Capitalist countries. Sounds so logical and unbiased. Oh and please, you're comparing ancient Babylonia, successful and one of the most advanced in its time if I remember correctly, to the most backwards and failed countries of today.
These countries (and others like them) hold the majority of human population. “successful Capitalist countries” or to be exact: successful bourgeoisie, is insignificant comparing to billions of people who suffer from its rule in advanced and undeveloped countries.

I compared an average life of an ancient Babylonian (not a member of the ruling class) with an average life of oppressed people of above mentioned countries and concluded that they are not much different. If your purpose was not distortion, you didn’t need to put words in other peoples mounts.


Productivity CAN have a LARGE effect on standards of living even if the bourgeoisie take away the products. Why? Because, had you read any book on economics, Capitalists do not hoard their products, they sell them and exchange them in order to make profits. When products are sold, they are not destroyed, they are used by others thus increasing standards of living. Increasing productivity leads to increased supply, decreased prices, and thus a larger availability and higher consumption of such goods.

Increased supplies and decreased prices are useless for workers who have lost their jobs or whose wages have decreased as a result of decrease of need for their labor.


higher productivity is DESIRABLE and in HIGH DEMAND, he would actually be paid more for his productive skills than the average worker.
Production doesn’t automatically lead to demands. if people are not able to pay, their demand means nothing. a worker who works with modern machinery is not necessarily a skilled worker. Sometimes machines turn the labor which required high working skills to a simple task of pushing the buttons and as a result, educated and skilled workers who are paid well can be replaced by fewer cheap unskilled workers.


I want you to get me a non-Capitalist example of cooperatives leading to superior productivity than that under Capitalism.

I already did. Compare the villages which are controlled by Naxalities or NPA to those which are controlled by bourgeoisie governments. They have been like this for many years. The governmental sides show no sign of improvement while the revolutionary side is improving the means of production while at the same time it establishes peoples democracy.


Yes, which is why a proletarian state like the one in the USSR, the "institution which represents the will [class interests] of [the] proletariat will watch for those who wish to harm the society", you just ended the debate and destroyed you ENTIRE argument on the question of the proletariat and the party/bureaucrats/state.
i wrote that communism cant be reached until the struggle of proletariat has succeeded in all of fields including ideology. if bourgeois ideology which prioritizes personal profits to the interests of working people still exists in a large scale, dictatorship of proletariat is still needed. im saying what Marx, Engels and Lenin said before. I wrote “as long as classes as well as the old cultural values still exist under socialism” there is need for dictatorship of proletariat, not forever, not under communism. You just look ridiculous when you claim that you have “destroyed” other peoples arguments by assumptions or putting words in their mounts!


Exploitation is when workers are paid for less than the actual value of their labor, when the fruits of the labor is taken away and surplus value is extracted. I do not care if it is profitable or not or whether it benefits society or not, those are not considerations taken by Marx on the question of the exploitation of labor.

Now you wish to distort Marx’s views? In all of societies (including the primitive communes and future communism) workers never held or will hold all of fruits of their labor, but surplus value came to existence with slavery and will end with capitalism. If you wish to change the meaning of “exploitation” or “surplus value” for yourself, go ahead because nobody cares, but if you claim that this is Marx’s viewpoint, prove it.


You cannot state that the replacement of the rule of the bourgeoisie by workers' rule, government, etc. are more "efficient", since as we have historically seen that is not the case.

Systems are based on class interests. that is a basic teaching of Marxism.
The rule which bourgeoisie once played in production has already been taken by workers who do the managing for him. This is what history shows. Governmental bourgeoisie (like those in eastern bloc) which runs the economy is not essentially different than private sectors bourgeoisie. Even when bourgeoisie is still active in small corporations, it doesn’t mean its historically progressive. In this situation, he is a remanent of the past and workers (as a class) can take his position and run things more effectively.


If you replace the rule of the bourgeoisie by the rule of the workers, their institutions, and their governments, then that ALONE does NOT lead to increased efficiency

That makes way for more efficiency and only after that other organizational and technical considerations can be taken into account.


there ARE tendencies in socialism, physics, and mathematics.
There are no tendencies in fields of science. If one branch of physics or mathematics focuses on a particular field, it doesn’t means that its in contradiction with other branches.

Marxism or scientific socialism is based on theories which have proven to be correct and even bourgeoisie economists and sociologists admit this, although they are not willing or able to fully follow its results. Scientific socialism is not a dogma and like any science it enjoys evolution. Evolution of science doesn’t make its pervious stages false. Each stage of science development carries a piece of truth and by putting them together, it advances.


Socialists and Communists have DIFFERENT interpretations of how BEST and most effectively to achieve the objective class interests of the proletariat.
Class interests of proletariat are same everywhere. Thus, there is only one proletarian line which communists follow. Others, regardless of what they call themselves are following other classes lines even when they are members of the same party which the first ones are also members of it.


I will inform you that I know very well what Fascism is
I think debating about fascism with a person who thinks that Nazism is ideology of petit bourgeoisie and his source is Wikipedia, is just wasting time.

Anyone who is truly interested to know what fascism is can refer to Ernst Thalmann’s works on fascism.


Cooperation with Ba'athist Parties is in the interests of opposing Western and bourgeois Capitalist influence in certain regions as well as finding allies and gaining influence in certain regions of interest
Again, what makes the Ba'athists better than “Western” capitalists? they suppressed the communist parties and worker associations in their own countries. by doing so they destroyed the only force which is historically and systematically opposed to capitalism and capable of standing firm against imperialism. Without this force, the struggle of petit bourgeoisie and the backward “national” bourgeoisie of these countries will become a losing struggle with no hope for victory and no progressive purpose. Any force outside these countries which allies with them (like USSR) proves that its not historically progressive and doesn’t stand for the interests of proletariat within and outside its borders.

You can “justify” this cooperation with reactionary criminals like before with the excuse of interests of USSR. Imagine that someone accepts this “justification”. By doing so, he also accepts that a worker state in his own country can act against USSR (or any worker state and movement) for its own interests by buying arms from “Western” capitalists, renting military bases to them, increasing economic and military cooperation with “Western” capitalists while seizing trade and any kind of peaceful relationships with USSR, butchering those who support worker states and movements and …

And finally, its not accidental that USSR looked for allies only among reactionary movements and trends. Foreign policy if USSR was logical extension of its domestic policy.


you seem to think of "progressive" as being "progressive" in the BOURGEOIS LIBERAL sense, as in supporting human rights, supporting civil rights, supporting homosexual rights, supporting abortion, etc. Those have little to nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism, or Communism.

Gaining bourgeois democratic rights will serve the worker movement. Marxists have always supported these reforms and fought for them. Marx himself started his political activity by condemning Prussian government’s censorship and struggled for bourgeois democratic rights as long as he lived. Emancipation of proletariat is not a thing which can be achieved suddenly. It takes place in a process which in it, proletariat will free itself of material and ideological means of exploitation. Gaining bourgeois democratic rights is a step in this emancipation which is required for next steps. He who doesn’t supports this step, doesn’t support the emancipation of proletariat.


No such thing as scientific socialism. They were not proven correct in history, such as many of Marx's, Engels', and Lenin's predictions ranging from the question of the immeserization of the proletariat, the fall in the rate of profit, the formation and domination by monopolies, the fall of Capitalism, the superiority of their form of Socialism, the rise of revolutions in First World countries rather than Third World countries, and so on and so forth.
They proved to be correct. You turn their teachings into a dogma and become happy when your dogma doesn’t fit into reality. For example if Marx and Engels wrote that revolutions will happen in advanced countries in 1840s but the revolutions in the next century happened in backward countries, you see this as your victory and celebrate the destruction if the dogma which you created in the first place. But the truth is: Marx and Engels were writing about the situation of their own time and later in 1870s, they themselves admitted that what was correct 30 years ago, has changed. Engels wrote in PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION OF 1882 of Manifesto that:

“ During the Revolution of 1848-49 not only the European princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat, just beginning to awaken, in Russian intervention. The tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today … Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.”

Founders of scientific socialism were not prophets. Marx, Engels or … never claimed that they can predict the future, they used a scientific method for appraisal of their own eras societies and left their method to be used and developed by future communists.


You cannot have a class struggle with NO CLASSES. If you believe the class struggle to be a struggle of ideas rather than a material struggle then you are resorting to Hegelian's realm of ideals rather than Marx's materialism.


Actually the struggle of ideas CAN and IS won by banning other ideologies, something Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin spoke of clearly when they spoke against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of elections, etc. Read "Terrorism and Communism" by Trotsky
In USSR all of non governmental ideologies were banned. Did that brought victory to CPSU? No. even its key members abandoned its ideas (if we assume they believed in its official ideology in the first place!). they made states which are more backward than ordinary bourgeoisie states.

In Iran all of non religious ideologies (and even some religious ones) are banned. But that hasn’t stopped the Iranians from being the most secular people in middle east. They live with secular standards and humiliate and ridicule the governmental ideology which is taught to them from the elementary school.

Follow Trotsky if you want because he never had a firm position about anything but by trying to distort Lenin’s positions, you only ridicule yourself. Lenin believed that:

“consistent democracy, on the one hand, is transformed into socialism and, on the other, demands socialism.” (The State and Revolution)


If you give freedom to the proletariat, you give them the ability to be INFLUENCED by ideas AGAINST their CLASS INTERESTS
A worker is class conscious and capable to build socialism when he has consciously rejected other classes ideas. A class conscious worker freely accepts scientific socialism and helps the others to abandon their reactionary ideas. If you take away their freedom, deny information from them and treat them like animals who must be tamed, they become more vulnerable to ideological influence of other classes, because others have decided FOR them and they themselves lack the class consciousness to refute bourgeoisie ideas. This is a religious way of thinking. Religions believe that ordinary humans cannot decide for themselves and they should follow a prophet who carries the words of god. You just change the place of prophet with a party.

Non proletarian ideas are rarely taught by ideologists. An ordinary worker doesn’t know much about different ideologies. Different ideas rise from everyday life. If workers are kept backward and ignorant by those who rule FOR them, they will carry bourgeoisie ideology and its cultural values like selfishness, putting personal profit over anything else, superstitions and … these workers are not only unable to create a better society, they are also capable of selling class interests for personal profits.

Besides, how can anyone deny access to information from people? even if assume its possible, it demands extreme measures against free exchange of information. A government which tries to do so, should ban the internet, satellite TV, newspapers, books, Radios, traveling abroad and … by doing so, it destroys advancements achieved under capitalism and takes back people to pre capitalist formations. People will be reduced to serfs who have no technical skills or class consciousness, ready to accept super exploitation and violation of their rights. This has happened in North Korea.

During the pervious social struggles, oppressed people only had to follow their instincts in order to create a new social-economical formation. An old form of exploitation was replaced by a new one in pervious struggles. but during the transmission of capitalism to socialism a change takes place which is essentially different, former society which was built on basis of exploitation and had worked under its rules for thousands of years, suddenly tries to replace not only the form but basis of pervious society. If workers merely follow their instincts during their lives, they can only achieve trade unionism which is based on creating better conditions under the current system. but class conscious elements of present society follow scientific methods for creating a new system without exploitation. Its not surprising to see that the most conscious revolutionaries are those who are more active in present society and live under bombardment of bourgeoisie ideas, while if more freedom meant more vulnerability to bourgeoisie ideas, then the isolated workers who live in remote areas would have been more protected against bourgeoisie ideas. The science which is needed for construction of a new social-economical formation cannot be achieved and utilized under censorship which supports dogmas. If churches had managed to repel the sins with censorships and dogmas, you could have hopes to repel the influence of different classes with whose methods.

A progressive activist knows that he is holding a more powerful ideology which if its taken to people, reactionary ideologies cant stand against it. So he supports freedom in order to present his ideas to people. but a reactionary knows that his ideology only works if people are kept backward and ignorant, thus, he supports censorship.


Freedom of speech CANNOT lead to correction because people are RARELY, IF EVER convinced otherwise even if they are correct and arguing against false ideas. Have you EVER tried convincing people? I thought as much. If you say that you convinced a person or two then these person or two are NOTHING compared to the BILLIONS of people who oppose or do not support your ideology.
Freedom when its combined with active participation in class struggle by communists, leads to conviction. If people see correct ideas and correct practices, they will follow the communists. Bolsheviks and communist party of China managed to unite millions of people behind them, those were class conscious people not mercenaries who applied censorship and didn’t knew or cared about its reason.

Besides, if you believe that ordinary people are like animals who need a shepherd , why do you bother to be a shepherd for them? Why don’t you try to take care of sheeps instead? Is shepherding humans more beneficial than sheeps or there is another reason?


Apparently now you define the bourgeoisie not according to PRIVATE ownership of the means of production for the extraction of PRIVATE profits and surplus value from workers hired PRIVATELY for PRIVATE production

That’s what all of Marxists do. Means of production can be governmental but utilized for the benefit of a small minority. For example if railroad and trains are owned by a government (which may call itself “socialist”), this has nothing to do with the system which those means of production work underneath it. If you claim otherwise, then you also admit that governments of Bonaparte and Bismarck were socialist. Under this system workers sell their force of labor to the owner of means of production, the owner utilizes their labor in order to produce something more than workers wages (surplus value). This is exactly what happens under capitalism. If the owner is called government instead of private sector, this changes nothing. Engels clearly explained this in “Anti-Duhring”.


NONE of the things you mentioned have ANYTHING to do with being a bourgeois.
I see you cant wait for your hellish utopia to start the censorship because you already censored my writings! In my last sentence I wrote “means of production didn’t belonged to them on paper but were actually working for their profit.” In other words: means of production actually belonged to government, bureaucrats and their managers. Two conditions for existence of capitalism (1- existence of “free” workers who their only way of life is selling their force of labor 2- private ownership of means of production) still exists. if the means of production are called governmental instead of private, this wont change the fact that they work for benefits of a small minority not the workers.


Khrushchev, Gorbachev, etc. tried to move AWAY from heavy industry and the military in favor of focusing on consumer products.
Governmental budgets say otherwise.


Say that to Marx and Engels who wanted to aggravation the class struggle by bringing contradictions and antagonisms to the fore such as on the question of free trade.
Supporting conditions which lead to aggravation of class struggle while its possible for proletariat to pursue and hope to accomplish its alternative is one thing, supporting reaction is another thing. Supporting reactionary trends worsens the conditions for worker class and destroys the independent policy of proletariat. if someone stands against the demands of workers for better conditions during a strike, he automatically supports reaction. Workers get disappointed of struggle, their associations will fall apart and they will hate the person who stood against them, even if he tells them about an imaginary utopia.


I follow the adage that the end justifies the means.

This Is logically incorrect. Means must be proper to aims. No one can reach the goal of communism without using proper means. Not any means can be used for that purpose. Utilization of certain means, pushes away the final goal and if this tendency continues, in time, final goal will be forgotten or it changes to something different. As I explained before, you don’t support communism, your goal is a hellish utopia and your means are proper to your goal.


without the proper material conditions for revolution, a revolution will not take place and the party of yours would have already destroyed the material basis.
A proletarian party changes the spirit of people who have been accustomed to exploitation and oppression by struggling for immediate improvements. Without this struggle and the organization and consciousness which arises from it (and are also the proper material conditions for revolution), people can get adapted to everyday exploitation and oppression and see these as normal and unchangeable things. A party which stands outside of this struggle and promises an utopia after a revolution, is not essentially different than prophets who promise heaven after death.

You say that :

1- people are ignorant and cannot gain enough class consciousness.
2- you are not going to struggle for immediate improvements under the current system.
3- your goal is revolution and communism.

So how can your goal be accomplished when stupid people don’t support you and you cannot give them a reason for doing so? Will they agree to support you if you promise them a utopia? Utopias which pervious prophets had promised people were better than your hellish one.

The logical result is : your goal is something other than communism and your means are proper to a non proletarian purpose.


There's a reason, again, why the 19th and early 20th century had MASSIVE labor movements

The reason is : leaders of those movements didn’t tried to convince people by promising a utopia to them. They lead the everyday struggle for reforms while they explained the necessity of final aim to people. today, only those organizations and parties which hold a similar policy have popular support among masses, while those who sit outside of struggle and promise utopias, are tiny sects which no one takes them seriously.


If Capitalism has all those then they have NO REASON TO FIGHT FOR SOCIALISM.

If capitalism was able to provide majority of people with consistent improvements, then there was no need for a social revolution. Communists explain the inconsistent nature of reforms under capitalism and the necessity of changing the system.


Tell me WHO extracts, processes, and exports the raw materials and especially oil?
They depend mostly on foreign technology, technicians and workers. Not much process takes place in these countries. crude oil is exported, processed abroad and imported again as petrochemicals. The workers who lose their jobs as a result of Dutch disease, are much more than those who are employed in extraction industries.

Im not going to argue any further about this. Its clear how these economies work. Anyone how is interested can read about the Dutch disease. Countries with low population can distribute the money from oil among people and turn people to parasites who live happily by selling their raw materials, buying goods from abroad and importing cheap workers who do their works. but the result of Dutch disease is deadly for those countries which have a high population.


yet wages are high in countries that utilzie automation and machienry forcing the bourgeoisie to use foreign workers or outsource
If wages are higher in advanced countries its because worker movement has forced the bourgeoisie to recognize some rights for workers, including a minimum wage proper to living standards in that country. If there was no worker movement, there was no reason for bourgeoisie to pay workers more than 19th century.


What reason? They INCREASE efficiency, productivity, production, output, use less labor, and cost him less in the long-run

Yet he did not purchased drillers and prefers pickaxes. Because he preferred human labor (which cost him almost nothing) to productive machines.


Show me where Marx condemned other for calling peasants and non-proletarian toilers reactionaries.
See “Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html)”. Its funny to see how you accuse others for not reading but you are unaware of this important book yourself.


If the jobs that were outsourced were left in the home country then they would have had to remain on the minimum wage or the minimum wage laws would be repealed or decreased in accordance with demands from the bourgeoisie.

Why? If workers unite and refuse to work under bad circumstances, bourgeoisie has to pay them a higher wage. The workers in undeveloped countries accept these jobs because they are backward, oppressed and not united. This is the only reason which makes outsourcing profitable.


The very fact that the First World countries does NOT have "hungry, unorganized and backward workers" means that your claim is false by every means.

Outsourcing leads to unemployment in advanced countries and as a result more competition for getting the jobs among workers. more competition means that workers will accept lower wages, higher work hours and violation of their rights. If this process continues, in time, the nightmare of existence of hungry, unorganized and backward workers in advanced countries will become true. It has already became close to reality in some parts of Europe like Greece, Spain, Italy and … if its close but not exactly the reality, its only because of resistance of worker movement.


the OPTIMUM democracy and direct democracy was found in Libya under Gaddafi.

Iraq was democratic. Syria is and was democratic. The DPRK is democratic.
Im not going to answer those claims. I only repeated them to expose the person who makes these claims!


Workers' associations are banned because they are integrated with the state as in the case of the USSR.

Thinking is banned for people because pharaoh does that for them!


Remnants of pre-Capitalist formations? Like what?
Monarchy, cult of personality, absolutism, dogmatism, escapism, autarchy and …


a formal insitituion is an insitituion which has been FORMALIZED IN THE GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY, making it OFFICIAL.

This does not refute the fact that a formal institution can exist legally on paper but with no rule in running society. Soviets were exactly like this since early 1920s.


Yes, I stated that the Party can never and should never be obliged to listen to people and solve all their problems
Then what would be the logical and practical conclusion?

1- Taking away authority from soviets and turning them to organizations which are praised on paper but have no one weight in practice.
2- Turning soviets from popular organizations into small circles of officials and bureaucrats.


You claimed that abolishing suppressing free speech, rights, etc. led to revolutions in the USSR and thus claimed that in order to extend the life of the USSR and prevent revolutions that we must not suppress freedom of speech and rights.
No I didn’t said that. I wasn’t interested in extending the life of USSR at all. since it was a social imperialist power, I supported revolution against it. freedom of speech and rights wouldn’t extend the life of such backward bourgeoisie dictatorships, on the contrary, they shorten their lives. Proletariat had an alternative for the future after USSR and Bourgeoisie had a different alternative. I supported a proletarian revolution against the ruling class of USSR but since workers were kept backward and divided, the force behind the proletarian alternative wasn’t strong enough to defeat the bourgeoisie.

About Hungary I wrote: “If people were able to freely express their wants and need and decide for themselves, the uprising couldn’t have happened.” Peoples ability to express their ideas and making decisions would have meant removal of servants of Russian social imperialism without use of violence. If this ability was combined with class consciousness and organization of proletariat, it would have meant peaceful establishment of socialism. But since the puppet government of Hungary was too reactionary to fulfill the demands of 1956 protesters which most of them didn’t even contradicted with its existence, it had to resort to absolutism and use of reactionary violence.


Since the answer to your question is NO, the bourgeois government will not remain democratic to accept this then you just denied a "peaceful socialist evolution" while at the same time supporting a "peaceful socialist evolution"!
A peaceful socialist evolution is possible in a situation which I explained before (1- overpowering class conscious proletariat which bourgeoisie is not able to stand against it, 2- favorable international conditions). Of course, communists don’t postpone their aims and they don’t form their tactics on the assumption of a peaceful socialist evolution. They just consider that as a possibility and ready themselves and the people which they lead for other possibilities as well.


Are you saying that in your Socialist Utopian people all have the same ideas, beliefs, and so on with absolutely NO contradictions or differences that would rise to the surface and cause conflict!? The government CANNOT ensure freedom of speech AND AT THE SAME TIME stop conflict that arises from freedom of speech without limiting or banning freedom of speech.

If freedom of speech is recognized, contradictions within the ranks of people can be solved by discussion and democratic ways. If not, they grow to an antagonistic level where they can only be solved by violence. Even in capitalist countries where there is freedom of speech, there are less racial or religious conflicts than undemocratic countries.


Prove that undemocratic countries solve power struggles by coups, civil wars, conspiracies, etc. whilst democratic countries GUIDE power struggles into PEACEFUL WAYS rather than coups, civil wars, conspiracies, international wars, imperialism, conflict, division, and so on. Just do remember that it was freedom of speech which allowed the Nazis to take power through free elections before banning free speech and free elections.
History has already proven it. If you take away freedom of speech, what other way will be left for solving the conflicts except violence? If freedom if speech was banned in Germany after the first world war, communists would be the first ones suffering from it. Either Nazis who had more things in common with the ruling bourgeoisie (inside Germany and abroad) would have gained the power faster while facing lesser resistance or another government would have played their historical rule.


Marx's quotes does not speak of Socialist/Communist countries versus reactionary Capitalist countries, but of COMMUNIST PARTIES WITHIN COUNTRIES.
Marx and Engels wrote about communists in General, they didn’t made exceptions about those who have overthrowed bourgeoisie in their country. Those who have done so and have become rulers, have more responsibility about the workers movements of countries which are still far from their purpose. Marx and Engels supported a possible war with Russia for progression of revolution in Europe and freedom of Slavs. They didn’t sacrificed Slavs for the good of Germans.


"Before revisionists victory, people of USSR were more needy but they never resorted to such ways. Even poor people would have preferred to stay needy than to participate in massacre of their brothers in other countries. selling arms to criminals for profit is something which only indecent people who have nothing but personal interest in mind will resort to."
I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE IT.
Before the revolution in Russia, Tsarists had gained some colonial privileges in Iran. Iran was divided into two parts by a formal treaty between Russia and England: northern part was sphere of influence of Russia and southern part was sphere of influence of England. These two countries agreed to accept privileges and economical treaties only in their own spheres. After the October revolution, although Bolsheviks could have used this treaty for gaining profits, they openly exposed and canceled it. They even helped the communist party of Iran to fight against the government. Iran was not an exception. Bolsheviks followed this policy everywhere.


the "massacre of their own brothers in other countries" was already taking place BEFORE the "victory of revisionists" bullshit, under Lenin, under Stalin, and under the Bolsheviks as a whole when they continued killing Germans before Brest-Listovsk, when they killed the Whites that included proletarians and peasantry, when they killed proletarians who resisted them
Bolsheviks were willing to end the war and did their best to end it as soon as possible, although Trotsky disturbed their work. No serious person can blame them for defending themselves before a peace was signed while they were not willing to fight in the first place. “proletarians and peasantry” who had joined the whites were not brothers of revolutionaries but their enemies because they had betrayed their class. only a person whose purpose is distortion of history can equalize the war against whites in Russia with the massacre of communists in Indonesia.


Go ahead and prove that the profits from the exports of the USSR's products were PRIVATE PROFITS for the bureaucrats and their families and was NOT for the country or the public.
No normal and decent person is willing to take part in torture and killing of revolutionaries in other countries for profit. Only those who see other people as means of producing profit for them are capable of doing so. No mentally healthy person whose humanity hasn’t been completely taken away by bourgeoisie ideology will accept to give guns to killers and torturers in exchange for some profit. Even capitalist countries prefer to preserve their reputation instead of selling arms to great criminals for a short time profit.


he WAS a member of the USSR's ruling party and DID NOT build a golden statue during that time. This proves once and for all that hte USSR SUPPRESSED such sentiments rather than based itself on them. He was only able to build a golden statue AFTER THE FALL of the USSR not DURING the USSR.
Did his personality changed over a night? Political views can change over a night but personalities take shape in a long time. Niazov was raised by revisionists propaganda, became a member of ruling party which claimed to suppress selfish sentiments while it welcomed a person who prioritized self interests to the lives of people. the party promoted this pharaoh. The party of the most “educated and dedicated people” let someone with extreme selfishness and with mental problems who wished to build a golden statue of himself to rule over people of Turkmenistan (had people asked for a such ruler?). if the party viewed him as someone who needed to be suppressed, then why did it grant him membership and an important responsibility? his sentiments and mental disease were not suppressed, they were only covered before the collapse.


Members of the CPSU did not follow nor force anything, people voted for Capitalist and the bourgeoisie who pursued such reforms. How the fuck can they even force anything if they are no longer in power and taking part in free elections?
In which free election? New “republic”s are practically monarchies. When the father dies, his sons becomes the new king.


The more I continue reading the positions of Theophys, I become more convinced that he is not a leftist at all and is only here to defame the left.

[Theophys]

Any kind of demand is only taken into consideration by capitalists if its combined by profit.
Demand is also met through loss and break-even production, it does not have to be for direct profit. In the case of PS3s, they had initially to be sold for less than their actual production costs at a loss.



When there is demand for food but demanders are people who cant pay for it, their demand is easily ignored.
And it should be, but in the case of Capitalism people can't pay due to reasons which are out of their hands. In the system I support, the only workers who would not have money would be those who voluntarily refuse to work. Any act of labor should be rewarded with money and any worker should be given the right to employment. Demand is also never ignored, if people cannot pay then their direct demand is not made at all but merely speculated. People without food look for jobs to solve the issue. Demand is never ignored.



In backward countries where industry and primitive agriculture cannot compete with the advanced countries, shortages are common. By shortage I don’t mean unavailability in general, but unavailability for those who see the goods but are unable to buy them.
In such countries workers who work for foreign companies receive much more in comparison to their other countrymen, but typically at bad conditions as in the case with their other countrymen. Thus in those backwards countries, people are generally much more capable of buying goods with the increased pay and money influx from foreign countries than without such companies. There's a reason why workers in First World countries keep crying about outsourcing even though they have numerous other alternatives with better paying jobs in their own countries.



When the workers don’t sell their force of labor but utilize it themselves by means of production which belongs to them as a class, they become interested in what they produce, unlike under capitalism where workers are alienated to result of their work. Under socialism, they gain some of their works results directly and another part which is used for common good of the society indirectly. But under capitalism, workers receive price of their labor force (wage) and are indifferent of its productivity. Even if their labor produces much more than their wage, they receive nothing more than their wage and surplus value belongs to bourgeoisie, some of it individually and some of it collectively which is used for class interests of bourgeoisie.

They never become interested in what they produce unless they obtain the direct results of their labor or produce for small scale or kin groupings where altruism can actually and solely exist. Production for strangers which you know nothing about and cannot even know what they give you in return for your contribution, what they do with your products, and share no relation with them leads to the fall of cooperation. I discussed this issue in the Eliminating Scarcity For Luxury goods thread. Workers in such a system have absolutely no incentive to produce or do anything except to be a "good team player" based on pure altruism and nothing more. This is an impossibility that should be dumped with other Utopian nonsense. Alienation will always exist as long as mass and large-scale production are necessary. Gaining "some" of the results of their labor is NOT the same as gaining the complete results of their labor, ergo, they still do not receive the fruits of their labor and are still having surplus value extracted from them and thus are still exploited with their products separated from them to meet the demands of billions of people. The common good of society is NOT the same as the common good of the worker who produced the goods through his own labor-power, do not mistake the two. Under your socialism, your workers will still receive a wage but it is a wage "in kind" rather than in monetary terms, if only you'd bother to describe the form of socialism that you support so that I could destroy its very fabrics. Just as under capitalism workers are indifferent to production they will also be so under your socialism. Why is this? Workers in both systems have absolutely no incentive to care about their production, this "caring" about production only takes place in the case of cooperatives operating on the basis of pricing mechanisms, markets, or otherwise where they are forced to offer the best products and actually care about their products lest they go out of business OR in the case of kin altruism and small-scale production where individual workers can keep a memory track on who receives what and who contributes what in order to prevent the mutual aid symbiotic relationship from turning into an exploitative parasitical relationship. I support a form of Market Socialism, a monetary according to contribution socialism with markets (artificial or otherwise), pricing mechanisms, ability to fail, no restrictions on success, and so on. Thus if labor, in such a system, produces more, it receives more in proportion, something which you CANNOT do in YOUR system. Under Capitalism workers can and do get paid according to work done: "A wage is remuneration paid by an employer to an employee. It may be calculated as a fixed task based amount, or at an hourly rate, or based on an easily measured quantity of work done. It is contrasted with salaried work, which is based on a fixed time period." What you're referring to is called a SALARY, salaries are not the sole system of remuneration under Capitalism, but either way wages are better than in your system.



This is what also Malthus said in order to justify his theory which demanded sacrifices from workers and poor people in order to provide luxuries for riches. a proletarian point of view is completely different. Earth’s resources are already sufficient for its population. with better technologies, humans can produce more using lesser resources. Unlike capitalism which encourages people to buy luxuries which they don’t truly need for profit and at the cost of more exploitation and damaging the environment, socialism provides all of people with their true needs and expands their needs when providing more has become possible. This is not a result of wishful thinking, it’s the result of class essences of different systems. capitalism is based on profits for a minority, from its viewpoint its completely logical and beneficial to ruin the environment and exhaust the resources in order to provide capitalists with luxuries. Socialism is based on a class which benefits from abolishment of exploitation and its aim is to provide the true needs of anyone. Since damaging the environment and exhausting resources is against the interests of an overwhelming majority, socialism is against such things.
Earth's resources are NEVER sufficient and any constant demand at any number WILL lead to the depletion of resources. The only thing stopping the rapid depletion of resources is the restrictions on demand, without which people would have the ability to met whatever need and demands they want without any restrictions and no means of measurement of costs, resource supply, proper distribution, and so on. Malthus was correct in his claim, if it was as such, but wrong in his conclusions. With better technologies? You mean the ones that we DO NOT have today and which would STILL consume finite resources? Good job on proving nothing there. Capitalism actually attempts to reduce the cost of production by using less costly resources and increase productivity and production in return. What about your system? It would be completely unable to do so. People actually need luxuries otherwise they would not buy them. The environment is less damaged today as it is restricted by restricted demand, money, prices, supply, availability, etc. important aspects which do not exist in your system. "Socialism provides all of people with their true needs and expands their needs when providing more has become possible"? YOU CALL THIS NOT THE RESULT OF WISHFUL THINKING? THIS IS NOTHING BUT WISHFUL THINKING. This is Utopian idealist adventurism at its best that will lead to the collapse of any society that follows your ridiculous model, as is the case with Ckaihatsu's system. You base your entire system on false assumptions, as with many other Utopian daydreaming idealists. You cannot prove that Socialism will provide "all of people" with ANY needs at all, least of all their "true needs" (as if this guy thinks he knows what peoples' "true needs" are!). This is what the Bolsheviks thought was the case when they'd have their socialism, look how it ended up: a retreat with an NEP to a market system with pricing mechanism then massive shortages and disaster after. When speaking of ANY theory, you CANNOT make any such false assumptions upon which you base your entire system upon. This is the mistake made by Anarcho-Communists, the biggest offenders, when they speak of an "according to needs" system with super-production, super-productivity, full automation, and infinite resources. "Class essences" is your justification for this Utopian bullshit? Is this like some magical potion we use to bash people on their heads in order to follow stupid shit like this theory of yours? Capitalism is based on profits for anyone, even workers as workers sell their labor power in return for remuneration as well. It is NOT logical nor beneficial to ruin the environmental in the eyes of Capitalism, that is a false accusation which I challenge you to prove it. Exhaust the environmental to meet the luxuries of a few Capitalists? What is this bullshit? The environment is affected because of large-scale production and demand as well as consumerism which includes individuals form the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Imagine, however, how minor the travesties of the environment today are due to Capitalism when the "luxuries of capitalists" are met in comparison with you trying to meet every single need of every single individuals of billions on the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET. If you think today's system is destroying the environmental then WHAT do you think will happen when you try to meet the demands of EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on EARTH? Do not even dare tell me that in your Everything-Is-Possible system people will simply have extreme super-productivity without using up any resources. The end of exploitation has nothing to do with environmental destruction, which is limited due to exploitation. Why? Exploitation reduces the widespread availability of money and thus restricts demand to a few minority. A few minority with money have less demand than an entire world with its billions of people, thus less waste in attempting to meet demand. If those exploited billions were to be given whatever they need, the entire Earth will suffer massive destruction in order to meet the overwhelming demand from every single individual. People will simply consume what they feel like consuming as no costs on entry or restrictions exist to make them THINK how best to use what they have through money and what BEST to spend on. They'll just spend without any need to worry about anything as they have no pricing mechanism to track anything or regulate anything. "Since damaging the environment and exhausting resources is against the interests of an overwhelming majority, socialism is against such things"? What is this shit again? The "majority" is not an individual, it is an unguided and disorganized mass of individuals with their own self-interests. Have you EVER heard of something called the "tragedy of the commons"? Look it up. Individuals do not care about the environment, especially on such a scale other than to meet their own needs. The majority does not operate on the basis of a hivemind.



This only happens is the early stages of socialism. Socialism is an "according to contribution" system while communism is an "according to need" system. Socialism also provides equal opportunities for everyone. Of course, if very few people have access to education, welfare, healthcare, connections to the rulers who provide them better jobs and … they can become more productive, but if so, they don’t deserve more income. their exclusive opportunities should be given to anyone and only then an "according to contribution" system becomes socialism.

equal opportunities + according to contribution = socialism

Marx wrote that equal opportunities cannot fully exist for anyone (for example for a crippled or a less intelligent person), so if anyone contributes anything which he/she is able to, when the means of production are advanced and its possible for more productive workers to provide him/her with what he/she needs, its would be possible and ethic to fulfill his/her needs without expecting something equal in return. Thus, a socialist society, if class struggle is carried out correctly, will turn into a communist society.

equal opportunities + Voluntary contribution + according to need = communism.

Note that anyone who wishes to be a freerider, is stopped by society. During the socialism period this act is done by dictatorship of proletariat, institutions which reflect the will of proletariat as a class against the bourgeoisies counter revolutionary movements and culture. During the communism, new cultural values stop people from being a freerider. You think this is an utopia? Look around. People are more comfortable in pyjamas and pyjamas are cheaper than formal clothes, but you don’t see anyone walking in streets wearing pyjamas even when its not banned. Cultural values of the present society compel people to dress properly. Those few people who don’t respect these cultural values don’t change the norms and functions of society.

Any "according to need" system without the proper material conditions is impossible. The material conditions that are most fundamental and basic to such a system are: super-productivity, super-production, full or almost full automation, and infinite resources. Socialism provides equal opportunity, but NOT complete equality or other forms of equality. If workers become more productive then they MUST be rewarded in kind through an increased income. If you do not put into place such a system then you fall into the disasters of a moneyless or same wage system by disincentivizing individuals who overproduce, work more efficiently, produce more, put more effort in, and so on. You would instead be rewarding individuals by slacking and giving absolutely no incentive to overachieve and overproduce. Remuneration MUST be in proportion to contribution. Again, I discussed this plenty in the "Eliminating Scarcity on Luxury Resources" thread and destroyed the opposing arguments, you can take a look for yourself. The gist of the argument was they individuals needs a means by which to be rewarded for increased production or else the system would be a complete disaster. See that thread for the full argument. A crippled produces less and must be rewarded less just as n intelligent person produces more and must be rewarded properly, anything otherwise would be either treating unequals as equals or punishing the intelligent workers for being more efficient, producing more, contributing more, wasting less, and so on making the system nothing more than a complete clusterfuck of problems.

"so if anyone contributes anything which he/she is able to, when the means of production are advanced and its possible for more productive workers to provide him/her with what he/she needs, its would be possible and ethic to fulfill his/her needs without expecting something equal in return."
Nothing more than false assumptions and Utopianism. If you do not equate aid given with aid received then you lead to a system of exploitation and create a parasitical relationship. In such a scenario, cooperation breaks completely down and individuals would follow the least costly road with the highest benefits, i.e. producing less and consuming all the same. Having more productive workers work to provide others without anything in return or without anything proportional in return then you are resorting to nothing but a Utopian system of mass altruism which is an impossibility, see Trivers (71) on kin and tribal altruism. It would be absolutely NOT ethical to fulfill one's needs without expecting something equal in return, that is the BASIS of parasitical relationships and exploitative. You are essentially supporting a system where people work for others with almost nothing in return with those being worked for doing little to nothing. You are creating a system based on rewarding slacking and inefficiency. From another post:

"I’m talking about cognitive limitations. The paper money is memory makes note of this that these two things are interchangeable. Interestingly enough if you read Trivers 71 “evolution of Reciprocal Altruism” you see that one of the two necessities for a form of selfish biological altruism to emerge is memory, the other being high population viscosity. Individuals must be able to keep some record of what other individuals do to reward them or punish then proportion to the gains or losses they confer to the social system. Memory is the effective technology employed here when the human brain’s cognitive horizon no longer overlaps with the scale of society and some sort of prosthetic must stand in to stabilize cooperation beyond the boundaries of cognitive limits. If we want to operate without money (as we recognize it as a physical substance, or electronic data stored on computers), we have to rely on our own individual minds to make these judgments. Who is hurting who is helping, should I engage in some sort of cooperation with this person or should I not. Without a means to answer this question altruism is not a stable evolutionary strategy and isolationism is the only viable alternative and it seems neither of us want that. I want a system where benefits of society are proportional to contributions. Not a society where aid is arbitrarily granted because I simply think it’s sound logic not to trust other individuals, especially if I cannot observe them constantly. When we are dealing with scales of hundreds of millions of people this is asking me to process to much information. The human mind can only remember so many faces and the Dunbar unit ensures that after about 200 individuals we stop recognizing other individuals as humans and begin to recognize them as objects.

The difference here between us is I believe the concept of money is just an analogue to reputation, honor and other primitive concepts that work well in small scales or with really popular individuals that have special status to a particular social order(in this reputational currencies are non-egalitarian because of cognitive limits, only so many popular people can redeem them)"


Every system must lead to individuals receiving something equal in return or else they would have no reason to cooperate and instead would seek alternative means by which to satisfy their needs and demands which would not harm them but actually remunerate them according to their contribution. If I chop down 100 trees rather than the social average of 10, I expect something in return, a reward, or a proportional remuneration according to my contribution. I would not desire that my produced goods go to disconnected strangers which I cannot monitor to determine what happens to the goods I produced, how they use them, what they have given me, what they have given society, and so on. If I cannot make sure that those receiving my goods are working proportionally then I have absolutely no reason to produce more than the social average or even more than what I believe I need to rather than what others want. A pricing mechanism, monetary system, or a system based on markets can ensure that cooperation is proportional through the use of money as a circulating mechanism and a system of memory. Normally in complex societies individuals cannot monitor and observe others, their contributions, their received goods, punish them or reward them based on how they use resources and for what ends, and so on and must thus rely on a memory mechanism. Any society that surpasses Dunbar's number must rely on alternative means, such as money. By using money and a system where individuals are correctly remunerated according to contribution, we can safely and securely keep track on contribution and consumption tied to the socially beneficial behavior of contribution and reward it in KIND, no more, no less. Such a system punishes those who wish to not produce and rewards those who wish to produce, whilst rewarding those who wish to produce more with higher rewards. Individuals in such a system who are "rich" would directly be those individuals who had contributed the most to society through their DIRECT labor. Your system cannot account for any of this and instead relies on the myth of mass altruism.

Note that anyone who wishes to be a freerider, is stopped by society. During the socialism period this act is done by dictatorship of proletariat, institutions which reflect the will of proletariat as a class against the bourgeoisies counter revolutionary movements and culture. During the communism, new cultural values stop people from being a freerider. You think this is an utopia? Look around. People are more comfortable in pyjamas and pyjamas are cheaper than formal clothes, but you don’t see anyone walking in streets wearing pyjamas even when its not banned. Cultural values of the present society compel people to dress properly. Those few people who don’t respect these cultural values don’t change the norms and functions of society.[/quote]

As for free riders, society cannot stop free riders because it has no means by which to monitor individuals on the scale of billions of people. Free riders take the form of those who receive more than they contribute just as those who receive while contributing nothing in return. Any disproportional in this social relationship leads to free riders, exploitation, and a parasitical relationship. I do not see how the Dictatorship of the Proletariat can solve this problem, is it because it "reflects the will of proletariat as a class against the bourgeoisie counter revolutionary movements and culture"? This is pretty much like me asking you "Why does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" with your replying by saying "During the socialism period this act is done by dictatorship of proletariat, institutions which reflect the will of proletariat as a class against the bourgeoisie counter revolutionary movements and culture." It is a non-sequitur. New cultural values? What new cultural values? The ones that you daydream about? More false assumptions on your part. People will never become fully altruistic and if you even slightly think so then you are nothing more than a Utopian daydreamer whose ideas MUST NEVER see the light of day lest that society be destroyed as reality slaps him in the face as it did with the Bolsheviks. You base your entire theory on nothing more than false assumptions which do not exist, have never been proven to exist, and will most likely never exist. Tell me what will happen when you Utopian expectations do not see the light of day? It will end up like the USSR. Yes, I absolutely think this is a Utopia. Lol? THAT is your argument against Utopianism? That people do not wear pajamas because people like formal clothes? What. The. Fuck. How is Revleft infested with people like this guy? I have yet to meet a single non-Utopian Socialist/Communist. Your analogy has nothing to do with anything. Are you stating that cultural values will change? Oh, definitely, but it is not a question of "IF" by a question of "HOW", "TO WHAT", "IN WHAT FORM", and so on. To claim that YOU know what the new cultural values will be and thus base your entire system on those false assumptions and expectations is nothing more than the nonsense brought forward by a Utopian. You do not predict the future nor can you know what the future cultural values will be. But even then, this does not solve the issue of the free rider problem which you completely ignored. Actually it is these few people who influence society to change its cultural values and destroy its very foundations. If free riders go unharmed and are allowed to thrive, they will spread as altruism breaks down into selfishness and selfish altruism leading to numerous problems.



I judge people according to their deeds not what they claim about themselves.
So do I.



I claim that riches have contributed to society, without explaining their social rule or how they have achieved their wealth.
I already explained this in the EXACT SAME SENTENCE WHICH YOU BUTCHERED: "Capitalism provides riches to people who have money, i.e. social memory of contribution, but such a system is perverted on the basis of artificial restrictions and remuneration according to passive ownership rather than direct contribution through labor." If you spent more time actually reading and replying to what I say in full rather than cutting even sentences then you would not embarrass yourself in such a fashion.



I also claim that money is social memory of contribution without explaining what is the source of that money and why its necessarily a contribution.
I already explained this. Money is paid by meeting demand. Meeting demand is a form of contribution. The source of that money is the government and its printing presses. It is a contribution because it is supplying a demand of society's.



and at the end im a communist and those who say otherwise are using No True Scotsman logical fallacy!
As long as their claims otherwise is nothing more than "He's an Anarcho-Capitalist-Jewish-anti-Marxist-Khruschevist-Stalinist-Trotskyist" with absolutely no arguments or reasoning behind such a claim. If you think I'm not a Communist because I defend certain aspects of Capitalism against reaction (such as your system and Ckaihatsu's) then no, I am not inasmuch as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and so on did not stop being Communists after they praised certain aspects of Capitalism.



Science has already proved that these mechanisms are ineffective and even destructive.
CITE THAT SHIT RIGHT NOW. I fucking dare you, no, I CHALLENGE YOU to cite that NOW.



If such mechanisms are used unconditionally, human race will be destroyed. Even those sections of bourgeoisie which see their future interests admit this.
Bullshit. Cite that shit too.



They try to limit their profit in order to save themselves. They limit the use of fossil fuels and use renewable energies and recyclable materials although its against pricing mechanisms and pricing signals. They have to act against the rules and mechanisms of their system to save their children and grandchildren.
Nonsense. Their environment-friendly campaigns are public relations campaigns, enforced by the government, or put into action by the bourgeoisie themselves. They need not at all limit profit, they can actually increase profit by attracting Green consumers with overpriced alternative environment-friendly and organic products. Fossil fuels, renewable energies, recyclable materials, etc. are NOT against pricing mechanisms and pricing signals. Renewable energies are profitable inasmuch as they provide on-location energy, attract more consumers interested in the environment, and resort to mass awareness campaigns to attract consumers to them rather than other brands which rely on "inferior" technology, etc. This is nothing more than Capitalists acting according to the coercion of markets, capital, and competition as Marx explained on the question of technology. If Capitalism firms fall below the profit threshold then they do not resort to such environment-friendly alternative means, but if they have more than enough or see a potential prospect in doing so then they follow such an alternative means to their own benefits. By acting in their own benefits they are in turn benefiting society indirectly as well.



The difference of environmental policies under capitalism and socialism is: first type is an extraordinary act against the mechanisms of a system but the second one is a natural response to the mechanisms of a system; if people need the environment, a system which is based on their needs, fulfills this basic need.
Bullshit. A system based on needs would firstly ensure actual needs are met before even considering other "needs" likes the environment. That is not an excuse at all. An extraordinary act is still an act, it need not at all be against any of its mechanisms. In the case of socialism, it would be against its own mechanisms as the needs and demands of people are in direct opposition and act in contradiction with the environment. If people demand iron, iron is going to be extracted from the destruction of the environmental. Now imagine that iron being demand on the scale of TRILLIONS with absolutely no restrictions or limitations on consumption and demand. Exactly. Capitalism, through its mechanisms, prevents this chaos. Socialism has absolutely no reason to protect the environment, you saying so does not make it so. The priority needs of people come before the security of the environment. It is not a natural response at all. But, what can we expect of a Utopian who supporting as Everything-Is-Possible (EIP) system? He can meet the needs of billions of people on Earth with no restrictions or limits whilst at the same time preserving the environment.



In all of field, capitalism encourages people to use things and adopt certain ways of living which is profitable for it, despite what maybe harmful for them. This process is already admitted by bourgeoisie (although they don’t admit it has roots in bourgeois system). Science has shown that many products (food, cosmetics, entertaining things and …) are harmful for people and environment and can be replaced but a system which is based on profit encourages their use.
Anything that is profitable means that the producers are doing a good job at it. People who choose to consume low quality goods do so for a reason: they cannot afford any other alternatives. This is a necessity. Why? Because we cannot ensure very high quality and luxury goods to every single person on Earth, people need to receive as much as they contribute. We need different types and levels of products to meet different types and levels of people and their income/demand. Adopting profitable ways of living means that less resources are used, profits are created, less space is used, less costs are incurred, and so on. The use of such products is not encouraged but is what is available due to the limitations of production, productivity, resources, labor, and so on. Your system cannot solve this issue and cannot present every single individual the highest quality goods. The USSR, basing itself based on meeting people's needs and focusing on utility could not do this, not in terms of food, not in terms of cars, and not in terms of housing (although Khrushchev at least tried). You are speaking of nothing more than an EIP system where you can provide the best and greatest goods to every single individual without taking anything else into consideration such as costs, production limits, productivity limits, labor limits, need to ensure demand is met by supply, environmental destruction, the cost of extracting the resources necessary, and so on. In other words, more Utopianism from you.



That’s just the point. All of these standards are based on profit and are indifferent to wellbeing of people.
Profit is, in the end, for the well being of people as we have seen in history. Without profit, pricing mechanisms, price signals, costs, money, etc. then we cannot ensure the well being of people in the first place.



Under socialism, new technologies mean more products with lesser work hours, lesser use of resources and lesser polluting.
This is the case with Capitalism and any other system as well.



This makes a social incentive for new technologies. as I explained before, under socialism new inventions will be rewarded (according to contribution), which makes individual incentive for researchers. but under communism, researchers don’t demand rewards. I don’t expect a reactionary to imagine communism, so you can ignore the things which I wrote about communism and only see the advantages of proletarian socialism comparing to capitalism.
No it does not do so at all. There is no such thing as a social incentive if individual incentives are not even created or existent. New technologies that decrease labor needed, increase productivity, etc. have absolutely no reason to be produced and there are no means by which to magically do so either. You have no means by which to calculate costs, you cannot simply give the best machinery to every single factory. Under communism individuals don't demand rewards? Are you shitting me here? People in such a Utopian as yours also won't want anything, right? They'll just happily do whatever you want them to do without question! No. Even in the case of the USSR with its need-oriented system was not able to do any of this and people still demand remuneration for their researches. Even then they were still inferior and surpassed by Capitalism by decades. You are the reactionary here, not me, you hear? You want a system that CANNOT work and will NEVER work and instead lead to proletariat and others into a wall that will end in suicide. Communism is ONLY possible with the proper material conditions, material conditions which you DO NOT take into consideration and thus will fuck everything up. Now stop using words which you know nothing about like a drunken sailor and instead make some proper arguments.



Even under capitalism, advanced technologies produce more with less resources and less labor. Otherwise, why should they be called advanced? You can also claim that in the past, when the technology was not as advanced as today and fewer people had access to it, when jungles were burned for agriculture, large amounts of DDT were poured into open waters everyday and people worked 14 hours a day for scraps of food, destruction of the environment and the super-exploitation of labor was lesser than today.
Technologies do not simply produce more with less but actually produce more with MORE unless you somehow believe that new technology starts producing more goods from air. Resources will still be used, thus resources will STILL be consumed, thus the environment will still be destroyed. Resources being used by itself is enough to put your nonsense to rest. If you stopped ignoring my ENTIRE arguments and paragraphs in favor of replying to HALF OF A SENTENCE OF MINE then you would understand the entire argument and context I made. Here's the rest of the sentence which you avoided and ignored, not even talking about the PARAGRAPHS which you skipped over:
"If you give technology to every single company today or in the future then you resort to mass destruction of the environment and the super-exploitation of labor in order to try to achieve the advanced technology to every single factory, workplace, and mine. "
Thus the super-exploitation of labor here will be much, much worse than it was in the past which you refer to, and that's just to achieve the advanced technology, not even to implement it, run it, distribute its products, etc.



Besides, who talked about giving “technology to every single company”? Communists support socialization of these rival companies, establishing worker control in them and an economic planning which aims to fulfill the needs of people.
That was your logical assumption in order to achieve communism and the material conditions for it. If you want to achieve super-productivity, super-production, automation, etc. then you will need to advance every single factory on Earth. Then you made this statement: "People will have incentive to resort to adopting newer technologies, not necessarily for profit, but also to meet their needs but capitalists don’t share their technology."
That statement means that people will adopt new technologies with absolutely no limitations or restrictions upon the technologies being adopted. People can just, like the Utopian you are, stand up and grab new technology for free at absolutely no costs! If only this were reality! Nevertheless, without any costs or restrictions, then every factory would seek to advance itself with new technology which cannot be provided every single factory demanding it, but I argued that they can be suppleid for the sake of argument and showed the consequences of such ignorant actions.



These countries (and others like them) hold the majority of human population. “successful Capitalist countries” or to be exact: successful bourgeoisie, is insignificant comparing to billions of people who suffer from its rule in advanced and undeveloped countries.
Successful Capitalist countries are not synonymous with successful bourgeoisie. In successful Capitalist countries uch as in the case of Norway, Denmark, Scandinavia, Sweden, the US, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, etc. etc. individuals are much more well off than at any other instance in history thanks to Capitalism. All the people in such countries are benefited and thriving, not merely a "minority" of yours. Billions people who suffer from their rule? You mean the billions of people who are now better off and will in the future be much better off because of its rule? Indeed.



I compared an average life of an ancient Babylonian (not a member of the ruling class) with an average life of oppressed people of above mentioned countries and concluded that they are not much different. If your purpose was not distortion, you didn’t need to put words in other peoples mounts.
I did NOT and I challenge you to show me where I put words in anyone's mouth. I am not the one resorting to distortion, it is you who is doing so as we have seen from your perversions of history, calling the USSR, Khrushchev, etc. Capitalist and other names, calling me a reactionary, making up your own nonsense, making claims which you DO NOT CITE, making false assumptions and basing theories on them, distancing yourself from reality, using No True Scotsman fallacies to defend your pathetic position, and so on in order to meet your own world view. You are ignoring the vast achievements of today's countries in favor of comparing one or two underdeveloped countries to Ancient Babylonia, the most advanced of its time. Nevertheless, I want you to cite that claim and prove it. I'll wait for you to show that Ancient Babylonians had higher productivity, standards of living, etc. for non-members of the ruling class than people today. Go ahead.



Increased supplies and decreased prices are useless for workers who have lost their jobs or whose wages have decreased as a result of decrease of need for their labor.
Workers who have lost their jobs are protected by the welfare system and are able to look for other jobs. Supplies are still increased and prices are still decreased meaning that they can afford them even if they are without a job but with any source of income, even charity. Wage decreases are not an issue inasmuch as prices are decreasing and supplies are increasing.



Production doesn’t automatically lead to demands. if people are not able to pay, their demand means nothing. a worker who works with modern machinery is not necessarily a skilled worker. Sometimes machines turn the labor which required high working skills to a simple task of pushing the buttons and as a result, educated and skilled workers who are paid well can be replaced by fewer cheap unskilled workers.
Production is based on demand, not imaginary nonsense. Yes, if people cannot pay then their demand means nothing in terms of notional demand but matters in terms of actual demand. A worker working with modern machinery is a skilled and specialized worker who needs specialize skills to operate these advanced machinery, and no, it's not a matter of pulling a lever otherwise such workers would not be necessary. They need to feed the machines, run the machines, maintain the machines, know the ins and outs of the machine, be able to repair the machines, deliver and receive output and input, monitor production levels, and so on. Turning labor which requires huge amounts of skill, effort, difficulty, or risk into a mere matter of pushing buttons is a good thing and must by every means by supported. The resultant workers can look for other jobs. An individual means nothing in terms of progress.



I already did. Compare the villages which are controlled by Naxalities or NPA to those which are controlled by bourgeoisie governments. They have been like this for many years. The governmental sides show no sign of improvement while the revolutionary side is improving the means of production while at the same time it establishes peoples democracy.
No you did not. Naxalite and NPA villages are INFERIOR to Capitalist alternatives as in the case of the US and other countries. Those are not viable alternatives and are not by any means superior. Naxalite and NPA villages are superior to government villages? Prove it. I'll be waiting. Just do remember that my argument was as such: "I want you to get me a non-Capitalist example of cooperatives leading to superior productivity than that under Capitalism."
Thus you will need to get me the Naxalite or NPA cooperative and compare it to the best Capitalist business. No excuses.



i wrote that communism cant be reached until the struggle of proletariat has succeeded in all of fields including ideology. if bourgeois ideology which prioritizes personal profits to the interests of working people still exists in a large scale, dictatorship of proletariat is still needed. im saying what Marx, Engels and Lenin said before. I wrote “as long as classes as well as the old cultural values still exist under socialism” there is need for dictatorship of proletariat, not forever, not under communism. You just look ridiculous when you claim that you have “destroyed” other peoples arguments by assumptions or putting words in their mounts!
Personal profits is different from private profits. Private profits refer to the profits created by the bourgeoisie for themselves, personal profit refers to any profit made by and/or for the individual. The USSR, party, etc. did not prioritize personal profits over the interests of the working class, but directly the opposite. They condemned personal initiatives and profit in favor of advocating policies in the interests of the working class. See who's distorting history? You. Classes no longer existed in the USSR and the old cultural values were done away with in favor the USSR's socialistic cultural values to create a "Socialist Man". Served. You, again, just ended the debate in my favor and destroyed your own argument. My claim is not by any means ridiculous, as I have just proven and you claiming that it is so in order to save face does not make it otherwise. I did not put a single word in anyone's mouth. Next.



Now you wish to distort Marx’s views? In all of societies (including the primitive communes and future communism) workers never held or will hold all of fruits of their labor, but surplus value came to existence with slavery and will end with capitalism. If you wish to change the meaning of “exploitation” or “surplus value” for yourself, go ahead because nobody cares, but if you claim that this is Marx’s viewpoint, prove it.
I am not at all distorting anything, again it is only YOU who is resorting to distortion. I shall prove it.

"In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour. Therefore, the capitalist makes his/her living by passively owning a means of production and generating a profit, when instead the labor should be entitled to all it produces."

"Because of these human-made institutions, workers have little or no choice but to pay the capitalists surplus-value (profits, interest, and rent) in exchange for their survival. They enter the realm of production, where they produce commodities, which allow their employers to realize that surplus-value as profit. They are always threatened by the "reserve army of the unemployed". In brief, the profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value product of their labor. For more on this view, see the discussion of the labor theory of value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation#Marxist_theory

Thus if you do not remunerate workers to the full extent of their labor power then you are exploiting them. Since this is the case in your system, just as in other system then your system is one based upon exploitation. Thus, I am not the one distorting Marxism, but it is YOU, again. You believe that it is no longer exploitation when workers "work which is not profitable" "benefits the society which the worker is a member of it and even if its voluntary". THIS is the distortion of Marxism. THIS is what you said: "Of course, a person who is carrying bourgeoisie ideology sees any work which is not profitable as exploitation, even if it benefits the society which the worker is a member of it and even if its voluntary." Exploitation does not end when workers are still exploited but have the fruits of their labor taken away by society for its own interests with little to nothing in return in proportion to anything at all. If this were the case then Capitalism would NOT be exploitation because workers 1) are members of a Capitalist society, 2) can resort to voluntary labor, 3) benefits the society which is the worker is a member of. Workers are members of a Capitalist society, they can resort to voluntary labor especially when viable alternatives and welfare systems exist, and their production benefits the society which they are a member of. By following your own logic I have shown that you are arguing that workers are NOT exploited under Capitalism, PURELY by using your OWN conditions that would remove exploitation. Thus not only do you want to support Capitalism, prevent revolutions in Capitalism, want revolutions in Socialist/Communist countries, but as shown above, you claim that exploitation does not exist if workers 1) are members of a Capitalist society, 2) can resort to voluntary labor, 3) benefits the society which is the worker is a member of. And yet you DARED call me the reactionary and bourgeois ideologist? You just got served, again.



Systems are based on class interests. that is a basic teaching of Marxism.
Which is what I said when I was speaking of the USSR, its party, and state which you claim were acting against the people/proletariat which I countered by saying that we only care about objective class interests.



The rule which bourgeoisie once played in production has already been taken by workers who do the managing for him.
You either have never heard of the different types of bourgeoisie or you have no idea what reality is. The bourgeoisie are not passive unless they are extremely rich. If production has already been taken over by workers then, by your own logic, it is no longer Capitalism but actually Socialism. Since this is not hte case then congratulations, you just proved how ridiculous your entire logic, or lack thereof, is. So since the workers do not run the workplaces for the bourgeoisie and do not own the means of production then the bourgeoisie play a vital role in all of this, be it on the question of directing production, entrepreneurship, investment, distribution, marketing, and so on all of which is directed by the bourgeoisie and their riches.



This is what history shows.
History shows us nothing of what you have said, but completely contradicts what you have said.



Governmental bourgeoisie (like those in eastern bloc) which runs the economy is not essentially different than private sectors bourgeoisie/
LOL? ARE YOU SHITTING ME? First of all, you claiming that they are "governmental bourgeoisie" without proving that they are DOES NOT MAKE IT SO and is nothing more than a No True Scotsman logical fallacy where you attempt to call them "bourgeois" in order to distance them a system you CLAIM you support. As Engels said, "These people imagine they can change a thing by changing its name." Secondly, a "governmental bourgeoisie" as in the Eastern bloc would act in the interests of the class interests of the bourgeoisie, this was NOT the case in the Eastern Bloc, they acted in the class interests of the proletariat and banned ANYTHING related to the bourgeoisie ranging from private property to markets. Thirdly, they are extremely different, the private sector bourgeoisie are interested in private profit, are not publicly accountable, are not publicly recallable, are not a part of a public proletarian organization, are not a part of a state, own the means of production, privately hire labor, receive the full profits of production, extract surplus value for their own private interests, ARE CAPITALISTS, ARE BOURGEOIS, and so on. Thus you, again, have no idea what you're talking about and simply think that if you change then name you change what they really are. This is distortion at its best. This guy is too easy.



Even when bourgeoisie is still active in small corporations, it doesn’t mean its historically progressive. In this situation, he is a remanent of the past and workers (as a class) can take his position and run things more effectively.
Actually it does as long as certain countries have not progressed and the proper material conditions are being made for communism. Workers have taken their position time and time again and have been shown to be inferior to Capitalism. You need a specific form of Socialism, one which bases itself on the incentives and mechanisms that made Capitalism great whilst also doing away with the negatives, the bourgeoisie,private property, private profits, and so on. Your system is not by any means a solution, it is a disaster.



That makes way for more efficiency and only after that other organizational and technical considerations can be taken into account.
No it does not. Prove it. The USSR and every other Socialist/Communist country in the history have proven you wrong. Next.


There are no tendencies in fields of science. If one branch of physics or mathematics focuses on a particular field, it doesn’t means that its in contradiction with other branches.
Different interpretations lead to different schools of thought and thus different tendencies. Different interpretations of Marxism, just as in the case of Mathematics and Physics lead to the different tendencies and schools of thought. Get it now?



Marxism or scientific socialism is based on theories which have proven to be correct and even bourgeoisie economists and sociologists admit this, although they are not willing or able to fully follow its results.
I am still waiting for you to prove that "scientific socialism" is "scientific", especially with its bias, dogmatism, and the disregard for scientific axioms and the scientific method. Oh and also I want you to also cite that claim and prove that statement above.



Scientific socialism is not a dogma and like any science it enjoys evolution.
Actually it is dogmatic as it follows the teachings of Marx and rejects any and all differing theories, ideas, and whatnot as "bourgeois", "reactionary", "counter-revolutionary", etc. It is not a science, it is dogmatic. It bases itself entirely on what Marx said and follows each and every world blindly.



Evolution of science doesn’t make its pervious stages false. Each stage of science development carries a piece of truth and by putting them together, it advances.
And that has nothing to do with anything. It does not by any means prove anything you said, still waiting for that proof of yours.



Class interests of proletariat are same everywhere.
This is what I had claimed before you did to defend the USSR, party, and the state as acting in the CLASS interests of the proletariat over what you suggested to be the interests of the people or the majority. You spoke of the party and state being unable to determine what the proletariat and such classes need, I countered by saying that class interests are objective and thus do not need any popular input. You are using my argument against yourself and just proved that my earlier arguments were correct by your own use of them, good job.



Thus, there is only one proletarian line which communists follow. Others, regardless of what they call themselves are following other classes lines even when they are members of the same party which the first ones are also members of it.
Yes, ergo, by your own logic and argument, you are not a Communist as I have proven by showing how you went against the class interests of the proletariat as in the case of the USSR and so on by opposing it, rejecting it, and instead favoring personal interests of a majority rather than class interests. See for instead when I said: "When a party puts forward Socialism even if the majority do not want it, they are STILL acting in the CLASS interests of the proletariat or your "majority" whether they like it or not. They do not determine what their class interests are as class interests are NOT subjective, they are objective. "



I think debating about fascism with a person who thinks that Nazism is ideology of petit bourgeoisie and his source is Wikipedia, is just wasting time.
Wasting time? Just admit that you have absolutely no idea what Fascism or Nazism are. Go ahead.



Anyone who is truly interested to know what fascism is can refer to Ernst Thalmann’s works on fascism.
Lol, next thing I'll see from this guy is referencing Trotsky's ridiculous and useless "Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It". I'd prefer to use actual Fascist and Nazi works and critique them from their actual positions and arguments rather resort to other works trying to distort them.



Again, what makes the Ba'athists better than “Western” capitalists?
Already explained their achievements in terms of standards of living, nationalization, attacks on Capitalist imperialism, implementation of healthcare reforms, etc. etc.



they suppressed the communist parties and worker associations in their own countries.
Up to them.



by doing so they destroyed the only force which is historically and systematically opposed to capitalism and capable of standing firm against imperialism. Without this force, the struggle of petit bourgeoisie and the backward “national” bourgeoisie of these countries will become a losing struggle with no hope for victory and no progressive purpose. Any force outside these countries which allies with them (like USSR) proves that its not historically progressive and doesn’t stand for the interests of proletariat within and outside its borders.
They don't need that if they have the proper material conditions to follow an already existent dominant mode of production such as in the case of the USSR and replicate it, remember? Oh and allying with them is the only means by which they become progressive, as Engels explained. When they USSR allies with these governments, it "picks them up" and moves them through the historical process as the Germans and Magyars Engels wanted to carry the Slavs into progress rather than the Tsarist Russians. Seriously, go read, it'll do you some good.



You can “justify” this cooperation with reactionary criminals like before with the excuse of interests of USSR.
Yes.



Imagine that someone accepts this “justification”. By doing so, he also accepts that a worker state in his own country can act against USSR (or any worker state and movement) for its own interests by buying arms from “Western” capitalists, renting military bases to them, increasing economic and military cooperation with “Western” capitalists while seizing trade and any kind of peaceful relationships with USSR, butchering those who support worker states and movements and …
No because the USSR is a progressive force, to oppose it on the basis of it being so would be to oppose progress. To have differences with the USSR and wish to secure your national interests whilst also carrying forward with a workers' state on a different route is not.



And finally, its not accidental that USSR looked for allies only among reactionary movements and trends. Foreign policy if USSR was logical extension of its domestic policy.
If they wanted to support reactionary movements they would have supported Capitalist countries such as the US, Britain, France, and so on. The other countries were not as reactionary but were capable of being picked up and assimilated by the USSR as a progressive force, as Engels called for the Germans and Magyars to do with the Slavs. Foreign policy is not always a logical extension of domestic policy, what applies to domestic policies has little to do with foreign policy as you are not dealing with the same population, same issues, same problems, same conditions, and so on.



Gaining bourgeois democratic rights will serve the worker movement. Marxists have always supported these reforms and fought for them. Marx himself started his political activity by condemning Prussian government’s censorship and struggled for bourgeois democratic rights as long as he lived. Emancipation of proletariat is not a thing which can be achieved suddenly. It takes place in a process which in it, proletariat will free itself of material and ideological means of exploitation. Gaining bourgeois democratic rights is a step in this emancipation which is required for next steps.
As we have historically and empirically seen, no, it will destroy the workers' movements if they are ever achieved. Marxists have supported them by with Socialism as the goal, what ended up being was that the proletariat submitted itself to concessions with the bourgeoisie and class collaboration as soon as their demands were met. If Marxism were a science, it would have noticed this and adjusted its theories properly. Since it is not a science, ignorant philistine dogmatists still stick to what has been said despite reality, much like the religious. It is revolutionary and progressive to STRUGGLE for reforms with Socialism in mind, but NEVER to achieve them. The emancipation of the proletariat is actually achieved suddenly, we call that a revolution. You support a peaceful evolution to Socialism which you also believe to be impossible. GAINING bourgeois democratic rights is only required if you are struggle for reformism, revisionism, and Capitalism. Again you prove yourself to be what you are, a reactionary anti-Communist bourgeois philistine. Oh and it's not a No True Scotsman logical fallacy, I have already proven and shown with your own words and logic how you are so.



He who doesn’t supports this step, doesn’t support the emancipation of proletariat.
False Dichotomy logical fallacy.



They proved to be correct.
Prove it.



You turn their teachings into a dogma and become happy when your dogma doesn’t fit into reality
That's what you do, not me. This guy is worse than debating Creationists.



For example if Marx and Engels wrote that revolutions will happen in advanced countries in 1840s but the revolutions in the next century happened in backward countries, you see this as your victory and celebrate the destruction if the dogma which you created in the first place. But the truth is: Marx and Engels were writing about the situation of their own time and later in 1870s, they themselves admitted that what was correct 30 years ago, has changed. Engels wrote in PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION OF 1882 of Manifesto that:

“ During the Revolution of 1848-49 not only the European princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat, just beginning to awaken, in Russian intervention. The tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today … Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.”
What the hell are you trying to imply? That Engels considered Russia in 1882 to be capable of a revolution? He also claimed the same for the United States and still claimed the same for the advanced countries. Engels did not deny that the revolution will take place in advanced countries, he merely added Russia to the list because of the revolutions taking place there that he had no explanation for. This does NOT deny the fact that they claimed and did NOT revise that revolutions will take part in advanced First World countries and yet they did NOT take place in such countries but solely took place in undeveloped and developed countries of reaction thus their theories on this matter are false. The only dogmatism here is your dogmatism as you attempt to act as an apologist whilst entirely ignoring the argument.



Founders of scientific socialism were not prophets. Marx, Engels or … never claimed that they can predict the future, they used a scientific method for appraisal of their own eras societies and left their method to be used and developed by future communists.
Oh they did not, which is why for it to be scientific whenever any idea they presented did not take place then it is false and must be criticized and replaced by alternative views and ideas. They have nothing to do with science nor a scientific method, they do not take into consideration anything by non-Marxists and anything else to be "bourgeois decadence". This led to your science of Lysenkoism and Socialist realism. Their did not and have never used the scientific method because you obviously have no idea what the scientific method is. Start reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Marxism is an ideology like any other, it is not a science.



In USSR all of non governmental ideologies were banned. Did that brought victory to CPSU? No. even its key members abandoned its ideas (if we assume they believed in its official ideology in the first place!). they made states which are more backward than ordinary bourgeoisie states.
The states they made were actually much more advanced than they what had previously been and were no longer backwards. Non-governmental ideologies were banned and needed to be banned in accordance with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and securing the objective class interests of the proletariat in order to prevent and bourgeois influence, but of course since you are a bourgeois ideologist yourself then you would typically want to spread your ideas and poison in such a society. That did bring victory to the USSR and it became a world superpower until it collapsed after 85 or so years because of people being given freedoms, something you want, which eventually led to their downfall.



In Iran all of non religious ideologies (and even some religious ones) are banned. But that hasn’t stopped the Iranians from being the most secular people in middle east. They live with secular standards and humiliate and ridicule the governmental ideology which is taught to them from the elementary school.
Religion has nothing to do with classes and class ideology as these base themselves n material conditions as opposed to religion. Without a class basis, no classes can exist and thus no class ideologies would exist, but in the case of religion it needs no basis at all as it based itself on beliefs. You can never eliminate religion. Oh and Iran? Lol.

"The end of Bazargan's government officially marked the end of state-directed secularism in Iran. In February 1980 the Islamic Republic Party, with support from the Communist militant block, established the current theocratic government of Iran, with Ayatollah Khomeini as Supreme Leader.

Secular opposition to the Islamist government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been active in the country up until 1984, afterwards they were branded heretics and apostates by the clerical hierarchy, and eventually jailed and executed, or exiled."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Iran

Yeah, so much for your distortion and bullshit. I especially find that anecdote of yours to be amusing.



Follow Trotsky if you want because he never had a firm position about anything but by trying to distort Lenin’s positions,
Go read "Terrorism and Communism" because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Trotsky at least understood what needed to be done and what had been done, unlike you.



Lenin believed that:

“consistent democracy, on the one hand, is transformed into socialism and, on the other, demands socialism.” (The State and Revolution)
Nothing more than rhetoric on his part.



A worker is class conscious and capable to build socialism when he has consciously rejected other classes ideas. A class conscious worker freely accepts scientific socialism and helps the others to abandon their reactionary ideas. If you take away their freedom, deny information from them and treat them like animals who must be tamed, they become more vulnerable to ideological influence of other classes, because others have decided FOR them and they themselves lack the class consciousness to refute bourgeoisie ideas. This is a religious way of thinking. Religions believe that ordinary humans cannot decide for themselves and they should follow a prophet who carries the words of god. You just change the place of prophet with a party.
Class conscious workers are NOT denied freedom, denied information, etc. as class conscious workers act in the class interests of the proletariat and as such work hand in hand with the proletarian government and party which both also act in the class interests of the proletariat. A class conscious worker then joins the party and the state and follows their line and adjusts it from within. They must not be tamed, but reactionary workers must be tamed. They do not become ideologically vulnerable to other classes if no classes but the proletariat or any at all exist are "controlled" by them. The others that have decided for them are acting in the class interests of the proletariat, if they have an issue then they are objective to the class interests of the proletariat and their fulfillment and ergo are an enemy. If they "themselves lack the class consciousness to refute bourgeoisie [sic] ideas" then they would not be Socialists, Communists, nor a part of the state or party in the first place. Boom. The only religious way of thinking is yours. Yes, and Marxism-Leninism believes that ordinary people cannot decide for themselves because they can only achieve trade union consciousness and thus need a vanguard party to guide them and achieve class consciousness. Yes, they should follow a prophet who carries the words of god, change the place of prophet for party, so just as Socialists and Communists follow Marx and Engels, or as Lenin speaks of Marx and Engels' words FOR them you mean? Remember that pathetic "argument" you had on the question of Marx, Engels, and prophets above? You just destroyed it your own argument yourself. Good job. :laugh:



Non proletarian ideas are rarely taught by ideologists .An ordinary worker doesn’t know much about different ideologies.
That's all I need to show that the party and state are enough and correct. Good job arguing against yourself, again.



Different ideas rise from everyday life. If workers are kept backward and ignorant by those who rule FOR them, they will carry bourgeoisie ideology and its cultural values like selfishness, putting personal profit over anything else, superstitions and … these workers are not only unable to create a better society, they are also capable of selling class interests for personal profits.
Actually, in the case of every Socialist and Communist country, the party and state did not carry bourgeois ideology but actually proletarian ideology. You are distorting history. Now according to you the USSR et al. were Dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie and preaching bourgeois ideologies while the US et al. were proletarian Socialist countries preaching Communists and Socialism! Simply fucking laughable. Fucking distorters of history, they cannot even realize what they are saying. Since what you describe was not the case of the USSR, then your entire argument does not apply to them. The USSR banned all bourgeois cultural influences and decadence, banned the bourgeoisie, banned private property, banned private profits, promoted collective values over selfish and individualistic values, opposed superstitions, etc. It is YOU who is distorting history, not anyone else. People reading this will see themselves. Thus the workers of the USSR were able to create a better society and are also not capable of selling class interests for personal profits (as if such a thing is even possible).



Besides, how can anyone deny access to information from people?
Censorship. Yes, it's a thing, google it.



even if assume its possible, it demands extreme measures against free exchange of information.
Yes, and the issue here? No issue.



A government which tries to do so, should ban the internet, satellite TV, newspapers, books, Radios, traveling abroad and … by doing so, it destroys advancements achieved under capitalism and takes back people to pre capitalist formations.
Three words: USSR and China. Internet, satellite TV, newspapers, books, radios, etc. can be restricted to the government. Do remember that such a measure is only necessary in the case of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.



People will be reduced to serfs who have no technical skills or class consciousness, ready to accept super exploitation and violation of their rights. This has happened in North Korea.
You have no idea what a serf is do you? Do you honestly fucking think a serf is defined by lacking access to the internet, TV, radios, books, etc.? This is more proof that you have nothing to do with Marxism and no idea about Marxism. No technical skills? What the FUCK does censorship have to do with technical skills or class consciousness? Super-exploitation? What the fuck does that have to do with censorship? Violation of their rights? Marxists have time and time said, FUCK their rights. North Korea is an extreme form of Stalinism, something which Khrushchev did away with in the USSR.



During the pervious social struggles, oppressed people only had to follow their instincts in order to create a new social-economical formation. An old form of exploitation was replaced by a new one in pervious struggles. but during the transmission of capitalism to socialism a change takes place which is essentially different, former society which was built on basis of exploitation and had worked under its rules for thousands of years, suddenly tries to replace not only the form but basis of pervious society. If workers merely follow their instincts during their lives, they can only achieve trade unionism which is based on creating better conditions under the current system. but class conscious elements of present society follow scientific methods for creating a new system without exploitation. Its not surprising to see that the most conscious revolutionaries are those who are more active in present society and live under bombardment of bourgeoisie ideas, while if more freedom meant more vulnerability to bourgeoisie ideas, then the isolated workers who live in remote areas would have been more protected against bourgeoisie ideas. The science which is needed for construction of a new social-economical formation cannot be achieved and utilized under censorship which supports dogmas. If churches had managed to repel the sins with censorships and dogmas, you could have hopes to repel the influence of different classes with whose methods.
I barely understood anything from that broken English. Anyway, based on what I could understand from that nonsense.. First of all stop talking about science because you have nothing to do with science. Secondly, your entire logic is baseless and can be trumped by the simple fact that disconnected and rural individuals are acting outside and on the external structure of Capitalism rather than within it. They have no interests to do anything because they are barely, as you said, affected by it. however, class conscious revolutionaries are daily affected by Capitalism and thus understand the issues with Capitalism and thus react to it. More freedom is what led to the revolutionaries opposing Capitalism, not more censorship. Censorship prevents any revolutionaries from obtaining material, organizing, and rallying. Indeed if workers today follow their instincts they can only achieve trade union consciousness. It is freedom which gives rise to elements that oppose Capitalism, elements such as the Communists, purely because Capitalism is the ruling and dominant mode of production. Resistance only comes against ruling establishments, not non-existence establishments. In the case of Capitalism, you find opponents of Capitalism coming to the fore with freedom of speech while the supporters of Capitalism being either unaffected or not rallying. Freedom of speech, press, etc. only act in the interests of the opposition. A ruling and dominant class ALREADY has its media, speech, etc. provided for even under censorship; they already have what they need and the entire system is subjected to them. In the case of Socialist countries, speech, press, etc. would be controlled by the state. Who would want access to the press, speech, etc. OTHER than the Socialists/Communists who ALREADY have their speech, press, etc.? The opposition, i.e. the Capitalists, the bourgeoisie, the Nazis, the Fascists, the reactionaries, and so on who do NOT have their freedoms. To give them any freedoms under Socialism is to give them a means by which to act AGAINST the Socialist state and in favor of reaction and the counter-revolution. You are thus nothing more than an anti-Communist hiding in a closet, an anti-Communist that wants to give freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press to the fucking bourgeoisie, Capitalists, Fascists, Nazis, etc.!



A progressive activist knows that he is holding a more powerful ideology which if its taken to people, reactionary ideologies cant stand against it. So he supports freedom in order to present his ideas to people. but a reactionary knows that his ideology only works if people are kept backward and ignorant, thus, he supports censorship.
Reactionary ideologies can't stand against it? Kid, I could destroy any argument you make from almost any ideology of your choice. I can destroy your nonsense using purely CAPITALIST arguments or even FASCIST arguments even. It depends on the individual in the debate, his level of knowledge, his education, his debating skills, his arguments, his public appearance, and bias. Even if one person has the correct idea but is unable to present his ideas properly and is destroyed on every single corner by various means then no one would follow him and thus reactionary ideas WILL stand against it. This is what happened in Germany with the KPD, SPD, and Nazis as well as many other countries. A Communist needs freedom when he is in a BOURGEOIS country, but needs to do away with freedom when he is in SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST countries (not communism, Communist). Freedom of speech and the press ONLY give freedom to the opposition as under censorship the ruling class already has freedom while the opposition does not. Communism and Socialism were preached in the USSR, as soon as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which you SUPPORT and yet CRITICIZE as revisionism, were implemented the whole system came falling apart. Thus you are contradicting yourself and destroying your own arguments at the same time.




Yeah, good luck doing so when the Nazis, Capitalists, Fascists, anti-Communists, etc. preach their own and destroy your reactionary system of Utopianism. We've seen what has happened in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY with the Communists almost ALWAYS receiving minority votes with the opposition winning in every country iwth freedom of speech, the press, etc.


[quote] If people see correct ideas and correct practices, they will follow the communists.
And that's why Communist Parties are always minorities? Good job. What a fool.



Bolsheviks and communist party of China managed to unite millions of people behind them, those were class conscious people not mercenaries who applied censorship and didn’t knew or cared about its reason.
LOL? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? The Bolsheviks and the Chinese applied the most BRUTAL censorship in history, they suppressed their opposition, killed their opposition, took part in show trials, exiled their opposition, created Red Terrors, suppressed freedom of speech, suppressed the freedom of the press, suppressed the freedom of assembly, and they DID NOT UNITE MILLIONS, they always were a minority but they gradually increased that minority and won their wars. They never were majorities nor did they ever win any parliamentary democracies. The Bolsheviks lost the elections even in certain Soviets and instead closed them down and imposed the proletarian class rule through revolution, something which you oppose. Again YOU ARE THE FUCKING DISTORTER OF HISTORY. Now the Bolsheviks and thew Chinese to this guy are pro-freedom of speech, pro-freedom of the press, anti-censorship, and so on! Fucking hell, I've seen bad and stupid shit, but not like this shit.



Besides, if you believe that ordinary people are like animals who need a shepherd , why do you bother to be a shepherd for them? Why don’t you try to take care of sheeps instead? Is shepherding humans more beneficial than sheeps or there is another reason?
Shepherding people is not the same as shepherding sheep unless you want to point me to any proletarian sheep, any sheep building cities, any bourgeois sheep, or any sheep capable of anything but eating grass, shitting grass, sleeping, and dying.



That’s what all of Marxists do. Means of production can be governmental but utilized for the benefit of a small minority. For example if railroad and trains are owned by a government (which may call itself “socialist”), this has nothing to do with the system which those means of production work underneath it. If you claim otherwise, then you also admit that governments of Bonaparte and Bismarck were socialist. Under this system workers sell their force of labor to the owner of means of production, the owner utilizes their labor in order to produce something more than workers wages (surplus value). This is exactly what happens under capitalism. If the owner is called government instead of private sector, this changes nothing. Engels clearly explained this in “Anti-Duhring”.
I already destroyed this nonsense when Ismail brought it up, see my reply: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2624716&postcount=41



I see you cant wait for your hellish utopia to start the censorship because you already censored my writings! In my last sentence I wrote “means of production didn’t belonged to them on paper but were actually working for their profit.” In other words: means of production actually belonged to government, bureaucrats and their managers. Two conditions for existence of capitalism (1- existence of “free” workers who their only way of life is selling their force of labor 2- private ownership of means of production) still exists. if the means of production are called governmental instead of private, this wont change the fact that they work for benefits of a small minority not the workers.
They do not work for a small minority because that small minority is NOT RECEIVING THE FUCKING PROFITS AS PRIVATE INTERESTS. The profits are entirely going to society, infrastructure, production, distribution, the military, and the nation. It is on this very basis that you entire argument is nothing more than bullshit itself and is destroyed. The case of a small minority owning the government and thus all government-owned means of production would only be Capitalist if the profits go to that small minority for its own private interests, but since that is not then case then you are not only wrong but have NOTHING to do with Marxism and class theory. I also did not censor any of your bullshit, to censor your shit I would require to shut you up, but I find this to be too easy and ridiculous to do so. You skipping my entire arguments, entire paragraphs, arguing against yourself, being easily proven wrong, etc. is not worth censoring anything when I can show people just how wrong and ridiculous your shit is and thus destroy your position and arguments entirely. Nevertheless, the conditions you presented for Capitalism... Condition 1 exists in Socialism and Communism, in your system. Condition 2 did not exist in the USSR nor in any similar countries. Thus the USSR had nothing to do with Capitalism, the same applies to the other Communist/Socialist countries (Not communist, Communist). The means of production belonged to society but were managed, planned, and held by a public entity that represents the class interests of the proletariat and the proletariat itself, this is the basis of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Socialism. It is not a matter of "calling" them anything, it is a matter of what they actually are - they are not private property. You have no fucking idea what private ownership of the means of production is.



Governmental budgets say otherwise.
Oh really?



Supporting conditions which lead to aggravation of class struggle while its possible for proletariat to pursue and hope to accomplish its alternative is one thing, supporting reaction is another thing. Supporting reactionary trends worsens the conditions for worker class and destroys the independent policy of proletariat. if someone stands against the demands of workers for better conditions during a strike, he automatically supports reaction. Workers get disappointed of struggle, their associations will fall apart and they will hate the person who stood against them, even if he tells them about an imaginary utopia.
And you do not even realize that I support the former in the first sentence. i do not support reaction, I support conditions that aggravate the class struggle. What increase the class struggle? The class struggle itself. When you fight for reforms and actually achieve them then you do NOT aggravate the class struggle but you minimize it and soften it to such an extent that workers will abandon it in favor seeking reforms from Capitalism and the bourgeoisie. When reforms are achieved, the class struggle is severely affected in a negative light and is not aggravated. Workers would be much more content with the reforms and we'd reach such a society as the one we have today with the workers having no reason to reach a revolution, no reasons for Socialism, and find Capitalism to be superior to Socialism. What these reforms have done is make Capitalism more comfortable and easier for the workers rather than aggravate the class struggle and force a revolution. Better conditions must never be achieved under Capitalism, they must only be achieved under Socialism. By achieving better conditions under Capitalism, you make Capitalism hospitable and thus there would no longer be any reason for Socialism. Oh and I never said that I am going to stand in the way of anyone.



This Is logically incorrect. Means must be proper to aims. No one can reach the goal of communism without using proper means. Not any means can be used for that purpose. Utilization of certain means, pushes away the final goal and if this tendency continues, in time, final goal will be forgotten or it changes to something different. As I explained before, you don’t support communism, your goal is a hellish utopia and your means are proper to your goal.
Look who's talking. Firstly, the means indeed must be relevant to the aims. Supporting reforms DOES NOT lead to revolution, it leads to a reformed Capitalism that justifies reformism as a viable alternative and entirely disregards revolution and Socialism. If you want Socialism then you CANNOT fight for reform and achieve them as the means (reforming Capitalism) are NOT relevant to the ends (ending Capitalism and achieving Socialism). On the other hand if you do not fight for reforms and instead aggravate the class struggle (means) you hasten the end of Capitalism (end) and make Socialism a viable alternative. You do not destroy something buy making it look good or make it hospitable, but by making it inhospitable and a monster. Secondly, your tendency (reformism) continued regardless of the goal and observe what you have achieved: nothing more than a subdued proletariat, no revolution, and the victory of Capitalism. Good job. The final goal was abandoned and changed into something different: reforming Capitalism. Thirdly, I support Communism but only with the proper material conditions for it, it is you who supports a Dystopian hell of a system as I have proven.



A proletarian party changes the spirit of people who have been accustomed to exploitation and oppression by struggling for immediate improvements. Without this struggle and the organization and consciousness which arises from it (and are also the proper material conditions for revolution), people can get adapted to everyday exploitation and oppression and see these as normal and unchangeable things. A party which stands outside of this struggle and promises an utopia after a revolution, is not essentially different than prophets who promise heaven after death.
Any and all achieved immediate improvements destroy any need for an alternative to a broken system because they system is no longer broken. The struggle and organization that arises from it? Fuck that, fuck that struggle and organization that wants to fight for reform, all I care about is a struggle and organization that realizes that Capitalism is a BROKEN SYSTEM THAT CANNOT BE REFORM and instead fights for Socialism and Communism. YOU, as ANY others who support reforms in one form or another (even Lenin), are reformists. I am not a reformist. People cannot get adapted to everyday exploitation if it's on the level and scale of the early 20th century, 19th century, 18th century, etc. BEFORE the reforms that changed all that and pacified the proletariat. It was these systems and their exploitation that LED to the mass labor movements, they did not adapt nor get accustomed. You can never get adapted to exploitation and oppression, but you can be alleviated if you have hope for REFORMING it and thus stick with the system whilst fighting for reforms, as in your case. It is only when reforms are achieved and fought for instead of Socialism and Communism that people adapt and get used to Capitalism and see it as "normal and unchangeable", but this is NOT the case when they are being super-exploited, underpaid, barely able to eat, are being crushed, and are living on the brink of poverty. Again, that's the reason why there were HUGE labor movements in the 19th, and early 20th century which later on died and collapsed after the reforms. A party must never stand outside of a struggle, but it must stand outside of a REFORMIST struggle in favor of a REVOLUTIONARY struggle. Oh and your false analogy in that last sentence? Are you seriously fucking claiming that revolution is death by equating "utopia after revolution" to "heaven after death"? And thus you show yourself to be the reformist you really are.



You say that :

1- people are ignorant and cannot gain enough class consciousness.
2- you are not going to struggle for immediate improvements under the current system.
3- your goal is revolution and communism.

So how can your goal be accomplished when stupid people don’t support you and you cannot give them a reason for doing so? Will they agree to support you if you promise them a utopia? Utopias which pervious prophets had promised people were better than your hellish one.
People on their OWN cannot achieve anything but trade union consciousness, i.e. reformism as in your case. We must never support such tendencies. We must instead use the bad working conditions as a catalyst for revolution. Stupid people will support us when they are oppressed, exploited, have no rights, etc. and thus desire an alternative. We present them with Socialism and Communism. They follow us and overthrow Capitalism. They have every reason to destroy Capitalism and replace it with Socialism or Communism when they are being fucked over by Capitalism, but when that Capitalism is reformed then they are NOT being fucked over by Capitalism and thus have no reason to support Socialism but actually reform Capitalism and fight a reformist struggle.



The logical result is : your goal is something other than communism and your means are proper to a non proletarian purpose.
How the fuck does that follow from anything? That is a non-sequitur.



The reason is : leaders of those movements didn’t tried to convince people by promising a utopia to them. They lead the everyday struggle for reforms while they explained the necessity of final aim to people. today, only those organizations and parties which hold a similar policy have popular support among masses, while those who sit outside of struggle and promise utopias, are tiny sects which no one takes them seriously.
Yeah, look how that worked out in every single country with its labor movements that did that. The difference with the Bolsheviks was that they IGNORED AND SHUNNED the reformists and instead fought for the SOVIETS and demanded SOCIALISM, they did not fight for the Provisional Government and ask it for reforms, they fucked it over and put in another alternative. They did not go ask Kerensky for land, peace, and bread, they ditched them and instead adopted the Soviets and called for Socialism as the only means by which to achieve their demands. No one takes them seriously today because the material conditions for revolution were DESTROYED by reformists who made Capitalism hospitable and much more preferable and safe than any other alternative. Workers today in advanced and developed countries have absolutely NO reason to fight for Socialism or Communism.



If capitalism was able to provide majority of people with consistent improvements, then there was no need for a social revolution. Communists explain the inconsistent nature of reforms under capitalism and the necessity of changing the system.
And why the fuck do you think there are no social revolutions in First World Capitalist countries today or in the past except Germany with a failed revolution of a minority? Communists speak of the inconsistent nature of CAPITALISM and the necessity to change the system, you speak of the CONSISTENCIES of reforms as a VIABLE MEANS for a peaceful evolution to Socialism whilst also admitting that it is impossible and a revolution is necessary but also unnecessary if it can be avoided! What the fucking shit is this?



They depend mostly on foreign technology, technicians and workers. Not much process takes place in these countries. crude oil is exported, processed abroad and imported again as petrochemicals. The workers who lose their jobs as a result of Dutch disease, are much more than those who are employed in extraction industries.
Foreign technology, et.c which they buy and adopt into their own countries thanks to their oil. Dutch disease is a rare phenomenon that has only been observed in barely a few countries, as I have shown. The oil-based countries such as the Arabian countries are turning towards the extraction of oil and the services sector (the largest), IIRC and thus jobs are still being created if not in production then in other sectors.



Im not going to argue any further about this. Its clear how these economies work. Anyone how is interested can read about the Dutch disease. Countries with low population can distribute the money from oil among people and turn people to parasites who live happily by selling their raw materials, buying goods from abroad and importing cheap workers who do their works. but the result of Dutch disease is deadly for those countries which have a high population.
Apparently it is not clear for you. The Dutch disease is a rare phenomenon that has barely been observed in a few countries. People do not turn into parasite by SELLING their oil and importing products and workers. They become parasites when they produce NOTHING and receive anything in return.



If wages are higher in advanced countries its because worker movement has forced the bourgeoisie to recognize some rights for workers, including a minimum wage proper to living standards in that country. If there was no worker movement, there was no reason for bourgeoisie to pay workers more than 19th century.
Yes, meaning that the workers fucked themselves over by buttressing Capitalism and supporting it through reforms that make it a viable system to live under rather than fight for Socialism and Communism. If workers were not paid more, they would still be super-exploited and the material conditions for revolution would still be existent with the labor movements also being existent and calling for Socialism as the reforms would not have been met from the 19th century to today.



Yet he did not purchased drillers and prefers pickaxes. Because he preferred human labor (which cost him almost nothing) to productive machines.
No, it's because he had no money and they costed initial capital which he did not have. No one prefers human labor without the proper tools as opposed to human labor with the proper tools, otherwise he's be having you dig out shit with your hands rather than tools. The mere fact that he gave you tools shows that he wanted increased production through extra-labor means. If he had the means, he would have purchase drills but they have a high cost.



See “Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html)”. Its funny to see how you accuse others for not reading but you are unaware of this important book yourself.
Still waiting for the excerpt.



Why? If workers unite and refuse to work under bad circumstances, bourgeoisie has to pay them a higher wage. The workers in undeveloped countries accept these jobs because they are backward, oppressed and not united. This is the only reason which makes outsourcing profitable.
If workers refuse to work under bad conditions then the bourgeoisie would find it unprofitable and would thus not open their factories in the first place. This lack of supply would severely increase the prices of products until it is profitable again. The market fixes itself. Worker without jobs cannot last longer than employers with closed factories, this was made clear on the issue of general strikes by Trotsky in "Terrorism and Communism". Workers in underdeveloped countries accept these jobs not because they are backwards, oppressed, and disunited, etc. but because the jobs offered pay much more and are much more profitable for them than their previous jobs otherwise they would not work there.



Outsourcing leads to unemployment in advanced countries and as a result more competition for getting the jobs among workers. more competition means that workers will accept lower wages, higher work hours and violation of their rights. If this process continues, in time, the nightmare of existence of hungry, unorganized and backward workers in advanced countries will become true. It has already became close to reality in some parts of Europe like Greece, Spain, Italy and … if its close but not exactly the reality, its only because of resistance of worker movement.
The outsourced jobs that pay for less than the minimum wage in First World countries were already being paid for with a minimum wage (bare minimum possible) and thus numerous other alternatives exist to such jobs in advanced countries. Competition is not the same between employers as not all of them are competing for the same jobs and positions, those who were affected by outsourced jobs can find jobs in other minimum wage paying firms. Even then, they are still propped up by social security and welfare as well as cheap goods which they can access with their limited income. More competition outside of REGULATION leads to lower wages, higher working hours, etc. but by law they cannot do so and thus you entire argument is bullshit. No such nightmare will ever come true because through outsourcing, the native population of the countries that have been outsourced to will develop themselves and will organize and demand higher wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions thus forcing the outsourcing companies to outsource to yet another country, develop it, it backlashes, and keep doing so until they run out of countries for outsourcing. What happened in Greece was austerity measures due to government regulation killing the country and the economy, the same goes with Spain and Italy (IIRC).


[continued]

[Theophys]

[continued]



Im not going to answer those claims. I only repeated them to expose the person who makes these claims!
Thus you concede the point. Good job.



Thinking is banned for people because pharaoh does that for them!
That has nothing to do with anything. You disregard my argument and make no argument yourself.


Monarchy, cult of personality, absolutism, dogmatism, escapism, autarchy and …
Monarchy? Not at all. Cult of personality? Not in all of them, the cult of personality is not unique to pre-Capitalist formations but also existed in post-Capitalist formations such as in the case of Socialist/Communist countries. Absolutism? Not at all. Dogmatism? Existent in every centralized government. Escapism? What the fuck is that? Autarky? And what the fuck is wrong with this? Do you even know what Autarky is? "Autarky is the quality of being self-sufficient. Usually the term is applied to political states or their economic systems. The latter are called closed economies.[1] Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. Autarky is not necessarily economic. For example, a military autarky would be a state that could defend itself without help from another country. Autarky can be said to be the policy of a state or other entity when it seeks to be self-sufficient as a whole, but also can be limited to a narrow field such as possession of a key raw material."



This does not refute the fact that a formal institution can exist legally on paper but with no rule in running society. Soviets were exactly like this since early 1920s.
Now hopefully you understood what a formal insitution is, but I doubt it seeing as you used in the same manner as a "legally on paper" bullshit. But no, the Soviets still had a lot of power and ruling in society during the Congresses, they elected the delegates, they put forawrd legislation, etc. they even banned the purges amongst other things.



Then what would be the logical and practical conclusion?
Let's see.



1- Taking away authority from soviets and turning them to organizations which are praised on paper but have no one weight in practice.
No.



2- Turning soviets from popular organizations into small circles of officials and bureaucrats.
And no.



No I didn’t said that. I wasn’t interested in extending the life of USSR at all. since it was a social imperialist power, I supported revolution against it. freedom of speech and rights wouldn’t extend the life of such backward bourgeoisie dictatorships, on the contrary, they shorten their lives. Proletariat had an alternative for the future after USSR and Bourgeoisie had a different alternative. I supported a proletarian revolution against the ruling class of USSR but since workers were kept backward and divided, the force behind the proletarian alternative wasn’t strong enough to defeat the bourgeoisie.
Liar. You did say that. I already quoted that and proved it with your OWN FUCKING WORDS. You aren't interested in extending the life of the USSR, the first and greatest proletarian society and state in history, because you are a fucking ANTI-COMMUNIST and NOTHING MORE. Social imperialist power? That's what Engels praised on the question of the Slavs as long as the social imperialist power was PROGRESSIVE. The USSR was NOT a fucking backward bourgeois dictatorship, you do not have the slightest idea of what "backward" "bourgeois" nor "dictatorship" even mean. You are an anti-Communist that does not know a Socialist country even if it slapped him in the face. That's why you call the USSR a "backward bourgeois dictatorship", and nothing more. You just said, "I supported revolution against it", thus YOU SUPPORTED A REVOLUTION AGAINST THE USSR., you are acting against the class interests of the proletariat, you are acting against Socialism, you are a counter-revolutionary, you are anti-Communism, you do not belong on this forum. You need to be by every means restricted. You opposing the USSR is much more severe than opposing the Paris Commune. You wanted a proletarian revolution against a PROLETARIAN STATE? Are you fucking KIDDING ME? There was no proletarian revolution against the proletarian state because the proletariat had its OWN STATE, the only revolution that occurred was a BOURGEOIS counter-revolution, the one that YOU support.



About Hungary I wrote: “If people were able to freely express their wants and need and decide for themselves, the uprising couldn’t have happened.” Peoples ability to express their ideas and making decisions would have meant removal of servants of Russian social imperialism without use of violence. If this ability was combined with class consciousness and organization of proletariat, it would have meant peaceful establishment of socialism. But since the puppet government of Hungary was too reactionary to fulfill the demands of 1956 protesters which most of them didn’t even contradicted with its existence, it had to resort to absolutism and use of reactionary violence.
The "servants of Russian social imperialism" are nothing more than the progressive revolutionaries acting against the reaction of capitalism. The Russians in the case of the USSR were the progressive Germans and Magyars who had and were justified in assimilating the Hungarians (Magyars) who were the reactionary Slavs, quite ironically. Good job on your anti-Marxism there. The Russian social imperialists were the proponents and basis of the Socialist USSR, the first and greatest proletarian achievement to date, the very one which you oppose as a counter-revolutionary anti-Communist. Peaceful establishment of Socialism? Socialism was ALREADY established there for fuck's sake. I have already proven and shown you the demands themselves to be reactionary, not the proletarian government of Hungary to be reactionary and you had shat the fuck up when I did. Remember when I brought forward the demands and showed you the lovely reactionary bullshit you support? Exactly. Absolutism? Yes, absolutism as in the case of something called the DICTATORSHIP of the Proletariat by using violence AGAINST reactionaries.



A peaceful socialist evolution is possible in a situation which I explained before
Reformist, revisionist, anti-Marxist, do I even have to list all the labels?



(1- overpowering class conscious proletariat which bourgeoisie is not able to stand against it
Thus a revolution.



2- favorable international conditions).
Thus a revolution.


Neither of the above has anything to do with a "peaceful socialist evolution" which you ALSO denied to ever being possible as the bourgeoisie, you claimed, will prevent them and oppose them.



Of course, communists don’t postpone their aims and they don’t form their tactics on the assumption of a peaceful socialist evolution. They just consider that as a possibility and ready themselves and the people which they lead for other possibilities as well.
But anti-Communists like yourself do by fighting for reforms whilst CLAIMING ON PAPER that they support Socialism and thus lead to the reformation of Capitalism and buttressing it, thus keeping the working class clinging to Capitalism. Good job. A peaceful evolution is NOT a possibility, to hold it to be so is a rejection of revolutionary Marxism and the class struggle.



If freedom of speech is recognized, contradictions within the ranks of people can be solved by discussion and democratic ways. If not, they grow to an antagonistic level where they can only be solved by violence. Even in capitalist countries where there is freedom of speech, there are less racial or religious conflicts than undemocratic countries.
Solving contradictions through discussion and democratic ways? What fucking revisionist bullshit is this? Contradictions CANNOT be solved through discussion and democracy, but only through the victory of ONE SIDE over the OTHER. They are IRRECONCILABLE AND ANTAGONISTIC CONTRADICTIONS and nothing more. Contractions can never be reconciled excepted with the victory of one side over the other. If freedom of speech is recognized with severe contradictions then this will lead to CONFLICT AND WAR, even a CIVIL WAR. Wars and conflicts do not take place because of there are no contradictions, but purely as a RESULT OF contradictions which cannto be reconciled through discussion and democracy, not even in their infancy. Capitalist countries that are advanced have less racial and religious conflicts because of ADVANCEMENT, not because of freedom of speech. Hate speech is still BANNED in many of these countries and prosecuted by law. Freedom of speech without hate speech is NOT freedom of speech but restricted speech.



History has already proven it.
Go ahead and fucking cite it.



If you take away freedom of speech, what other way will be left for solving the conflicts except violence?
Contradictions can never be solved except through forceful assimilation and violence, that's why Marx spoke of revolution as the only outcome of class conflict. Freedom of speech DOES NOT solve the class conflict as you want it to.



If freedom if speech was banned in Germany after the first world war, communists would be the first ones suffering from it. Either Nazis who had more things in common with the ruling bourgeoisie (inside Germany and abroad) would have gained the power faster while facing lesser resistance or another government would have played their historical rule.
That is exactly why freedom of speech must ONLY be banned when the Communists are in power as they are the only ones who are not restricted from freedom of speech and have a monopoly on it. Freedom of speech ONLY and SOLELY benefits the ruling class (whatever may it be, bourgeois or proletarian).



Marx and Engels wrote about communists in General, they didn’t made exceptions about those who have overthrowed bourgeoisie in their country. Those who have done so and have become rulers, have more responsibility about the workers movements of countries which are still far from their purpose.
Hence the Comintern which was abolished by Stalin, the great "leader before revisionism". This, however, does not deny the fat that the USSR needed to defend itself and prioritize itself especially when the world revolution failed. They needed to compromise and could not sit hands folded. Any revolutions to be are worthless in comparison to an already victorious revolution. A victorious revolution must not sacrifice itself for anything, it must strengthen itself in order to support other revolutions. Marx and Engels didn't make any exceptions about the victorious proletariat with the non-victorious proletariat because they never had any victorious proletariat and were still fumbling in theory rather than reality and pragmatism which the USSR had to face. In theory the NEP was reactionary and would have been opposed by Lenin, but reality forced pragmatism and he adopted the NEP in the face of reality. Those victorious proletarians have more responsibility to the world workers movement by firstly ensuring that they themselves continue to exist, become a stronghold of revolution, and at the same time support other revolutions. They are still superior than other workers movements in other countries which have not yet achieved and may never achieve victory, thus they must prioritize themselves.



Marx and Engels supported a possible war with Russia for progression of revolution in Europe and freedom of Slavs. They didn’t sacrificed Slavs for the good of Germans.
Yes, which is exactly why the USSR's "social imperialism" is justified as it is a progression of revolution in the world and freedom of the workers and wasn't a sacrifice of anyone for the good of Russians.



Before the revolution in Russia, Tsarists had gained some colonial privileges in Iran. Iran was divided into two parts by a formal treaty between Russia and England: northern part was sphere of influence of Russia and southern part was sphere of influence of England. These two countries agreed to accept privileges and economical treaties only in their own spheres. After the October revolution, although Bolsheviks could have used this treaty for gaining profits, they openly exposed and canceled it. They even helped the communist party of Iran to fight against the government. Iran was not an exception. Bolsheviks followed this policy everywhere.
And that proves absolutely NOTHING. What about the invasion of Poland and the killing of civilians and workers there? Do you so easily forget it? What about the invasion of Finland? What about the assimilation of the ENTIRE Eastern Bloc by Stalin? You CANNOT get out to his shit of a hole you put yourself in. It was also BEFORE "revisionism" that the people of the USSR resorted to "such ways". Thus, proven wrong, again.



Bolsheviks were willing to end the war and did their best to end it as soon as possible, although Trotsky disturbed their work. No serious person can blame them for defending themselves before a peace was signed while they were not willing to fight in the first place. “proletarians and peasantry” who had joined the whites were not brothers of revolutionaries but their enemies because they had betrayed their class. only a person whose purpose is distortion of history can equalize the war against whites in Russia with the massacre of communists in Indonesia.
Aha! Betrayed their class! And this is exactly why the Hungarian reactionary counter-revolution of 1956 was suppressed and why force was used. Now you justified that event and thus destroyed, AGAIN, you entire argument on this subject. Keep doing this and soon you wi9ll nothing to argue from. The massacre of Communists in Indonesia has nothing to do with the Russian Civil War nor did I EVER equate the two. Furthermore, what the fuck does the massacre of Communists in Indonesia have ANYTHING to do with the subject at hand? Nevertheless, apart from your own distortion of history, the Bolsheviks started a war with POLAND planning to pave them over to reach Western Europe, they killed civilians, proletarians, and even used chemical weapons on civilians. Thus, again, you are wrong. So much for your bullshit. This is too easy.



No normal and decent person is willing to take part in torture and killing of revolutionaries in other countries for profit. Only those who see other people as means of producing profit for them are capable of doing so. No mentally healthy person whose humanity hasn’t been completely taken away by bourgeoisie ideology will accept to give guns to killers and torturers in exchange for some profit. Even capitalist countries prefer to preserve their reputation instead of selling arms to great criminals for a short time profit.
Listen here, you. I told you to "Go ahead and prove that the profits from the exports of the USSR's products were PRIVATE PROFITS for the bureaucrats and their families and was NOT for the country or the public." What do you instead? You give me this non-sequitur bullshit and ENTIRELY ignored what I challenged you to prove. What you replied with above has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING but a restatement of what I already CHALLENGED YOU TO PROVE. I'll be waiting for your next post and expecting a PROPER proof and evidence of your claims.



Did his personality changed over a night?
People changed as soon as the USSR fell apart, if not in the first night then in the first week or the following.



Political views can change over a night but personalities take shape in a long time.
Personalities can very well change overnight depending on the material conditions. If the person was suppressed previously and could not act upon his personalities or in his own personal interests then he cannot do so.



Niazov was raised by revisionists propaganda
You mean the very same revisionist propaganda which glorified the collective, the proletariat, Socialism, Communism, equality, and demonized individualism, bourgeois decadence, and so on? That's what the fuck was being taught in the USSR.



became a member of ruling party which claimed to suppress selfish sentiments while it welcomed a person who prioritized self interests to the lives of people.
The person did not prioritize self interests to the lives of people. You just made the claim, you need to prove it.



the party promoted this pharaoh.
You made the claim, prove it.



The party of the most “educated and dedicated people” let someone with extreme selfishness and with mental problems who wished to build a golden statue of himself to rule over people of Turkmenistan (had people asked for a such ruler?).
And that only took place AFTER the fall of the USSR, not before, thus proving my point. His extreme selfishness was suppressed during the USSR and unleashed after the fall of the USSR as he was able to indulge in such nonsense which I bet you secretly covet in your wet dreams. :)



if the party viewed him as someone who needed to be suppressed, then why did it grant him membership and an important responsibility?
The party did not view him as someone who needed to be suppressed because he was already suppressed by the party, state, and society without the ability to act upon anything UNTIL The fall of the USSR. This is all the proof I need to destroy you - that he only built the statue AFTER the fall of the USSR, not during the USSR.



his sentiments and mental disease were not suppressed, they were only covered before the collapse.
Covered? Yes, that means suppressed. One covers things when they are socially frowned upon and suppressed. Just like you being an anti-Communist counter-revolutionary reformist but covering and hiding that fact because you are on a Leftist forum.



In which free election? New “republic”s are practically monarchies. When the father dies, his sons becomes the new king.
Prove it.



The more I continue reading the positions of Theophys, I become more convinced that he is not a leftist at all and is only here to defame the left.
As I have shown time and time again, it is the other way around.

[Ismail]

You mean the very same revisionist propaganda which glorified the collective, the proletariat, Socialism, Communism, equality, and demonized individualism, bourgeois decadence, and so on? That's what the fuck was being taught in the USSR.On Soviet revisionist education there's a 22-page article which can be read here: http://bannedthought.net/USSR/RCP-Docs/Krasny-1984.pdf

China today has plenty of "communist values" disseminated in its educational system, which matter for little when they're not grounded in anything and practice is obviously stacked against them.

[Questionable]

In other words, owned.Nope. Marx and Engels were clearly anti-racist, I don't care how you splice those quotes to support your own reactionary agenda. Although seeing you get that angry over this while thing is worth it.

I don't need to discuss this with someone who supports Gorbachev, liberal reforms as "socialism," and multi-party systems.. Anyone with a basic understanding of Marxism will know that its tenets are inherently incompatible with the concept of a particular section of the proletariat freeing itself while oppressing another. I don't need an exact quote from Marx saying "Yes guis racism is bad" to know that his system of analysis and his scientific view of socialism would reject these obviously reactionary viewpoints. Although I still stand by those quotes you mangled like a true revisionist, I just want to make it clear that even without them, the anti-scientific nature of racism is incompatible with scientific socialism.

True, I will concede to you that Marx and Engels did have a habit of saying racist things in their letters to each other. This even lead to some theoretical errors; I seem to remember that Marx saw British Imperialism in India as progressive. But to insist that this means Marxism is racist is nothing less than nonsense. They may have been casually racist, homophobic, or sexist in their letters (to a minor degree), but their programmes and theories are incompatible with those reactionary ideals.

Too bad you weren't actually alive during Gorbachev's rules. Guys like you were useful to writing shitty articles about how imperialism was progressive, capitalist reforms were strengthening socialism, etc.

[Theophys]

On Soviet revisionist education there's a 22-page article which can be read here: http://bannedthought.net/USSR/RCP-Docs/Krasny-1984.pdf

China today has plenty of "communist values" disseminated in its educational system, which matter for little when they're not grounded in anything and practice is obviously stacked against them.
China is quite Capitalistic, it has a bourgeoisie, private hiring of labor, private profits, Capitalist markets, and so on. The same did not apply to the USSR at any one stage. Thus, your analogy is false.


Nope. Marx and Engels were clearly anti-racist, I don't care how you splice those quotes to support your own reactionary agenda. Although seeing you get that angry over this while thing is worth it.
For someoen who speaks of "scientific" socialism, you sure do love to ignore reality and evidence when it is slapped in your face and prefer to instead close your eyes and ears whilst shouting "Lalalalalala" out loud. I provided direct and cited quotes and excerpts from Marx and Engels, their works, their letters, and so on that show that they were NOT anti-racist but even racist and yet you said "Marx and Engels were clearly anti-racist, I don't care [...]". If that isn't willful ignorance then I do not know what is. That's the last thing I'd like to see form a "scientific" Socialist. The quotes are there, I did not splice anything and I challenge you to show me where I spliced anything and changed any of the quotes to support my own 'reactionary agenda' (funny how my position, i.e. claiming what Marx and Engels actually said is what they actually said is that).


I don't need to discuss this with someone who supports Gorbachev, liberal reforms as "socialism," and multi-party systems..
Ad hominem logical fallacy. Just because I defend Gorbachev and the rest does not mean that my claims are false or avoidable. You still need to address them, especially since they're direct quotes from Marx and Engels' works which can be verified online as I have provided links to each.


Anyone with a basic understanding of Marxism will know that its tenets are inherently incompatible with the concept of a particular section of the proletariat freeing itself while oppressing another.
No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Nevertheless, I don't see what that has anything to do with anything.


I don't need an exact quote from Marx saying "Yes guis racism is bad" to know that his system of analysis and his scientific view of socialism would reject these obviously reactionary viewpoints. Although I still stand by those quotes you mangled like a true revisionist, I just want to make it clear that even without them, the anti-scientific nature of racism is incompatible with scientific socialism.
Actually you will need such a quote, especially since I have provided quotes stating completely otherwise. I do not care what the revisionists after Marx and Engels have changed or implied through their own additions and revisions of Marxism, I only care, for the sake of argument, about what Marx and Engels themselves said. These "reactionary viewpoints" belong to Marx and Engels, do not think otherwise. I did not mangle ANY quotes and I CHALLENGE YOU to show me a SINGLE mangled quote. Oh and please stop talking about science, you are nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual, nothing more than a Creationist trying to make baseless claims about science. There is absolutely no such thing as scientific socialism, this is coming from a Marxist-Leninist. Marxism and Marxism-Leninism must never, either, be considered as science or you do away with their revolutionary and biased nature in favor of the revolutionary elements of society. Marxism as "scientific socialism" is extremely bias, non-objective, and criticizes all others with various names.


True, I will concede to you that Marx and Engels did have a habit of saying racist things in their letters to each other.
I rest my case. Just do remember that it wasn't just the letters, but in actual works as I have shown above.


This even lead to some theoretical errors
Theoretical errors? You claim you're a Marxist but claim that Marx's own positions are "theoretical errors"? What you're supporting there is thus different from Marx's own views and Marxism as a whole. You're revising Marxism to your own views, butchering it, and mangling it to "support your own position". The only correct position to take here is to admit that Marx and Engels said what they did and you AGREE or DISAGREE with them, but you do NOT call them "theoretical errors" as they came up with the ideology and theory, not you.


I seem to remember that Marx saw British Imperialism in India as progressive.
Yes, same goes for German and Magyar imperialism on the question of the Slavs against the Tsarist Russians. I agree with Marx and Engels on such a position of historical progression and am completely able to defend the USSR and its imperialism from such a standpoint of historical progression over reaction.


But to insist that this means Marxism is racist is nothing less than nonsense.
This has nothing to do with racism, the other quotes, however, have to do with racism. I never claimed that the question of British imperialism is India is a question of racism.


They may have been casually racist, homophobic, or sexist in their letters (to a minor degree), but their programmes and theories are incompatible with those reactionary ideals.
Stop making excuses and apologies. Their programmes and theories are not incompatible, as they included such assessments on racial characteristics and whatnot in their theories and works, but the correct claim to make is that such assessments are not VITAL to their programmes and theories. They are still compatible, but not vital.


Too bad you weren't actually alive during Gorbachev's rules. Guys like you were useful to writing shitty articles about how imperialism was progressive, capitalist reforms were strengthening socialism, etc.
Marx and Engels spoke of imperialism being progressive, good job for a "Marxist". Capitalist reforms? None at all, I challenge you to show me where they instituted CAPITALIST reforms rather than reform Socialism to try to make it work. Gorbachev and Co. were very correct in their line, but they failed during the implementation as I have explained time and time again in this thread. Capitalist reforms would be what happened AFTER the collapse of the USSR, not before. The institution and legalization of private (i.e. bourgeois) ownership of the means of production, ability to hire private labor (by bourgeois Capitalists), ability to extract private surplus value for private interests, existence of free initiative, and so on. I support the economic reforms of Gorbachev but severely oppose his political reforms because I accept the criticisms of Socialism from that aspect, be it on the question of economic calculation, incentives, material conditions, money, remuneration, altruism, problems of organization, problems of democracy (specifically direct democracy and consensus decision-making), knowledge problems, and so on. I build my theories and beliefs on the basis of solutions to those criticisms from a Socialist viewpoint. See my posts in the "Eliminating Scarcity for Luxury Goods" thread on these issues and my position.

[Ismail]

Gorbachev and Co. were very correct in their line, but they failed during the implementation as I have explained time and time again in this thread.What "Co." are you talking about? Alexander Yakovlev became an open anti-communist denouncing the USSR from Lenin onwards, while Eduard Shevarnadze became the bourgeois President of Georgia.

Have you actually read Soviet materials from 1988-1991? The CPSU's last programme was hardly distinguishable from flat-out social-democracy: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cpsu-programme-statement-t142763/index.html?t=142763

[Questionable]

I provided direct and cited quotes and excerpts from Marx and Engels, their works, their letters, and so on that show that they were NOT anti-racist but even racist and yet you said "Marx and Engels were clearly anti-racist, I don't care [...]".You're right, I did somewhat shrug you off. I just don't feel like dealing with it because:

1: Your posts are full of vitrol and it's very unpleasant to communicate with people who behave like children and say things like "OWNED."

2: These quotes are used all the time by reactionaries to say that Marx and Engels supported genocide or whatever. This is all a re-hash and most people who aren't novices to communism know about it already.


Just because I defend Gorbachev and the rest does not mean that my claims are false or avoidable.It just goes to show how shitty your views are.


No True Scotsman logical fallacy.You're free to explain to me how the concept of the working-class liberating itself to socialism is compatible with one section of the worker class discriminating and oppressing another. Since racism is a false ideology tied up to class society, I fail to see how its maintenance can be continued in a classless one.


Actually you will need such a quote, especially since I have provided quotes stating completely otherwise.Sure, I'll just give you a whole book on the subject. Marx and Engels were well-known for saying things ethnocentric things like how the Mexicans deserved to lose against America because they were a "lazy race," but after 1848 their views progressed and they began to support such movements as Sepoy Rebellion, the freedom of the Irish and liberation of African, Asian and Latin Americans from imperialism in direct contradiction to their stances in 1848 on the Mexican and Slavic nations.

http://archive.org/details/oncolonialism00marxuoft

Read up, kiddo.


I rest my case. Just do remember that it wasn't just the letters, but in actual works as I have shown above.And their later works contradict these viewpoints.


You claim you're a Marxist but claim that Marx's own positions are "theoretical errors"?Yes. I don't worship the man as a religious figure like you seem to. If he was wrong about something, he was wrong. Marxism is not an everlasting dogma but an ever-changing theoretical approach to the world. As my above link shows, he himself even abandoned his old views on colonialism. I guess Karl Marx is a heretic to Marxism, eh?


Stop making excuses and apologies.I never began to. There is no excuse or apology in that part you quoted. I simply pointed out how the proletariat oppressing itself in socialism is a ludicrous concept.

Really, you're the self-admitted apologist for Soviet imperialism, you said so yourself in the same message, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me here.

On one last note, I'm pretty confused as to why my opponent is knocking me for calling Marxian socialism scientific. Marx and Engels are the one who described it as that, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them.

[Theophys]

What "Co." are you talking about? Alexander Yakovlev became an open anti-communist denouncing the USSR from Lenin onwards, while Eduard Shevarnadze became the bourgeois President of Georgia.
What's your point? That people never change especially if they become disillusioned as their entire system collapses before their eyes? Numerous Communists stopped being so after the fall of the USSR.


Have you actually read Soviet materials from 1988-1991? The CPSU's last programme was hardly distinguishable from flat-out social-democracy: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cpsu-programme-statement-t142763/index.html?t=142763
If you are to transition from socialism to communism, the state needs to start withering away. A state cannot wither away through authoritarianism and the strengthening of it despite doing away with classes. I see no issue here. Social-Democracy would have been viable as opposed to what they had in that system of theirs. I, however, do not agree with the political reforms.


You're right, I did somewhat shrug you off. I just don't feel like dealing with it because:

1: Your posts are full of vitrol and it's very unpleasant to communicate with people who behave like children and say things like "OWNED."
Not a valid reason, especially if that "OWNED" is backed up properly by an entire post that proves you wrong by Marx and Engels and themselves.


2: These quotes are used all the time by reactionaries to say that Marx and Engels supported genocide or whatever. This is all a re-hash and most people who aren't novices to communism know about it already.
Ad hominem logical fallacy. I do not care "who" uses them for "what" reason, all I care about is that they used them and as such are valid. If reactionaries use them, it does NOT mean that the quotes can be ignored or shrugged off. Most people know about it already? Clearly most people, as in your case, do not. They think that Marx and Engels, ergo Marxism, is from its very basis and core anti-homophobic, anti-racist, and whatnot when it has nothing to do with such things. That, however, does not mean that we cannot be anti-homopohobic and anti-racist, just that you CANNOT claim that Marx, Engels, or Marxism are as such.


It just goes to show how shitty your views are.
Lovely argument. And he was the one to state that my "posts are full of vitrol and it's very unpleasant to communicate with people who behave like children and say things like "OWNED.""


You're free to explain to me how the concept of the working-class liberating itself to socialism is compatible with one section of the worker class discriminating and oppressing another. Since racism is a false ideology tied up to class society, I fail to see how its maintenance can be continued in a classless one.
I do not at all see how racism is tied to class society, that is nothing more than nonsense spewed by Utopian Socialists/Communists who believe that a post-revolutionary society will solve everything with its Everything-Is-Possible (EIP) Utopianism. Racism will always remain as long as people differ in color, that is not an issue. It becomes an issue when political organization, mass movements, etc. take on the banner of racism, racial supremacism, and racial separationism, it is then that they must be taken down. They must be censored before they can even come up with such movements, even if they are working class. Workers do not "self-liberate" anything, they follow a vanguard party or any other party to socialism. Should any racism take place between workers then it is not an issue unless it becomes widespread, political, and organized. For you to not "fail" to see how racism can be continued in a classless society you need to firstly do away with the a priori false assumption which you take for granted that racism is tied to class society and then attempt to understand the actual origin of racism. Only then will you understand anything about anything. Racism originates from personal distaste of certain races for one reason or another, rarely being connected to class unless we're speaking of imperialism with a "White" bourgeoisie and a "Black" proletariat.


Sure, I'll just give you a whole book on the subject. Marx and Engels were well-known for saying things ethnocentric things like how the Mexicans deserved to lose against America because they were a "lazy race," but after 1848 their views progressed and they began to support such movements as Sepoy Rebellion, the freedom of the Irish and liberation of African, Asian and Latin Americans from imperialism in direct contradiction to their stances in 1848 on the Mexican and Slavic nations.

http://archive.org/details/oncolonialism00marxuoft

Read up, kiddo.
I will not read an entire book. You will need to get me the quotes and I'll check them and their context from that page. The views of Marx and Engels did not change, they were still the same but only the material conditions changed. The movements which Marx and Engels support are ones that are in the interests of the proletariat, of progressive countries versus reactionary countries. Marx and Engels, for instance, supported Irish independence because it would lead to revolution in England. Since you have no idea about anything, read this short work as opposed to an entire 300+ page book: http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/marxenglenlor921g.html

Of interest is the opening paragraph which will slap you in the face on the correct Marxist analysis of nationalism which many Utopian "Marxists"/Socialists/Communists do not understand. These individuals treat all national the same. Nevertheless:
"Throughout history, nationalism has taken (1) many different forms (conservative, radical etc), (2) has/is supported by many different social groups (bourgeoisie, working class, etc), (3) has very different political effects (reactionary, progressive). When dealing with nationalism, it is necessary like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Connolly to reject an abstract and timeless theory of nationalism. It was always historical and concrete. The fundamental point is that their analysis of nationalism was always put in terms of (a) the strategic interests of the working class, and thus always emphasised (b) the relation between nationalism and democracy. Marxists have to understand simultaneously the social roots of national struggles and the national content of the class struggle."

And:

"For Marx and Engels, there was nothing intrinsically progressive about Irish nationalism, the right of a nation to self determination is not absolute. Marx and Engels were clearly aware that the relation between England and Ireland was one of oppression. But, Marx's support for the Irish struggle was "not only acted upon feelings of humanity. There is something besides." (404) His support for Ireland’s right to self-determination was based on a class analysis. In the 1840s and 1850s, Marx and Engels believed that Irish freedom would be a by-product of a working class revolution in Great Britain. But in 1869, he wrote:

"Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland." (398)
Why? Marx thought that the English aristocracy maintained its domination at home through its domination of Ireland. "A nation that oppresses another forges its own chains." (255) This is why "to accelerate the social revolution in Europe, you must push on the catastrophe of official England. To do so, you must attack her in Ireland. That's her weakest point. Ireland lost, the British Empire is gone and the class war in England till now somnolent and chronic, will assume acute forms." (404)

Thus, for English workers, "the national emancipation of Ireland is no question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment, but the first condition of their own social emancipation." (408) Therefore the task for socialists was everywhere to put "the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with the Irish." (408) Their position on Ireland was analysed in terms of the European and British revolution. The situation was assessed in terms of its impact on the balance of forces between classes in Europe, Britain and Ireland and how it would increase the class struggle. Regarding the class struggle in Ireland, they arrived at the conclusion that the land question "is not merely a simple economic question but at the same time a national question, since the landlords there ..are..its mortally hated oppressor.""

Until you read that ENTIRE short text you will not understand anything about anything.


And their later works contradict these viewpoints.
Still waiting for you to prove it.


Yes. I don't worship the man as a religious figure like you seem to. If he was wrong about something, he was wrong. Marxism is not an everlasting dogma but an ever-changing theoretical approach to the world. As my above link shows, he himself even abandoned his old views on colonialism. I guess Karl Marx is a heretic to Marxism, eh?
I do not recall speaking of colonialism but of races and homophobia. And in your views, yes, Marx is a heretic to Marxism.


I never began to. There is no excuse or apology in that part you quoted. I simply pointed out how the proletariat oppressing itself in socialism is a ludicrous concept.
Here's the part that I had quoted: "They may have been casually racist, homophobic, or sexist in their letters (to a minor degree), but their programmes and theories are incompatible with those reactionary ideals."

What the FUCK does that have to do with "I simply pointed out how the proletariat oppressing itself in socialism is a ludicrous concept"? Absolutely nothing.


Really, you're the self-admitted apologist for Soviet imperialism, you said so yourself in the same message, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me here.
Yes, following Marx and Engels I am indeed justifying Soviet imperialism as progressive in the historical evolutionary process and thus must be by EVERY means supported and defended just as Marx and Engels supported the progressive Germans and Magyars against the reactionary Tsarists on the question of the assimilation of the Slavs.

[Ismail]

What's your point? That people never change especially if they become disillusioned as their entire system collapses before their eyes? Numerous Communists stopped being so after the fall of the USSR.Was anyone in the USSR and Eastern Europe "waving the red flag to oppose the red flag" (to use a Maoist term) then? If you're going to say "oh well the USSR was on the verge of doom" to somehow excuse Volkogonov considering Lenin a vain butcher of the Russian people and Yakovlev calling class struggle an absurd concept, then you can't condemn anyone, Yeltsin included, because at any point in their lives they supported Communism on a personal level.

What about Todor Zhivkov? Not only was he was the most slavishly pro-Soviet leader in Eastern Europe, but in a 1990 interview he basically said that he was bullshitting his "communism" for decades and that praise for socialism and the USSR was just rhetoric. Erich Honecker, to his credit, considered himself a Communist his whole life and defended the doctrines after 1989. This doesn't change the character or class nature of the GDR, but it does show that it is quite possible to bullshit your way as a "Marxist."


If you are to transition from socialism to communism, the state needs to start withering away.And if you think the USSR was transitioning to communism in 1960, much less 1990, then you're a fool.

[Akshay!]

Third World countries need to be developed by First World countries in order to move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism. As for national liberation, national liberation is not something that is always desirable

Imperialism.


Khrushchev, Gorbachev, etc. had no interest in resoring Capitalism, they attempted to reform Socialism to actually make it WORK.

So what is the issue here? Belonging to Social Democracy? He already saw the failure of Soviet Socialism, he tried to reform it by creating cost accountability, pricing mechanisms, gave more freedom to people, gave them the freedom of choice, freed up elections to an extent, made the government more transparent, etc. etc. If his implemented them correctly and people actually followed through then it would have still existed to this day and could have surpassed the West. Gorbachev was not a Capitalist.

Capitalism.

And you say you're a Communist?:laugh:

[hashem]

i think arguing with Theophys is just wasting time. he has no firm position and resorts to ridiculous distortions.

[Brutus]

For the top and middle quote, he is quite correct.

[Ismail]

For the top and middle quote, he is quite correct.No he isn't. Imperialism and colonialism inherently promote underdeveloped and uneven economies. Foreign aid programs and NGOs continue to perpetuate poverty. The idea that the West has to take some sort of paternalistic attitude to the third world, or that natives had to wait for the process of "civilization" to finish, was denounced by Lenin whereas it had strong advocates in the Second International.

Colonialism propped up tribalism, feudalism and quasi-feudal structures (in Swaziland, Uganda, Ghana, etc.), and brought into being in very limited numbers a proletariat which was illiterate and strongly tied to the countryside.

Even the Soviet revisionists didn't go so far as to claim that continued tutelage under colonialism was a "necessary" process, they instead claimed that without the support of the "world socialist system" (i.e. USSR) the various newly-independent states would be unable to oppose imperialism and would instead fall victim to its intrigues. They denounced the practice of self-reliance promoted by the Chinese and Albanians as "un-Marxist" in order to justify the spread of Soviet neo-colonialism on the continent.

[Brutus]

I should have phrased that better- it helps greatly. And I'm not advocating colonialism.

Think about the 5 year plans; the USSR needed blueprints and specialists to aid industrialisation. China's industrialisation was slowed down greatly when soviet engineers were withdrawn.

[Ismail]

I should have phrased that better- it helps greatly. And I'm not advocating colonialism.

Think about the 5 year plans; the USSR needed blueprints and specialists to aid industrialisation. China's industrialisation was slowed down greatly when soviet engineers were withdrawn.And yet Theophys is praising colonialism and actually denouncing decolonization.

It obviously helps if a socialist country in North America or Europe is around to assist revolutionary movements and economies in the third world, but that's not the issue.

[Akshay!]

the USSR needed blueprints and specialists to aid industrialisation.

But that's quite different from


Third World countries need to be developed by First World countries in order to move forward

[Old Bolshie]

The question here is how a troll who openly defends colonialism and capitalist reforms (not to talk about other things he defended in past discussions like forced assimilation) wasn't banned or at least restricted by RevLeft Mods.

[JoeySteel]

Was anyone in the USSR and Eastern Europe "waving the red flag to oppose the red flag" (to use a Maoist term) then? If you're going to say "oh well the USSR was on the verge of doom" to somehow excuse Volkogonov considering Lenin a vain butcher of the Russian people and Yakovlev calling class struggle an absurd concept, then you can't condemn anyone, Yeltsin included, because at any point in their lives they supported Communism on a personal level.

What about Todor Zhivkov? Not only was he was the most slavishly pro-Soviet leader in Eastern Europe, but in a 1990 interview he basically said that he was bullshitting his "communism" for decades and that praise for socialism and the USSR was just rhetoric. Erich Honecker, to his credit, considered himself a Communist his whole life and defended the doctrines after 1989. This doesn't change the character or class nature of the GDR, but it does show that it is quite possible to bullshit your way as a "Marxist."

And if you think the USSR was transitioning to communism in 1960, much less 1990, then you're a fool.

Alexander Yakovlev is a great example you brought up before as well. Before his elevation to the leadership of the CPSU, he was the Soviet ambassador to Canada. During that time he was friends with members of Canadian ruling circles including the Trudeaus, lending to one of Pierre's sons the name "Sascha", the diminutive of Alexander in Russian. He was also extremely hostile to so-called Stalinists who were active in promoting Soviet-Canadian friendship and was known to be a right winger as detailed by Michael Lucas in the book "Journey for Friendship between Northern Neighbours."

[Theophys]

Imperialism.
Say that to Marx and Engels, I merely support their position. Just do remember the complete context:

"Third World countries need to be developed by First World countries in order to move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism. As for national liberation, national liberation is not something that is always desirable"


Capitalism.
Hm? Do you have ANY idea what Capitalism is? I already proved that the USSR, at no point, was Capitalist by providing numerous arguments that showed the severe BASIC differences between a Capitalist mode of production and that of the USSR. The only reason people call the USSR Capitalist is to distance themselves from the USSR purely as a No True Scotsman logical fallacy by thinking that all profit is the same, all exploitation is the same, all surplus value is the same, all social relations are the same, and numerous other butchery of Marxism in order to TRY, to no avail, to show that the USSR, the Party, etc. were bourgeois Capitalists. See the entire thread. Not one of them was able to prove otherwise.


And you say you're a Communist?:laugh:
Yes.


Was anyone in the USSR and Eastern Europe "waving the red flag to oppose the red flag" (to use a Maoist term) then? If you're going to say "oh well the USSR was on the verge of doom" to somehow excuse Volkogonov considering Lenin a vain butcher of the Russian people and Yakovlev calling class struggle an absurd concept, then you can't condemn anyone, Yeltsin included, because at any point in their lives they supported Communism on a personal level.
After the breakup of the USSR, people changed their views as new information became available which was previously censored. People, varying, changed their views to accomodate the new information available along with the changing circumstances, i.e. the destruction of the USSR. To prove my point, on Volkogonov:

"Through his research in the restricted archives of the Soviet Central Committee, Volkogonov discovered facts that contradicted the official Soviet version of events, and the cult of personality that had been built up around Lenin and Stalin. Volkogonov published books that contributed to the strain of liberal Russian thought that emerged during Glasnost in the late 1980s and the post-Soviet era of the early 1990s.

Although Volkogonov began intensive research into Lenin beginning in 1990, by the late 1980s he was actually already arriving at his own conclusion regarding Lenin's role.[1]

Lenin's archives were housed in the former Central Committee building on Moscow's Staraya Square. Deep in the basement of the huge grey building were shelves held metal boxes that contained all the written records associated with Lenin.[13] Volkogonov explained, "As I saw more and more closed Soviet archives, as well as the large Western collections at Harvard University and the Hoover Institution in California, Lenin's profile altered in my estimation".[13]
Volkogonov always used to say "that in his own mind, Lenin was the last bastion to fall."[13] He said that the turning point was when he discovered one of Lenin's orders calling for the public hanging of Kulak peasants in 1918:[5]

Hang (hang without fail, so the people see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers...Do it in such a way that for hundreds of versts around, the people will see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucking kulaks.[14]"

Yakovlev, I do not support his political positions as I have already claimed that I do not support the political reforms. His existence within the party was contested by conservative Communists.


What about Todor Zhivkov? Not only was he was the most slavishly pro-Soviet leader in Eastern Europe, but in a 1990 interview he basically said that he was bullshitting his "communism" for decades and that praise for socialism and the USSR was just rhetoric.
Bullshitting is not the same as openly being a Capitalsit, anti-Communist, and so on. Bullshitting implies that hte person was censored and was following the party line. No issue here, he can be whatever he wants to be as long as the party finds it acceptable and he follows its line.


Erich Honecker, to his credit, considered himself a Communist his whole life and defended the doctrines after 1989. This doesn't change the character or class nature of the GDR, but it does show that it is quite possible to bullshit your way as a "Marxist."
Bullshitting, again, is not an issue as long as one actually abides and follows Communist principles and the party.


And if you think the USSR was transitioning to communism in 1960, much less 1990, then you're a fool.
Show me where I said the USSR was transitioning to communism in 1960 or 1990. You are the fool who is unable to read. I stated that if there is to ever be a transition to communism then the state needs to be reformed, liberalized, and made less authoritarian as the state withers away rather than be strengthened and reinforced as in the case of Stalin's policies and ruel.


No he isn't. Imperialism and colonialism inherently promote underdeveloped and uneven economies. Foreign aid programs and NGOs continue to perpetuate poverty. The idea that the West has to take some sort of paternalistic attitude to the third world, or that natives had to wait for the process of "civilization" to finish, was denounced by Lenin whereas it had strong advocates in the Second International.

Colonialism propped up tribalism, feudalism and quasi-feudal structures (in Swaziland, Uganda, Ghana, etc.), and brought into being in very limited numbers a proletariat which was illiterate and strongly tied to the countryside.

Even the Soviet revisionists didn't go so far as to claim that continued tutelage under colonialism was a "necessary" process, they instead claimed that without the support of the "world socialist system" (i.e. USSR) the various newly-independent states would be unable to oppose imperialism and would instead fall victim to its intrigues. They denounced the practice of self-reliance promoted by the Chinese and Albanians as "un-Marxist" in order to justify the spread of Soviet neo-colonialism on the continent.
What a fucking bunch of lines. Where the FUCK did I ever support colonialism? I only ever supported imperialism as long as they advance countries, are progressive rather than stagnant or reactionary, are in the interests of the class struggle, are in the interests of the revolution, are following the historical progression and evolution, etc. are NOT AN ISSUE but in fact were DEFENDED and SUPPORTED by MARX AND ENGELS. Go read up on the works of Marx and Engels then come back here. Again, the full context is as such: "Third World countries need to be developed by First World countries in order to move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism. As for national liberation, national liberation is not something that is always desirable"

ANY deviation from those two important bolded parts is NOT something that Marx, Engels, nor I, as a result, support.


The question here is how a troll who openly defends colonialism and capitalist reforms (not to talk about other things he defended in past discussions like forced assimilation) wasn't banned or at least restricted by RevLeft Mods.
Oh hey, the blind anti-Stalinist. I am not a troll; you calling me a troll does not make me one. I defend colonialism as long as it is in the revolutionary and historically progressive sense that Marx and Engels supported. I do not support Capitalist reforms. I defended forced assimilation as what Marx and Engels spoke of, nothing more. You cannot ban or restrict someone who says and supports what Marx and Engels themselves have said using direct, full context, and unchanged quotes and texts. The only "troll" here is you, the one that follows me into every thread with absolutely NO arguments in order to resort to ad hominem logically fallacious attacks.


But that's quite different from
That quote is out of context. Just do remember the complete context:

"Third World countries need to be developed by First World countries in order to move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism. As for national liberation, national liberation is not something that is always desirable"


i think arguing with Theophys is just wasting time. he has no firm position and resorts to ridiculous distortions.
No, you just don't have anything to say. I do not have a firm position but I have firm arguments that I do not go back on unless proven wrong. You have failed that time and time again. Oh and as for distortions, I have shown that you are the one distorting everything. I am not the one calling the USSR, Khrushchev, etc. bourgeois, Capitalists, reactionary, and whatnot. I have defended Stalin against false arguments made by anti-Stalinists just as I have defended Khrushchev against false arguments made by so-called "anti-revisionists" even though I do not support neither Stalin nor Khrushchev. I defend what I find to be true rather than spread lies and bullshit blanket terms and logical fallacies. Anyone that has read my posts from an "objective" light can attest to this. I do not give a shit about any of your names, labels, and nonsense, I only care about what thing are, their context, and whether something is true or not. I NEVER resort to cop-outs such as trying to call the USSR "state capitalist" in order to distance it from my views. That is ridiculous bullshit that the Communist movements constantly falls prey to. The only path to anything is to follow a no-bullshit Marxism.

[Ismail]

After the breakup of the USSR, people changed their views as new information became available which was previously censored. People, varying, changed their views to accomodate the new information available along with the changing circumstances, i.e. the destruction of the USSR. To prove my point, on Volkogonov:And none of what he found contradicted pretty much anything. There's plenty of references in Lenin's Collected Works to employing force, and 10x more references to the theoretical basis of such force. The fact is that he didn't come out of 1991 a "reform communist" or whatever, but a bourgeois nationalist and anti-communist.


Bullshitting is not the same as openly being a Capitalsit, anti-Communist, and so on. Bullshitting implies that hte person was censored and was following the party line. No issue here, he can be whatever he wants to be as long as the party finds it acceptable and he follows its line.He had to bullshit because otherwise the Soviets would have deposed him. He was actually criticized by none other than Gorbachev in the late 80's for seeking close economic ties with the West to the detriment of Soviet social-imperialism.


Bullshitting, again, is not an issue as long as one actually abides and follows Communist principles and the party.Using this logic Roman Malinovsky posed no threat to the Party since he was Lenin's most trusted associates and obeyed the Party line.


Show me where I said the USSR was transitioning to communism in 1960 or 1990.You seem to be insinuating it by going on about how Khrushchev and Gorbachev were reversing "Stalinist" policies and supposedly operating in accordance with Marxism-Leninism.


I stated that if there is to ever be a transition to communism then the state needs to be reformed, liberalized, and made less authoritarian as the state withers away rather than be strengthened and reinforced as in the case of Stalin's policies and ruel.In other words, during the transition to communism the state abandons its proletarian class character, the Party gives up class struggle, and the path of capitalist restoration is wide open.


I only ever supported imperialism as long as they advance countries, are progressive rather than stagnant or reactionary, are in the interests of the class struggle, are in the interests of the revolution, are following the historical progression and evolution, etc.And that applies to absolutely no state in the 20th century, nor did it in the 19th. Just because imperialism and colonialism established the rudiments of capitalist exploitation does not in any way mean, as you said earlier, that they "move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism." India and the African continent are obvious examples of the ridiculousness of your claim.

Furthermore,

"It is the revisionists who have long been asserting that colonial policy is progressive, that it implants capitalism and that therefore it is senseless to 'accuse it of greed and cruelty', for 'without these qualities' capitalism is 'hamstrung'.

It would be quixotism and whining if Social-Democrats were to tell the workers that there could be salvation somewhere apart from the development of capitalism, not through the development of capitalism. But we do not say this. We say: capital devours you, will devour the Persians, will devour everyone and go on devouring until you overthrow it. That is the truth. And we do not forget to add: except through the growth of capitalism there is no guarantee of victory over it...

Resistance to colonial policy and international plunder by means of organising the proletariat, by means of defending freedom for the proletarian struggle, does not retard the development of capitalism but accelerates it, forcing it to resort to more civilised, technically higher methods of capitalism. There is capitalism and capitalism. There is Black-Hundred-Octobrist capitalism and Narodnik ('realistic, democratic', full of 'activity') capitalism. The more we expose capitalism before the workers for its 'greed and cruelty', the more difficult is it for capitalism of the first order to persist, the more surely is it bound to pass into capitalism of the second order. And this just suits us, this just suits the proletariat."
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol 34. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. pp. 438-439.)

[Questionable]

Not a valid reason, especially if that "OWNED" is backed up properly by an entire post that proves you wrong by Marx and Engels and themselves.

Your points are only valid in your own mind, as evidenced by the amount of people in this thread who view you as a laughing stock. I know your fingers are flying to the keyboard to write "AD HOMINEM" at a speed so fast your knuckles may very well disintegrate into powder, but seeing as you're ignoring all contrary evidence and in your own mind you will most likely forever believe that Marxism and racist colonialism go hand-in-hand, the opinions of other educated Marxists who are reading this thread actually provides quite a bit of leverage.

That said, yes, your manner of debate does matter quite a bit in communicating to the audience. Even if your points were valid, which they're not, the fact that you're acting like a thirteen-year-old who is winning at a video game makes you come across as a fool to an audience. It is one of the first things learned in a college public speaking class.

Yes, I'm aware this is not public speaking but a debate between two of us, however there is an audience reading this conversation and deciding who is the victor. Even if your ideas were correct, which again they are not, it would do you no good if the audience interpreted you as an idiot and ignored your message over mine. Ideas do not matter if they have no connection to reality.


They think that Marx and Engels, ergo Marxism, is from its very basis and core anti-homophobic, anti-racist, and whatnot when it has nothing to do with such things. That, however, does not mean that we cannot be anti-homopohobic and anti-racist, just that you CANNOT claim that Marx, Engels, or Marxism are as such.

I can't possibly explain it any more simpler for you. The liberation of all humans is an intrinsic part of scientific socialism. It is the inevitable outcome of communism. There cannot be free white, straight proletariats oppressing homosexuals and blacks during socialism. It's ludicrous.


Lovely argument. And he was the one to state that my "posts are full of vitrol and it's very unpleasant to communicate with people who behave like children and say things like "OWNED.""

I only started being rude after you yourself proved to be an incredibly unpleasant individual. You've earned my disrespect.


I will not read an entire book.

From the way you speak I'm guessing you've probably never read an entire book in your whole life anyway. Why start now, I guess.


Of interest is the opening paragraph which will slap you in the face on the correct Marxist analysis of nationalism which many Utopian "Marxists"/Socialists/Communists do not understand. These individuals treat all national the same. Nevertheless:

I literally disagree with none of what Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Connolly had to say about nationalism in this. Nothing you posted proves your point that "superior cultures" should swallow up "reactionary ones."

I'm honestly flabbergasted here. I simply cannot understand what you're trying to prove to me by posting this. You're posting quotes about Marx and Engels supporting Irish independence to...prove that imperialism is okay? You start off by saying that progressive countries should swallow up reactionary ones, and then you post a bunch of quotes about how it is in the interests of the proletariat to bring down the British Empire by supporting Irish independence. Your two points are not connected in any way. This post is a confusing mess.


And in your views, yes, Marx is a heretic to Marxism.

I don't think you understood what I was going for there. You see, I was teasing you because your approach to Marxism is dogmatic as fuck, therefore the fact that Marx developed his theories and abandoned his support for "progressive" colonialism makes him a heretic to himself. I was not trying to challenge you by stating I was more loyal to Karl Marx or whatever you're implying here.


What the FUCK does that have to do with "I simply pointed out how the proletariat oppressing itself in socialism is a ludicrous concept"?

Because if you believe that racism and homophobia are fully compatible with Marxism, then it must follow that you believe a successful revolution could be carried out based on these theories, which means you must somehow believe that there can be oppression of groups based on certain characteristics in a socialist/communist society. Weird.

All that said, I'm retiring from this discussion. Theophy's main weapon seems to be simply insulting his opponents into submission. He has said nothing to contradict my views on Marxism, and I suspect further debate will lead us around in circles. However, I will be reporting him to the fascist/troll alert thread, because his veiled support for colonialism, imperialism, racism, and homophobia has no place here.

[Point Blank]

Khrushchev (I dare to say, like all Soviet leaders since 'soviet' became a nationality adjective and ceased to mean 'workers' council') was more concerned with defending, expanding the influence, protecting the national interests, ensuring the 'success' of the Soviet Union, rather than with communism/the proletarian revolution/that stuff.

[Ismail]

(I dare to say, like all Soviet leaders since 'soviet' became a nationality adjective and ceased to mean 'workers' council')Speaking of Soviet revisionism, it was under Khrushchev and Brezhnev that the definition of "Soviet" was changed, from a community of nations bound by socialism into a "nation" in order to justify Great-Russian chauvinism.

See for instance: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/sovnatq.htm

[Le Communiste]

Personally, I liked the virgin land campaigns

[Theophys]

And none of what he found contradicted pretty much anything. There's plenty of references in Lenin's Collected Works to employing force, and 10x more references to the theoretical basis of such force. The fact is that he didn't come out of 1991 a "reform communist" or whatever, but a bourgeois nationalist and anti-communist.

Employing force to the extent of implementing execution quotas regardless of a proper trial is not something that all Communists like, specifically Volkogonov. There's a reason why such issues were left in the Soviet archives; they were not published publicly for all. It was with the opening of the Soviet archives that people began seeing Communism in another light and thus changed their views respectively.



He had to bullshit because otherwise the Soviets would have deposed him. He was actually criticized by none other than Gorbachev in the late 80's for seeking close economic ties with the West to the detriment of Soviet social-imperialism.

Exactly, bullshit because he would have been deposed. That is all the proof that I need to show that the USSR at no single moment allowed for any bourgeois ideologies, bourgeois views, or the bourgoeisie to come anywhere near the party or the state. Anyone who attempted to act on that basis would have been, by your own words, "deposed" and thus would have been forced to bullshit, i.e. follow the party line.


Using this logic Roman Malinovsky posed no threat to the Party since he was Lenin's most trusted associates and obeyed the Party line.

Roman Malinovsky was an Okharana agent. This has nothing to do with the other individuals which you mentioned nor the point I made at all. In fact, as long as Roman Malinovsky followed the party line and bullshitted his way through it, then as Lenin said, "If he is a provocateur, the police gained less from it than our Party did." He only became an issue when he betrayed the Bolsheviks and he was dealt with properly. If any of the Soviet politicians had been anti-Communists during the USSR, they had no means by which to do anything on the level of Malinovsky's actions. There was no secret police force such as the Okhrana that would arrest anyone if they did follow the party line. As long as they followed the party line then that is enough. If they are foreign agents then that is another issue, but again, following the party line is enough.


You seem to be insinuating it by going on about how Khrushchev and Gorbachev were reversing "Stalinist" policies and supposedly operating in accordance with Marxism-Leninism.

Reversing Stalinist policies, i.e. the opposite of strengthening and centralizing the state and its authoritarianism, is indeed the means by which a society is to advance from socialism to communism. Ever heard of the simple concept of the "withering away" of the state? I doubt it. Nevertheless, my claim has nothing to do with what you stated. I never stated that the USSR was transitioning to communism in the 1960s and 1970s.


In other words, during the transition to communism the state abandons its proletarian class character, the Party gives up class struggle, and the path of capitalist restoration is wide open.

No. During the transition to communism, there would no longer be any classes, the state need not abandon its proletarian class character but would be in the process of doing so due to changing material conditions, and the party gives up class struggle as soon as classes no longer exist. Anything other than that would be purely political on the international level. The national situation would already have been resolved, any continuation of the class struggle would be an internationalist policy that is purely political to spread the revolution or take the class struggle to an international level even though the class struggle on the national level ended. The USSR no longer had any classes and yet it retained socialism rather than withering the state away and turning towards communism.


And that applies to absolutely no state in the 20th century, nor did it in the 19th. Just because imperialism and colonialism established the rudiments of capitalist exploitation does not in any way mean, as you said earlier, that they "move forward through the historical process from Feudalism to Capitalism and then to Socialism." India and the African continent are obvious examples of the ridiculousness of your claim.

Actually it does, it applies perfectly to the USSR and to the Capitalist countries that would bring Capitalism to the underdeveloped pre-Capitalist nations of the world. Any action that would bring the class struggle and its antagonisms to the fore applies here. A Socialist revolution is much more progressive than a Capitalist imperialism, just as a Socialist imperialism is much more progressive than a Capitalist one. Oh and actually imperialism establishing the rudimentary aspects of Capitalism does by EVERY MEANS lead to the process of moving forward through the historical process. This is not "my" claim, this is Marx and Engels' own claim as I have linked and quoted time and time again. Anything that hastens the class struggle and moves through the historical process is progressive. That is why Engels supported the Magyar and German assimilation and imperialism over the reactionary Russian Tsarism, that's why Marx spoke of the necessity of the independence of the Irish in favor of the English, and so on. Marx and Engels severely criticized and attacked anything they considered reactionary in favor of anything that was progressive in the historical sense according to their theory of historical materialism. Again, read my previous link on the Irish question because you have no idea what you're talking about. And yet these people call themselves "Marxists". Simply laughable.


Furthermore,

"It is the revisionists who have long been asserting that colonial policy is progressive, that it implants capitalism and that therefore it is senseless to 'accuse it of greed and cruelty', for 'without these qualities' capitalism is 'hamstrung'.

It would be quixotism and whining if Social-Democrats were to tell the workers that there could be salvation somewhere apart from the development of capitalism, not through the development of capitalism. But we do not say this. We say: capital devours you, will devour the Persians, will devour everyone and go on devouring until you overthrow it. That is the truth. And we do not forget to add: except through the growth of capitalism there is no guarantee of victory over it...

Resistance to colonial policy and international plunder by means of organising the proletariat, by means of defending freedom for the proletarian struggle, does not retard the development of capitalism but accelerates it, forcing it to resort to more civilised, technically higher methods of capitalism. There is capitalism and capitalism. There is Black-Hundred-Octobrist capitalism and Narodnik ('realistic, democratic', full of 'activity') capitalism. The more we expose capitalism before the workers for its 'greed and cruelty', the more difficult is it for capitalism of the first order to persist, the more surely is it bound to pass into capitalism of the second order. And this just suits us, this just suits the proletariat."
(V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol 34. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. pp. 438-439.)

And what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it reasserts what Marx and Engels themselves claimed that Capitalism is PROGRESSIVE over pre-Capitalist modes of production. Organizing the proletariat? Indeed, that only takes place AFTER imperialism brings the progressive Capitalist mode of production to a pre-Capitalist mode of production. It is Capitalism which creates a proletariat. It is when the proletariat is created that we must organize it, not before when it does not even exist. Nowhere did I EVER claim that it is "senseless to 'accuse it of greed and cruelty'" for it is exactly its greedy and cruelty which leads to the rising of the class struggle and its antagonisms to the front of politics and daily life. In fact, this sentence is crucial: "And we do not forget to add: except through the growth of capitalism there is no guarantee of victory over it...". Capitalism must first be implemented BEFORE we can speak of the proletariat, organizing against Capitalism, and overthrowing it. Capitalism and Capitalist imperialism are by every means progressive if they replace Feudalism and other reactionary systems. The need to expose Capitalism is a necessity, but we cannot expose anything if it does not firstly exist and its consequences realized and experienced by the workers themselves.


Your points are only valid in your own mind, as evidenced by the amount of people in this thread who view you as a laughing stock. I know your fingers are flying to the keyboard to write "AD HOMINEM" at a speed so fast your knuckles may very well disintegrate into powder, but seeing as you're ignoring all contrary evidence and in your own mind you will most likely forever believe that Marxism and racist colonialism go hand-in-hand, the opinions of other educated Marxists who are reading this thread actually provides quite a bit of leverage.

I do not ignore a SINGLE contrary evidence and I CHALLENGE YOU to show me where I do and I shall address it properly. The quotes you presented concerning your supposed "anti-racism" were utterly destroyed thanks to your inability to read (and thus quoting things which have nothing to do with your argument at all as I have explained) and thanks to direct quotes from Marx and Engels with their complete context taken into consideration as well as their sources and citations. My points are valid inasmuch as you are unable to prove anything otherwise, as long as I can use direct quotations from Marx and Engels on these issues, and as long as every argument you and the others put forward are destroyed. Considering me a laughing stock is not an argument at all, it is yet another ad hominem logical fallacy on your part. It changes nothing. My position is unorthodox due to the perversion of what was once orthodox, i.e. ACTUAL Marxism. You are the one attempting to alter Marxism and revising it by adding things which have nothing to do with it such as anti-racism, anti-homophobia, and so on. Marxism and racist colonialism do not go hand-in-hand and I challenge you to show me where they do. If what you understood from everything is that I'm claiming that Marxism and racist colonialism go hand-in-hand then you did not understood anything about anything. The other "educated" "Marxists" have not been able to do anything, as we have seen. Nevertheless, this is an argument from authority logical fallacy. Look it up. Just because you claim that "educated" "Marxists" claim X, it does NOT automatically mean that X is correct.


That said, yes, your manner of debate does matter quite a bit in communicating to the audience. Even if your points were valid, which they're not, the fact that you're acting like a thirteen-year-old who is winning at a video game makes you come across as a fool to an audience. It is one of the first things learned in a college public speaking class.

My points are completely valid, as I have shown time and time again through direct quotes and citations as well as arguments. The rest of that statement is useless nonsense with no argument presented.


Yes, I'm aware this is not public speaking but a debate between two of us, however there is an audience reading this conversation and deciding who is the victor. Even if your ideas were correct, which again they are not, it would do you no good if the audience interpreted you as an idiot and ignored your message over mine. Ideas do not matter if they have no connection to reality.

There is indeed an audience reading the debate, when I call idiot and stupid nonsense as to what they really are then the audience themselves would agree. This is no different than how Lenin, Trotsky, et al. used to bash their opposition verbally, albeit mine with new words. My ideas are quite correct, the very ideas which you as well as the tens of others have yet to disprove. You supplied quotes which had NOTHING to do with your claims, I presented direct quotes that not only completely proved your own claims as false but showed racism and homophobia to be existent in their texts. You do not decide who is an "idiot" or not, especially not when you are unable to present any counter-arguments. You do not know who ignores what message. Stop posting such mindless drivel and instead learn to debate. You have yet to answer my arguments. I'll be waiting.


I can't possibly explain it any more simpler for you. The liberation of all humans is an intrinsic part of scientific socialism. It is the inevitable outcome of communism. There cannot be free white, straight proletariats oppressing homosexuals and blacks during socialism. It's ludicrous.

The liberation of humanity THROUGH the class struggle is the intrinsic part of socialism. The liberation of humanity only comes as an END to a MEANS, the means of which you completely ignore in your "assessment". To liberate humanity, you need to first obtain the means to get there. According to Marx and Engels, you have to first lead to progressive modes of production replacing reactionary modes of production in accordance with their historical materialism and the historical process. That is to say, any Capitalist development is SUPERIOR to Feudalist development just as any Socialist development is SUPERIOR to Capitalist development. There CANNOT be free white, straight proletarians oppressing homosexual and black PROLETARIANS, but this has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism has nothing to do with anti-racism and anti-homophobia, those were later added by "revisionists" and the civil rights movements allying themselves with the liberal left movements. A country full of white and straight homosexuals can achieve socialism and even communism as socialism and communism have nothing to do with races. This, however, does NOT mean nor speak of ANYTHING related to the oppression of races and sexual affiliations. This only means that Marxism is not based on anti-racism and anti-homophobia; it neither encourages nor condemns race-based and sexual orientation-based actions. It is people who call themselves Marxists who choose whether to include any alterations and additions to Marxism, hence the tendencies and schools of thought.


I only started being rude after you yourself proved to be an incredibly unpleasant individual. You've earned my disrespect.

I honestly do not care. I'm only pointing to your hypocrisy. You condemn rudeness and yet you resort to rudeness in the same post.


From the way you speak I'm guessing you've probably never read an entire book in your whole life anyway. Why start now, I guess.

Ad hominem. Oh and yes, I've actually read plenty of books, though that is besides the point. If you want to present an argument from a book, you do not slap the book on a desk, you PROVIDE THE EXCERPT OR QUOTATION FROM THAT BOOK. No one reads a book purely for a single debate out of thousands.


I literally disagree with none of what Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Connolly had to say about nationalism in this. Nothing you posted proves your point that "superior cultures" should swallow up "reactionary ones."

"Throughout history, nationalism has taken (1) many different forms (conservative, radical etc), (2) has/is supported by many different social groups (bourgeoisie, working class, etc), (3) has very different political effects (reactionary, progressive). When dealing with nationalism, it is necessary like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Connolly to reject an abstract and timeless theory of nationalism. It was always historical and concrete. The fundamental point is that their analysis of nationalism was always put in terms of (a) the strategic interests of the working class, and thus always emphasised (b) the relation between nationalism and democracy. Marxists have to understand simultaneously the social roots of national struggles and the national content of the class struggle."

Thus for a country to be considered progressive, it needed to be higher in terms of the historical process. For instance a country X that is still Feudalistic while Capitalism is on the rise is thus reactionary and conservative. If that country X were to be compared to a country Y that has adopted a Capitalist mode of production then that country Y is PROGRESSIVE, RADICAL, and thus superior to country X which was by every means reactionary, conservative, and moving against the historical process. The strategic interests of the working class is not Feudalism, but Capitalism which leads to Socialism. It is only Capitalism, according to Marx and Engels, which leads to the formation of the proletariat, the organization of the proletariat, the bourgeois-proletarian class struggle, and lays the material basis for Socialism. Thus Capitalism is PROGRESSIVE and SUPERIOR to Feudalism and other pre-Capitalist modes of production just as Socialism is PROGRESSIVE and SUPERIOR to Capitalism and other pre-Socialist modes of production. Now that the basics of this Marxist axiom has been explained, we can then move on to the main point and general implementation of such a concept: Marx and Engels' works. Superior cultures are progressive cultures according to Marx and Engels. Read Marx and Engels' workers, especially "The Magyar Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm)", "Democratic Pan-Slavism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm)", and "Engels To Eduard Bernstein
In Zurich London, 22 February 1882". Now since you are unable to read nor comprehend, I will have to spoon feed you.

If a progressive country were to be assimilate, imperialize, or conquer a reactionary and conservative culture and country then it is an action that is progressive and in the interests of the (soon-to-be) working class of that country. It was exactly Marx who supported free trade in the "revolutionary sense", as he said: "But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."


I'm honestly flabbergasted here. I simply cannot understand what you're trying to prove to me by posting this. You're posting quotes about Marx and Engels supporting Irish independence to...prove that imperialism is okay? You start off by saying that progressive countries should swallow up reactionary ones, and then you post a bunch of quotes about how it is in the interests of the proletariat to bring down the British Empire by supporting Irish independence. Your two points are not connected in any way. This post is a confusing mess.

No, I post quotes of Marx and Engels supporting Irish independence to show that their analysis had nothing to do with yours, that htey depended on class analysis, historical materialism, development according to the historical process, and so on to make their position. Marx initially OPPOSED Irish independence before he changed his views after realizing that an independence was in the interests of the English working class. Marx and Engels didn't give a shit about opposing imperialism in all cases nor did they give much of a shit over supporting nationalism by any means. My two points are completely connected, but only if you bother to read and comprehend what has been said. Marx and Engels initially OPPOSED Irish independence because the English domination of Ireland was PROGRESSIVE and in the interests of the class struggle before they later on changed their position on such an issue because of changing material conditions. Meaning, English imperialism was supported as long as it was progressive but later it was opposed because it was no longer progressive due to development. The only confusing mess here is you.


I don't think you understood what I was going for there. You see, I was teasing you because your approach to Marxism is dogmatic as fuck, therefore the fact that Marx developed his theories and abandoned his support for "progressive" colonialism makes him a heretic to himself. I was not trying to challenge you by stating I was more loyal to Karl Marx or whatever you're implying here.

Marx did not abandon his support for progressive imperialism. Your blind jab is not appreciated as a replacement for a counter-argument.


Because if you believe that racism and homophobia are fully compatible with Marxism, then it must follow that you believe a successful revolution could be carried out based on these theories, which means you must somehow believe that there can be oppression of groups based on certain characteristics in a socialist/communist society. Weird.

I do not believe that they are fully compatible because I claim that racism and homophobia have NOTHING to do with Marxism, but if anything Marx and Engels themselves were personally racist and homophones to a certain extent. Oh and technically, yes, you can have a racist proletarian revolution, even though I would completely oppose it, by creating a white proletarian movements, going through a revolution, and doing "away" (however they deem necessary) with "undesirables". They would still be able to have a proletarian revolution, a proletarian movement, and a Socialist society, but one with a single race rather than multiple ones. If Marxism based itself on having all-race proletarian revolutions and movements as well as all-race Socialism then and only then can there not be any racist proletarian movements, revolution, and socialism. Yes, no matter how much it is disgusting, it is still technically possible. If you speak of oppressing other proletariat and ergo it is no longer a proletarian movement then they need only point out to the Communists and proletarian movements which oppressed and even killed proletarians within the ranks of the Kuomintang, White Army, and so on. Not all proletarians are revolutionary, some are reactionary and anti-Communists. I do not care about personal and subjective interests of the proletarians, I only care about their objective CLASS interests. Class interests can go against personal interests, views, and beliefs.


All that said, I'm retiring from this discussion. Theophy's main weapon seems to be simply insulting his opponents into submission. He has said nothing to contradict my views on Marxism, and I suspect further debate will lead us around in circles. However, I will be reporting him to the fascist/troll alert thread, because his veiled support for colonialism, imperialism, racism, and homophobia has no place here.

The way you make it out to be, it sounds as if this "Theophy" is only resorting to ad hominem rather than making arguments. People reading this can show that this is not true at all. I only send people into submission through arguments, insults are merely a "topping" to describe stupid and false arguments, much like Lenin and Trotsky used to do. Completely justified. I have said everything that contradicts EVERY SINGLE point you have made which I disagree with, be it on Marxism or otherwise. Further debate will not lead to circles, it will lead to the the truth that your entire argument is baseless and false. I am neither a Fascist nor a troll, report me for all I care. I did not veil anything, I openly support the arguments and claims made by Marx and Engels on colonialism, imperialism, and so on. I do not support racism nor homophobia and I CHALLENGE YOU, again, to show me where I do. The only one resorting to ad hominem int he place of arguments as well as strawmen here is YOU and no one else. If you are the one that cannot accept the truth or that he's wrong then it is not my problem. Good day.

[Ismail]

Employing force to the extent of implementing execution quotas regardless of a proper trial is not something that all Communists like, specifically Volkogonov. There's a reason why such issues were left in the Soviet archives; they were not published publicly for all. It was with the opening of the Soviet archives that people began seeing Communism in another light and thus changed their views respectively.I don't know how reading Lenin letters calling for the hanging of kulaks turns one from a Communist to an anti-communist Russian nationalist, but alright then.


Exactly, bullshit because he would have been deposed. That is all the proof that I need to show that the USSR at no single moment allowed for any bourgeois ideologies, bourgeois views, or the bourgoeisie to come anywhere near the party or the state. Anyone who attempted to act on that basis would have been, by your own words, "deposed" and thus would have been forced to bullshit, i.e. follow the party line.Apparently expanding trade ties with the West was all that was necessary to adhere to "bourgeois ideologies, bourgeois views, or the bourgoeisie [sic.] to come anywhere near the party or the state."

That's hardly a criteria for class struggle.


As long as they followed the party line then that is enough. If they are foreign agents then that is another issue, but again, following the party line is enough.Except the party line can be changed by these very same individuals who bullshit their way through the party apparatus, exalting the names of Marx and Lenin as they ascend to greater prominence within it, prefacing any right-wing economic or political policies with their supposed intention towards "strengthening socialism."


Reversing Stalinist policies, i.e. the opposite of strengthening and centralizing the state and its authoritarianism, is indeed the means by which a society is to advance from socialism to communism.And one can speak of the ending of "Stalinist" policies once the victory of socialism has been guaranteed on a world scale, whereupon the state actually does wither away, its historical mission as an organ of coercion and arbitration by the ruling class (in this case the working-class) having come to an end.


The USSR no longer had any classes and yet it retained socialism rather than withering the state away and turning towards communism.The USSR was still a class society in the 50's, as Stalin himself remarked. Both the proletariat and the peasantry were involved in socialized property relations, but of a qualitatively different character. Not only that, but things such as bourgeois right (hence "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work"), the division of mental and manual labor and so on demonstrate the continuous need for class struggle under socialism.

[Theophys]

I don't know how reading Lenin letters calling for the hanging of kulaks turns one from a Communist to an anti-communist Russian nationalist, but alright then.
Oh I don't know how the killings performed by Stalin turned many away from Stalin and Communism. I bet it was because he didn't hang them? Hm. Or maybe it is because shady, "unfair", quota killings are not appealing? Not all Communists are in favor of executions and killings, as in the case of the aforementioned individual who rejected Stalin and fell back to Lenin as the "last bastion", someone who had the "purity" of Communism within. To find out that even Lenin was "bloodthirsty" left him devoid of any reference to fall back to. People initially followed Socialism and Communism with their "Internationale" as a bond of brotherhood, unity, peace, and whatnot for a "new" future, the Bolshevik revolution disappointed and turned many away from Socialism and Communism. This can be seen with many Utopian Trotskyists who follow the post-"Terrorism and Communism" Trotsky.


Apparently expanding trade ties with the West was all that was necessary to adhere to "bourgeois ideologies, bourgeois views, or the bourgoeisie [sic.] to come anywhere near the party or the state."

That's hardly a criteria for class struggle.
Expanding trade ties out of necessity due to the failure of the world revolution. I see no issue here. Trade is not a Capitalist act, it predated Capitalism. Trade with bourgeois countries, out of necessity again, does not lead to the conclusion that the one trading with bourgeois countries is now "adhering to bourgeois ideologies, bourgeois views, or the bourgeoisie".


Except the party line can be changed by these very same individuals who bullshit their way through the party apparatus, exalting the names of Marx and Lenin as they ascend to greater prominence within it, prefacing any right-wing economic or political policies with their supposed intention towards "strengthening socialism."
And no issue here. If there is no one to stop them then either there is an agreement that allows for major preferential control in their favor or the opposition was silenced and killed. There is a reason why a majority would be in their favor, and it's not because they're implementing failed policies. China's reforms were a necessity just as the USSR's despite them deviating from hardline Communism towards a strictly regulated Capitalism and market Socialism. With China's current state, it can easily topple down any bourgeois power if it sees it as necessary. These individuals who rise to power under the umbrella of Marx and Lenin cannot change anything if the party does not wish to change its line. They alone can change nothing, they require the support of hundreds, if not thousands, of other individuals. Change does not take place if it is unnecessary. The NEP was taken for a very good reason, just as the reforms following that except for forced collectivization and Mao's popular nonsense.


And one can speak of the ending of "Stalinist" policies once the victory of socialism has been guaranteed on a world scale, whereupon the state actually does wither away, its historical mission as an organ of coercion and arbitration by the ruling class (in this case the working-class) having come to an end.
For the final victory of Socialism to take place, you'd need hundreds of years. This is something Marx and Lenin never spoke of when speaking of a STRICTLY transitional phase that would begin withering away as soon as it was created. That it cannot help but begin to wither away. With the failure of a world revolution, this became much more of an issue as Stalin turned towards pragmatism over theory and ideals. The ending of Stalinist policies has nothing to do with the final victory of Socialism; the Stalinist policies are a PART of Socialism that can be easily changed, removed, and replaced just as they came into place. Many of Stalin's policies were done away with and replaced after de-Stalinization.


The USSR was still a class society in the 50's, as Stalin himself remarked. Both the proletariat and the peasantry were involved in socialized property relations, but of a qualitatively different character. Not only that, but things such as bourgeois right (hence "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work"), the division of mental and manual labor and so on demonstrate the continuous need for class struggle under socialism.
The USSR was FAR from a class society in the '50s. I challenge you to point me to the class in this nonexistent "class struggle" of yours. A qualitatively different character between the proletariat and the peasantry does not change anything. You also speak of bourgeois law, see this:

"And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change." - Lenin, "The State and Revolution".

The USSR did away with bourgeois law "in part", i.e. on the question of the means of production and thus by extension classes. What it did not do away was the "other part" which was on the question of distribution; this can only be solved through communism, something that was inhibited thanks to Stalin's lovely policies and reality. The division of mental and manual labor has nothing to do with class struggle. The class struggle is a struggle between those who own the means of production and those who do not. In the USSR, the means of production were owned by SOCIETY itself, not by a Bismarck, not by the military, but by the proletariat's own state, i.e. the representation of nothing more than society itself. A division between mental and manual labor will always exist. An "according to need" system is impossible without the following factors first being achieved: 1) Full or 99% full automation, 2) infinite resources, 3) super-productivity, and 4) super-abundance. Only with these BASIC conditions being met can an "according to needs" system EVER be possible. See the "Eliminating Scarcity for Luxury Goods?" thread where I discussed this issue with multiple others who supported an "according to need" system without thought. The USSR did not meet such criteria nor does today's world. This, however, has nothing to do with classes or the class struggle.

"Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary." - Lenin, "The State and Revolution." - Lenin, "The State and Revolution".

Of course the quotes are apart from the rest of the Utopian nonsense.

[hashem]

Ismail you are just wasting your time with this mad man. ignore him, nobody will take him seriously. he is not worthy of attention.

[Ismail]

Ismail you are just wasting your time with this mad man. ignore him, nobody will take him seriously. he is not worthy of attention.Yeah, anyone who not only praises Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Deng as Marxists, but puts forward bizarre pseudo-Marxist arguments as he does is indeed pretty much worthless to debate with.

[--Navarro--]

Capitalism existed in China but it was not the dominant system. Feudalism was still dominant back then. Still, the situation described by Adam Smith about China in 18th century is not much worse than todays India, Bangladesh, Colombia and many of African countries. standards of living, life expectancy, literacy, available goods and productivity of these capitalist countries (if we separate few industrial and tourist zones and the ruling class which is an insignificant minority comparing to hundreds of millions of poor people) is not higher than ancient Babylonia.



But that's not true at all. Life expectancy in Colombia is 78 years old according to the WHO, in the poorer regions is close to 70 (in most of Africa is below 50). Literacy rate is around 95% (in India, Bangladesh and most of Africa is below 80% or even less). Hunger is a problem for around 10% of the Colombian population, which is mainly linked to the fact that 10% of the population of the country has been displaced by war, leaving all behind, in the past 20-30 years.

Please check your facts before making such ridiculous statements. Your analogy doesn't make sense anyway, the concept of "productivity" wasn't known 3000 years ago, and available goods are way much higher now in any country than they were these days, thats for sure.

[LOLseph Stalin]

He wasn't capitalist, but he wasn't purist M-L either. I do like the guy and think his reforms were helpful, but I'd be lying to myself if I said he was a proper Marxist-Leninist. I'm still looking into the period though so admit to not knowing a huge amount except that the Soviet Union was at its peak economically under his leadership.

[Ismail]

He wasn't capitalist, but he wasn't purist M-L either. I do like the guy and think his reforms were helpful, but I'd be lying to myself if I said he was a proper Marxist-Leninist. I'm still looking into the period though so admit to not knowing a huge amount except that the Soviet Union was at its peak economically under his leadership.The USSR "was at its peace economically" because of the construction done during the 30's and the postwar reconstruction having been completed. The restoration of capitalism carried out under Khrushchev made its effects felt on the economy not long afterwards.

Also how temporarily "strong" an economy is should not matter. After all, Deng presided over phenomenal growth rates in China.

[hashem]

Please check your facts before making such ridiculous statements.

Please check the reality before accepting the ridiculous state propaganda of bourgeoisie dictatorships as facts.

[--Navarro--]

Please check the reality before accepting the ridiculous state propaganda of bourgeoisie dictatorships as facts.

what do you mean with that exactly? the fact that you think Colombia is at the same level of "development" as India, Bangladesh and most of Africa proves you don't know anything about the country. why is it "ridiculous state propaganda"?

truth is, concepts like "literacy", "productivity", the capitalist concept of goods and its availability, etc, weren't known 100 or 150 years ago. relating those concepts to Babylonia is completely absurd.

[Whale]

Wasn't he the guy that wasted all that money on agricultural projects in Ukraine and Eastern Russia?

[TheIrrationalist]

He certainly was as Marxist-Leninist as Stalin was. Mostly the reforms done during Khrushchev's era were superficial. I think its absurd to say that 'socialism' achieved during Stalin's era suddenly came to an end with Khrushchev's capitalistic or revisionist reforms, maybe it was the corn...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6iEvU-VQ_rw/TrNekfpkkyI/AAAAAAAAAnI/svByXUhmQtw/s320/khrushchev%2Bcorn.jpg
Damn revisionist corn!

[Ismail]

He certainly was as Marxist-Leninist as Stalin was. Mostly the reforms done during Khrushchev's era were superficial. I think its absurd to say that 'socialism' achieved during Stalin's era suddenly came to an end with Khrushchev's capitalistic or revisionist reforms, maybe it was the corn...The CPSU degenerated into a bourgeois party, the USSR into state capitalism, and the country's foreign policy into an imperialist one bent on world domination. The fascistic occupations of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan by Khrushchev's lackeys-turned-successors are examples of this.

Every single aspect of Soviet society and Marxist-Leninist theory under Stalin was attacked, from economics to philosophy, from foreign affairs to party affairs. The only thing superficial about the Soviet Union and the CPSU from Khrushchev onwards was their defense of Marxism.

As for the corn, Khrushchev's ridiculous "virgin lands" campaign was one of the domestic failures which led to his ouster. Even Lysenko had misgivings about it. Hoxha in his memoirs recalled the ridiculous infatuation Khrushchev had for corn, a component part of his clownish personality that did so well in embarrassing the USSR's image abroad.

One example of Khrushchev's treatment of Marxism-Leninism itself can be seen from Hubert Humphrey recalling his meeting with the man in December 1958:

"'Without getting into the ally business,' I said, 'I'd like to ask one question about the new communes .'

Khrushchev's response was possibly the most interesting part of the whole interview. He said, 'They are old-fashioned, they are reactionary. We tried it right after the Revolution. It just doesn't work. That system is not nearly so good as the state farms and the collective farms. You know, Senator, what those communes are based on? They are based on that principle 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' You know that won't work. You can't get production without incentive.'

I could hardly believe that the leader of world communism was rejecting the core of Marxist theory. I said simply, 'That is rather capitalistic.' Khrushchev replied, 'Call it what you will. It works.'"
(Humphrey, Hubert H. [I]The Education of a Public Man: My Life and Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1991. pp. 146-147.)