How will Communists get "Communists" to be Communists?

[tooAlive]

In the world today we have many impostors claiming to be communists or socialists. Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, today's Cuba, today's Venezuela, ect.. which were or are nothing more than state capitalist (according to you).

My question is, how will you get those so called "communist countries" to actually be communist? The workers can't exactly revolt against the state army as they'd all most likely get killed or imprisoned. And you need these countries to follow along in order to have the global communist system which you all advocate for.

Is there communist propaganda you can spread to fight the communist propaganda spread by the state? If not, then what?

Seems like a big obstacle standing in the way of achieving global communism is communism.

[Remus Bleys]

Wouldnt a revolt in America be just as dangerous?
They will be destroyed as well. Ps they don't call themselves communist. Ussr has been gone. Venezuela doesn't even have a cp in charge

[#FF0000]

In the world today we have many impostors claiming to be communists or socialists. Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, today's Cuba, today's Venezuela, ect.. which were or are nothing more than state capitalist (according to you).

My question is, how will you get those so called "communist countries" to actually be communist? The workers can't exactly revolt against the state army as they'd all most likely get killed or imprisoned. And you need these countries to follow along in order to have the global communist system which you all advocate for.

Is there communist propaganda you can spread to fight the communist propaganda spread by the state? If not, then what?

Seems like a big obstacle standing in the way of achieving global communism is communism.

The same way we'd get "capitalist countries" to actually be communist. :confused:

[tooAlive]

Wouldnt a revolt in America be just as dangerous?
They will be destroyed as well. Ps they don't call themselves communist. Ussr has been gone. Venezuela doesn't even have a cp in charge

Well you guys seem to advocate a peaceful revolution, so unless Occupy Wallstreet starts hurting people or causing destruction, I don't see why it would be dangerous. Or have you heard about the police or army here intervening to stop any of the protests from taking place?

And Venezuela has the PSUV, which claims to be socialist.

[Future]

The job of a Communist is to contribute to the liberation of the working class. That goes for all working people in every situation. In China or Cuba for instance, we support a revolution of the working class just as we'd support the same in the United States.

[#FF0000]

Well you guys seem to advocate a peaceful revolution, so unless Occupy Wallstreet starts hurting people or causing destruction, I don't see why it would be dangerous. Or have you heard about the police or army here intervening to stop any of the protests from taking place?

Er, yeah the police repression of Occupy was kind of huge actually. Violence was liberally applied and random arrests were used to break morale. I'm kind of surprised you didn't know this.

And even if the revolution was "peaceful", any state is going to use violence to keep itself in place.

[tooAlive]

The same way we'd get "capitalist countries" to actually be communist. :confused:

Laws and civil liberties aren't the same in capitalist countries like the US compared to so-called socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba. For heaven's sake, all a guy had to do in Cuba to get beaten and jailed was scream "Down with communism!" when the pope when to visit.

[helot]

Laws and civil liberties aren't the same in capitalist countries like the US compared to so-called socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba. For heaven's sake, all a guy had to do in Cuba to get beaten and jailed was scream "Down with communism!" when the pope when to visit.


and all you have to do to get beaten down and thrown in jail in the US is to drive while being black.

What's your point?

[Manic Impressive]

Since those so called communist countries are actually capitalist the underlying conditions requisite for class consciousness to form are the same. However, every country has it's own culture which will impact on the type of revolution that occurs. If you're asking how can workers impact other workers in different countries, then international solidarity is usually a good way. Solidarity strikes and stuff like that.

[#FF0000]

Laws and civil liberties aren't the same in capitalist countries like the US compared to so-call socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba. For heaven's sake, all a guy had to do in Cuba to get beaten and jailed was scream "Down with communism!" when the pope when to visit.

So you think capitalist states are friendlier to movements that seek to overthrow them?

[tooAlive]

So you think capitalist states are friendlier to movements that seek to overthrow them?

Well, I've had the experience of being in both. So I'd say yes.

[La Guaneña]

I love it how the ultimate view of everyone in this thread about countries that have had socialist revolutions is the exact same of this self-proclaimed "Free Thinker". Juuuuuuuuuuuust love it.

[#FF0000]

Well, I've had the experience of being in both. So I'd say yes.

That's probably one of the most naive things I've ever heard. No one with power is going to just hand it over without using violence as extreme as necessary to defend it.

[tooAlive]

Er, yeah the police repression of Occupy was kind of huge actually. Violence was liberally applied and random arrests were used to break morale. I'm kind of surprised you didn't know this.

And even if the revolution was "peaceful", any state is going to use violence to keep itself in place.

I wonder how many of those that were arrested or even attended the protests were denied all government assistance or barred from ever being employed or conducting business in this country ever again?

[tooAlive]

I love it how the ultimate view of everyone in this thread about countries that have had socialist revolutions is the exact same of this self-proclaimed "Free Thinker". Juuuuuuuuuuuust love it.

Oh, I doubt that's true.

I don't personally believe countries that have had socialist revolutions are state-capitalist. I just say that to make debating easier. :)

[Manic Impressive]

That's probably one of the most naive things I've ever heard. No one with power is going to just hand it over without using violence as extreme as necessary to defend it.
The threat of violence in the face of overwhelming odds is often more than enough for people to do many things they don't want to do without any actual physical violence.

[#FF0000]

I wonder how many of those that were arrested or even attended the protests were denied all government assistance or barred from ever being employed or conducting business in this country ever again?

Uh, there are capitalist countries that are every bit as repressive and authoritarian as these state capitalist ones. See: America's biggest allies in the Mid East/North Africa, Singapore, etc. And just because the US doesn't blacklist people (as of a couple decades ago) doesn't mean that the US would not use violence to defend the status quo. To suggest that is absurd in the face of the militarization of its police force, the gargantuan defense spending, and the aggressive and coordinated repression of the Occupy movement.

[Queen Mab]

The telegram the Sorbonne Occupation Committee sent to the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party in May '68 just about sums it up:


SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES BUREAUCRATS STOP THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS COUNCILS WILL SOON WIPE YOU OUT STOP HUMANITY WON’T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP LONG LIVE FACTORY OCCUPATIONS STOP LONG LIVE THE GREAT CHINESE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION OF 1927 BETRAYED BY THE STALINIST BUREAUCRATS STOP LONG LIVE THE PROLETARIANS OF CANTON AND ELSEWHERE WHO HAVE TAKEN UP ARMS AGAINST THE SO-CALLED PEOPLE’S ARMY STOP LONG LIVE THE CHINESE WORKERS AND STUDENTS WHO HAVE ATTACKED THE SO-CALLED CULTURAL REVOLUTION AND THE MAOIST BUREAUCRATIC ORDER STOP LONG LIVE REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM STOP DOWN WITH THE STATE STOP OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE’S FREE SORBONNE

[ckaihatsu]

I think the only aspect in which a "Communist" state compares favorably to explicitly pro-market (Western) countries is on a global geopolitical realpolitik basis -- that they (and non-Western "independent" countries like Iran) are *not imperialist*, and don't wield economic hegemony over colony-type territories.

That's why, for the purposes of political expediency, we (revolutionary socialists) would support a country like Syria -- even with a vilely distasteful head like Assad at the helm -- over *any* Western intervention, because we know that Syria doesn't have tentacles spreading out into the greater Middle East.

[Dodo]

Well, I've had the experience of being in both. So I'd say yes.

When a capitalist state is truely under threat, the tools of oppression would show its true face. It has many times. Its use of violance varies according to country's "developedness" as within developed countries there tends to be a more conciouss people with institutions that protect human rights...etc and are more democratic.

As for your question. Being a Marxist is about believing in the working class and raising conciousness for it to overthrow its oppressors according to its material class interests. The workers movements who brought down the USSR , Poland etc are what Marxists would/should support. We do not need to make "communist parties/state" turn communist.

[La Guaneña]

Oh, I doubt that's true.

I don't personally believe countries that have had socialist revolutions are state-capitalist. I just say that to make debating easier. :)

I'm talking about the view that these places are shitholes where your pursonul freedums are inexistant and everyone goes to slave camps and gets shot.

Kinda talks about what sources you've been using.

[tooAlive]

I'm talking about the view that these places are shitholes where your pursonul freedums are inexistant and everyone goes to slave camps and gets shot.

Kinda talks about what sources you've been using.

Tell me, what other so-called "communist countries" have you visited?

Brazil isn't exactly communist.

[#FF0000]

Tell me, what other so-called "communist countries" have you visited?

That isn't really relevant, and even when what you're saying is true (that these states often use heavy-handed means of quashing dissent), that isn't because a state considers itself capitalist or socialist. There are "capitalist" states (many that are US-supported) that are similarly heavy-handed and overtly violent. Pointing that out, however, doesn't also change the fact that every state, from the US to North Korea, uses and will use violence to assert itself and maintain itself. All that's different is the relative sophistication of that violence.

[tooAlive]

That isn't really relevant, and even when what you're saying is true (that these states often use heavy-handed means of quashing dissent), that isn't because a state considers itself capitalist or socialist. There are "capitalist" states (many that are US-supported) that are similarly heavy-handed and overtly violent. Pointing that out, however, doesn't also change the fact that every state, from the US to North Korea, uses and will use violence to assert itself and maintain itself. All that's different is the relative sophistication of that violence.

1) Coluna is implying that these so-called communist states aren't bad places at all, and we're just too ignorant or reactionary to see it.

2) Saying that because the US uses violence and North Korea uses violence then they must be the same is like saying that oranges and pumpkins are the same because they're both orange.

There's a night and day difference between the two. Tell me when was the last time a US president ordered to have the VP executed for treason or whatever.

[Ele'ill]

I wonder how many of those that were arrested or even attended the protests were denied all government assistance or barred from ever being employed or conducting business in this country ever again?

the government assistance they got was being investigated, infiltrated, raided, shot with munitions, beaten, arrested, and charged with various misdemeanors and felonies, had their pictures/video run in the local news (multiple news sources, on the web, tv, multiple outlets, etc.. which does impact employment) and not relating specifically to occupy but yeah lengthy detention and prison sentences aren't exactly uncommon

[#FF0000]

1) Coluna is implying that these so-called communist states aren't bad places at all, and we're just too ignorant or reactionary to see it.

Every place is a bad place.


2) Saying that because the US uses violence and North Korea uses violence then they must be the same is pretty much beyond stupid; no offense, it that's what you're saying.


That's exactly what I didn't say, actually. I said there's a difference in how they use violence, but that violence is still a fundamental feature of the state. I'm trying to point out that your thesis that "capitalist" states (using your words) would be any kinder or gentler to a movement that poses a real threat to it is just silly.

[Ele'ill]

1) Coluna is implying that these so-called communist states aren't bad places at all, and we're just too ignorant or reactionary to see it.

2) Saying that because the US uses violence and North Korea uses violence then they must be the same is like saying that oranges and pumpkins are the same because they're both orange.

There's a night and day difference between the two. Tell me when was the last time a US president ordered to have the VP executed for treason or whatever.

If a lot of the 'worse' places had the capability to be less overt with how they put down dissent they would. It wouldn't really be less violent though the method would simply be different.

[tooAlive]

I'm trying to point out that your thesis that "capitalist" states (using your words) would be any kinder or gentler to a movement that poses a real threat to it is just silly.

Well by your definition, every state is a "capitalist state." So, you'd mostly be right.

What I'm saying is that the capitalist states that claim to be communist are a lot more oppressive and, unkind to the dissenters.

[Ele'ill]

What I'm saying is that the capitalist states that claim to be communist are a lot more oppressive and, unkind to the dissenters.

Is that it or are the 'dissenters' more militant and the state less stable?

[#FF0000]

Well by your definition, every state is a "capitalist state." So, you'd mostly be right.

I'm using your definitions here and I'm trying to say that there is no fundamental difference in their willingness to use whatever means necessary to deal with existential threats.


What I'm saying is that the capitalist states that claim to be communist are a lot more oppressive and, unkind to the dissenters.

The measures used to quash dissent in "socialist" states aren't new or innovative -- they're no different than the measures used by other states in the past. Like I've been saying time and time again, the heavy-handed and overt violence used by these states isn't unique to them.

I don't think you're asking this question to get an answer. I think you're trying to make a point -- and doing a poor job of it.

[tooAlive]

You can't seriously tell me that state force against dissenters is the same in the US as it is in Cuba, for example.

Tell me how many of the Occupy Wallstreet protesters, arrested or not, lost their jobs, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, food stamps or any other form of government handouts, all for attending the protests.

Then tell me how those in Cuba keep getting help from the government once they come out and say they oppose the regime. Unless you've never been there and have no idea what it's like.

[#FF0000]

You can't seriously tell me that state force against dissenters is the same in the US as it is in Cuba, for example.

Read what I said again, and then respond to those words.

[Marshal of the People]

In the world today we have many impostors claiming to be communists or socialists. Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, today's Cuba, today's Venezuela, ect.. which were or are nothing more than state capitalist (according to you).

My question is, how will you get those so called "communist countries" to actually be communist? The workers can't exactly revolt against the state army as they'd all most likely get killed or imprisoned. And you need these countries to follow along in order to have the global communist system which you all advocate for.

Is there communist propaganda you can spread to fight the communist propaganda spread by the state? If not, then what?

Seems like a big obstacle standing in the way of achieving global communism is communism.
I would hate to burst your bubble but the USSR doesn't exist any more.

[tooAlive]

I would hate to burst your bubble but the USSR doesn't exist any more.

Thank God.

[#FF0000]

Thank God.

Let's not be hasty -- none of us have ever been there.

[tooAlive]

Let's not be hasty -- none of us have ever been there.

Yeah, you're right.. How bad could it have really been? I heard Joseph didn't actually make so many people disappear.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, you're right.. How bad could it have really been? I heard Joseph didn't actually make so many people disappear.

Like you said, if one hasn't been there, one has no idea.

[tooAlive]

I'm gonna have to exclude myself from this convo. Now we're getting into just how bad previous "communist" regimes really were, and that's not a debate I'd enjoy getting into.

I had originally asked how you'd get the countries that claim to be communist to actually be communist, when most of them have the internet and news outlets owned by the government and creating class consciousness in the proletariat of said countries to revolt against the government they've supported, claiming to be communist would be rather hard.

We've since deviated from that and have gotten into an argument comparing said so-called communist countries to mostly-capitalist countries like the US, and others arguing that those said so-called communist countries like Cuba, Venezuela, ect.. aren't as bas as we think.

[#FF0000]

I'm gonna have to exclude myself from this convo. Now we're getting into just how bad previous "communist" regimes really were, and that's not a debate I'd enjoy getting into.

Nah that's a lame discussion to have, I agree. I'm just pointing out that the thing you said "U HAVEN'T BEEN THERE" is really dumb and you shouldn't use that to back up a thing you say, ever.


I had originally asked how you'd get the countries that claim to be communist to actually be communist, when most of them have the internet and news outlets owned by the government and creating class consciousness in the proletariat of said countries to revolt against the government they've supported, claiming to be communist would be rather hard.

I don't know if that's true in all of these countries. Venezuela has leftist opposition parties -- and there's a "Left-Wing" to the ruling party of China. I don't know about Cuba or anywhere else, but having a communist opposition to a "communist" ruling party isn't really unusual in a lot of these places.

[tooAlive]

Nah that's a lame discussion to have, I agree. I'm just pointing out that the thing you said "U HAVEN'T BEEN THERE" is really dumb and you shouldn't use that to back up a thing you say, ever.

Agreed. Seeing as you'll just use it against me when I say how bad the USSR was or something along those lines.

"Well, you've never been to the USSR so it could have been a paradise for all you know.."


I don't know if that's true in all of these countries. Venezuela has leftist opposition parties -- and there's a "Left-Wing" to the ruling party of China. I don't know about Cuba or anywhere else, but having a communist opposition to a "communist" ruling party isn't really unusual in a lot of these places.

The PSUV in Venezuela is pretty bent on being socialist, and it's no mystery to anyone that they're in bed with Cuba, that is openly "communist."

And the opposition party is categorized as being fascist by the government owned media.

[#FF0000]

Agreed. Seeing as you'll just use it against me when I say how bad the USSR was or something along those lines.

"Well, you've never been to the USSR so it could have been a paradise for all you know.."

Anyone with two working brain cells will use it against you because it's a stupid thing to say unless you are some Earthspeaker Shaman who can be imbued with the knowledge of the land by touching a tree and can hear the stories the soil sings.

What I'm saying is proximity doesn't make someone an authority on a subject.


The PSUV in Venezuela is pretty bent on being socialist, and it's no mystery to anyone that they're in bed with Cuba, that is openly "communist."

And the opposition party is categorized as being fascist by the government owned media.

Yeah, that usually happens to Communist oppositions in "communist" places. Now that I think of it, it happens basically everywhere. No one likes letting communists in opposition speak for themselves, really.

[Future]

So, I believe that all forms of the state are oppressive and they should be totally destroyed in favor of a highly organized, horizontal, and automonous anarchistic society. I also belive that Americans enjoy far more civil liberties than Cubans. The civil liberties that exist in the United States are objectively superior to those in Cuba or those in the fomer Soviet Union, but they are also objectively shit compared to what should be available. You can protest in the United States and get pepper sprayed. You can protest in Cuba and go missing. Both are shit countries with shit states that oppress their working class people in different ways.


And one does not have to have lived in the USSR or in modern Cuba to have an idea about what it's like to live there. Just as hypothetically one does not have to live in a capitalist country to appreciate how terrible it is to live in one (let's assume somebody lives on the moon or something.)



Thank God.


I agree. The fall of the Soviet Union was a victory for socialism. Its destruction allowed more room for real socialism to someday occupy Europe. It's just a shame that one dictatorship (statism and fake socialism) got supplanted by another one (statism and capitalism).

[#FF0000]

I agree. The fall of the Soviet Union was a victory for socialism.

That's kind of silly. I don't see how one anti-worker state collapsing and reforming into another anti-worker state is a victory for socialists one way or the other.

[Marxaveli]

Yea, me either. In fact, it many ways it is part of what set the socialist movement back. Not that the Soviet Union was socialist, but its collapse was convenient for the bourgeois strawman arguments, i.e. "see, socialism doesn't work".....it is this rhetoric and ahistorical proposition that feeds the continuing anti-communist and cold war propaganda that we see today.

[Future]

That's kind of silly. I don't see how one anti-worker state collapsing and reforming into another anti-worker state is a victory for socialists one way or the other.

I mean that the collapse of the USSR itself in a vacuum can only be seen as a victory for real socialism in Europe. The event resulted in a bourgeois superpower that called itself communist crumbling, which could finally free up Europe to pursue socialism like it was meant to be practiced - and the USSR's anti-communist dogma that it brainwashed the region with could finally lose its grip faster. But like I said:


It's just a shame that one dictatorship (statism and fake socialism) got supplanted by another one (statism and capitalism).

So I agree with you, but I feel that the collapse of any pro-bourgeois dictatorship is in itself a postive thing.

[Future]

Yea, me either. In fact, it many ways it is part of what set the socialist movement back. Not that the Soviet Union was socialist, but its collapse was convenient for the bourgeois strawman arguments, i.e. "see, socialism doesn't work".....it is this rhetoric and ahistorical proposition that feeds the continuing anti-communist and cold war propaganda that we see today.

This is also very true, but it's not like bourgeois strawman arguments weren't flying full force before its collapse. "See how they live over there with no freedom and no individuality! That's socialism!"

[motion denied]

A victory for sure, because neo-liberalism is so much better than soviet 'state-capitalism', right?

[Future]

A victory for sure, because neo-liberalism is so much better than soviet 'state-capitalism', right?

Nope. Both advocate anti-proletariat slavery.

[motion denied]

Nope. Both advocate anti-proletariat slavery.

Everything is as simple as that. Let's not derail the thread.

[La Guaneña]

tooAlive, my critique was more directed to the comrades here who identify with anarchism and ultra-left variations of marxism, who have points of view such as these:


I also belive that Americans enjoy far more civil liberties than Cubans. The civil liberties that exist in the United States are objectively superior to those in Cuba or those in the fomer Soviet Union


I mean that the collapse of the USSR itself in a vacuum can only be seen as a victory for real socialism in Europe. The event resulted in a bourgeois superpower that called itself communist crumbling, which could finally free up Europe to pursue socialism like it was meant to be practiced - and the USSR's anti-communist dogma that it brainwashed the region with could finally lose its grip faster Yeah, after the fall of the USSR the fight for real socialism in the Eastern countries sure is on fire! Look at Ukraine, Russia, former Yugoslavia, etc...


Yeah, that usually happens to Communist oppositions in "communist" places. Now that I think of it, it happens basically everywhere. No one likes letting communists in opposition speak for themselves, really. In defence of the the Venezolan Opposition labeled fascist by state TV (Basically Capriles and MUD)


I was just talking about how terrifying it is to listen to communists saying shit that might as well be coming out of your right-wing mouth.

[Future]

Everything is as simple as that. Let's not derail the thread.

Just making it clear that saying the fall of the USSR is a good thing for socialism (in spirit), is not misconstrued as "what replaced the USSR was an improvement and a friend to socialism".


Yeah, after the fall of the USSR the fight for real socialism in the Eastern countries sure is on fire! Look at Ukraine, Russia, former Yugoslavia, etc...

No, the fight for socialism suffers in Europe in the presence of bourgeois dictatorships. What I mean is that the fall of fake socialism is good for worldwide socialism in spirit. That's all.

[#FF0000]

Just making it clear that saying the fall of the USSR is a good thing for socialism (in spirit), is not misconstrued as "what replaced the USSR was an improvement and a friend to socialism".

Yeah, but a step to the side isn't a step forward. A defeat for pack of bosses and a victory for another pack of bosses isn't a victory for workers in any way.

[tooAlive]

tooAlive, my critique was more directed to the comrades here who identify with anarchism and ultra-left variations of marxism, who have points of view such as these:



Yeah, after the fall of the USSR the fight for real socialism in the Eastern countries sure is on fire! Look at Ukraine, Russia, former Yugoslavia, etc...

In defence of the the Venezolan Opposition labeled fascist by state TV (Basically Capriles and MUD)


I was just talking about how terrifying it is to listen to communists saying shit that might as well be coming out of your right-wing mouth.

Ahh, I see.

So you sympathize with the likes of Stalin and support countries like the former USSR, Communist China, modern day Cuba, Venezuela, ect..

If so, what percent of other leftists (worldwide) would you say share those same views as opposed to the ones that lean in a more anarchic fashion and would disprove of such systems? Which would you say most closely resembles true communism?

[Future]

Yeah, but a step to the side isn't a step forward. A defeat for pack of bosses and a victory for another pack of bosses isn't a victory for workers in any way.

Sigh. I seriously agree with all of you - it's just that my meaning is either being misunderstood or the way I worded my initial comment is misleading. Let me make this perfectly clear to everyone so there is no more confusion:

I believe that it is a terrible thing for fake socialist states to exist in the world. They are only harmful to the liberation of the working class in the same way that capitalist states are. The destruction of bourgeois institutions, no matter how they operate or what they call themselves, is in itself a postive thing. The fall of this horrible specter that called itself communist is good because there is no longer this major world superpower that controls much of the northern hemisphere spitting in our faces by calling itself socialist. Its collapse in a vacuum is a good thing. However, one dictatorship fell to be replaced by another. True socialism didn't have a chance to move because of global bourgeois influence and so the working class jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The "victory" I meant to convey was not a practical tangible victory for mobilizing European socialism, rather a victory in the sense that a major world influence that helped to taint the name of socialism and communism (along with bourgeois states) and murdered and enslaved people in the name of something beautiful, lost its influence. And it fucking sucks that it was replaced by something no better.

That's all I meant to say. "Victory" was probably too strong a word to use without more detail in my first post.

[Per Levy]

I was just talking about how terrifying it is to listen to communists saying shit that might as well be coming out of your right-wing mouth.

my thoughts exactly, labeling capitalists dictatorships, in wich the proles were just as powerless as in any other capitalist state, as being socialism is sadly something a lot of right and left wing peeps can agree on, quite terrifying.

[#FF0000]

Sigh. I seriously agree with all of you - it's just that my meaning is either being misunderstood or the way I worded my initial comment is misleading. Let me make this perfectly clear to everyone so there is no more confusion

No, no. I understood your meaning. I think that it's wrong to call it a "victory".

[Future]

No, no. I understood your meaning. I think that it's wrong to call it a "victory".

Fair enough. At least now everyone knows what I meant when I said that dirty V word.

[La Guaneña]

If so, what percent of other leftists (worldwide) would you say share those same views as opposed to the ones that lean in a more anarchic fashion and would disprove of such systems? Which would you say most closely resembles true communism?

I'm not going to talk about a "percentage of leftists" because I just don't have those statistics.

Anyways, RevLeft is not at all a great representative of the worldwide mass socialist movements. On one side, we have the strong Maoist movements in Southern Asia, namely India, Philipines and also Nepal, along with some other smaller countries.

In India, the Maoist Guerrillas have 30-40% of Indian territory under control, in the Eastern part of the country, while waging war against the government forces, for example.

In Europe, we have the notable Greek movement that has a very strong marxist-leninist party at the head of the unionist movement and that has proven to be capable of rallying hundreds of thousands of people to the streets and into general strikes, the KKE. The case of Spain, with the revisionist PCE and the smaller but revolutionary PCPE, is also notable, namely the miners strike last year that swept the country and led to 100,000 people marching in Madrid.

In Latin America, we have the example of the FARC that wage a civil war against the 3rd country in the USA's military payroll, after Israel and Egypt (it may have climbed to 2nd), along with the legal and illegal parties (PCC and PCCC) that along with MP and the recently re-funded UP form one of the largest, bravest and least-reported mass movements for democracy and socialism in the world.

Along with Colombia, there is also the mass movement that is currently led by progressive popular forces that counts with a large participation of the communists, especially in Venezuela and Ecuador, but also in Bolivia. These movements have mobilized literally milions of people to the streets to defend their governments against coup attempts by the very nice Venezolan opposition (you should seriously watch Chavez: Inside the Coup on YT).

All of these movements are solidary to the Cuban revolution, and defend its popular, democratic, anti-imperialist and socialist character. And except for a few of the political forces involved in the bolivarian movement (Ecuador, Bolívia and Venezuela), I can affirm that all of them defend the past and present workers' states.

PS: And seriously, watch the documentary I recommended. It talks about the importance of checking your information and news sources.

[tooAlive]

I'm not going to talk about a "percentage of leftists" because I just don't have those statistics.

Anyways, RevLeft is not at all a great representative of the worldwide mass socialist movements. On one side, we have the strong Maoist movements in Southern Asia, namely India, Philipines and also Nepal, along with some other smaller countries.

In India, the Maoist Guerrillas have 30-40% of Indian territory under control, in the Eastern part of the country, while waging war against the government forces, for example.

In Europe, we have the notable Greek movement that has a very strong marxist-leninist party at the head of the unionist movement and that has proven to be capable of rallying hundreds of thousands of people to the streets and into general strikes, the KKE. The case of Spain, with the revisionist PCE and the smaller but revolutionary PCPE, is also notable, namely the miners strike last year that swept the country and led to 100,000 people marching in Madrid.

In Latin America, we have the example of the FARC that wage a civil war against the 3rd country in the USA's military payroll, after Israel and Egypt (it may have climbed to 2nd), along with the legal and illegal parties (PCC and PCCC) that along with MP and the recently re-funded UP form one of the largest, bravest and least-reported mass movements for democracy and socialism in the world.

Along with Colombia, there is also the mass movement that is currently led by progressive popular forces that counts with a large participation of the communists, especially in Venezuela and Ecuador, but also in Bolivia. These movements have mobilized literally milions of people to the streets to defend their governments against coup attempts by the very nice Venezolan opposition (you should seriously watch Chavez: Inside the Coup on YT).

All of these movements are solidary to the Cuban revolution, and defend its popular, democratic, anti-imperialist and socialist character. And except for a few of the political forces involved in the bolivarian movement (Ecuador, Bolívia and Venezuela), I can affirm that all of them defend the past and present workers' states.

PS: And seriously, watch the documentary I recommended. It talks about the importance of checking your information and news sources.

Thanks for the information. That pretty much sums it up.

I hope you don't mind me copying this over to my other thread which in which I think it will also be relevant. Unless you'd want to add a bit more clarification in regards to the difference between the anarchic communists commonly found here and the other faction that seems to be more common throughout the world.

[liberlict]

It's no different to getting non-communists to be communists, is it? Pseudo-communists are in the same class as non-communists.

[Mrcapitalist]

Laws and civil liberties aren't the same in capitalist countries like the US compared to so-called socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba. For heaven's sake, all a guy had to do in Cuba to get beaten and jailed was scream "Down with communism!" when the pope when to visit.

I thought you said most Cubans were still patriotic about the revolution?

[Sinister Intents]

I thought you said most Cubans were still patriotic about the revolution?

And he's always trying to point out contradictions on RevLeft, funny he makes a contradiction himself

[tooAlive]

I thought you said most Cubans were still patriotic about the revolution?

Yes, a lot of them are. There's still quite a bit of Cubans on the island that vocally support the 50's revolution and are staunch communists.

There are people all over the world that support the Cuban revolution and even support the current Castro regime.

[Mrcapitalist]

Yes, a lot of them are. There's still quite a bit of Cubans on the island that vocally support the 50's revolution and are staunch communists.

There are people all over the world that support the Cuban revolution and even support the current Castro regime.

Is it because they get universal healthcare and education?

[tooAlive]

Is it because they get universal healthcare and education?

Most definitely.

If only the ones that decide to cross the ocean to Miami knew about those wonders..

[Ele'ill]

If so, what percent of other leftists (worldwide) would you say share those same views as opposed to the ones that lean in a more anarchic fashion and would disprove of such systems?

imo there are more folks in opposition but really when it comes down to it who gives a flying shit. If you haven't noticed we're eyeball deep in total war against a cornucopia of different armies full of bad fatal ideas. Fuck them all.




Which would you say most closely resembles true communism?

You can answer this on your own.

[Diirez]

Laws and civil liberties aren't the same in capitalist countries like the US compared to so-called socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba. For heaven's sake, all a guy had to do in Cuba to get beaten and jailed was scream "Down with communism!" when the pope when to visit.
Yeah and in America all you had to do was own a socialist book or mention something about Communism or be an immigrant and you got illegally searched and deported (first red scare) or what about the Second Red Scare where a politician claimed he had all the Communists in a secret book and had people arrested.
Not to mention all the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 that took away freedom of opinion and speech because America was scared of Communism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the world today we have many impostors claiming to be communists or socialists. Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, today's Cuba, today's Venezuela, ect.. which were or are nothing more than state capitalist (according to you).

My question is, how will you get those so called "communist countries" to actually be communist? The workers can't exactly revolt against the state army as they'd all most likely get killed or imprisoned. And you need these countries to follow along in order to have the global communist system which you all advocate for.

Is there communist propaganda you can spread to fight the communist propaganda spread by the state? If not, then what?

Seems like a big obstacle standing in the way of achieving global communism is communism.

I do believe that these countries were state-capitalist, but while this model is good for mass accumulation and exploitation in some ways, in other ways it creates different problems for the exploiting class. Primarily by having the state manage large parts of the exploitative and alienated production process itself, when class militancy does begin to rise, it can be much more focused since the exploiters are the oppressors are identified together. In bourgeois democracies, this class anger is often diffused by the separation of economic and political management. Liberal workers in protests in the US, for example might denounce the 1%, but look to Obama for protection. In China, the bosses wear government uniforms and so the connection between political repression and economic exploitation is much more apparent and a mass movement can quickly become a revolutionary movement.

In regards to repression, well I think if we look at any of these countries repression isn't "set" but is related to circumstances and the balance of class and social forces. What does a liberal democracy look like when it faces a serious challenge? Well it looks like a coup that replaces the split electoral government with military rule, a Pinochet or Shah or Egyptian SCAF. What does a county that needs to massivly reorganize its economy irregardless to the needs and welfare of the laboring population? It generally looks really repressive like South American countries under IMF austerity restructuring, Greece today where fascists and cops harass migrants and workers and homosexuals, the USSR under Stalin, China. Even the US's answer to the increased instability in working class lives due to economic restructuring and neoliberalism with a massive increase in incarceration, street-level policing, and the elimination of reforms and restrictions on profiling and being able to round people up, spy, etc along with a reduction in avenues for popular influence in electoral politics (as insufficient as they are to begin with in societies like this).