Log in

View Full Version : Here is real communism



ahhh_money_is_comfort
4th December 2004, 06:20
This is real communism today. This is not a theory, this is the reality and practise:

http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/index.html

Yes, they are hippies. So comrades, if you really want to be communist, better learn to groove.

Latifa
4th December 2004, 06:25
ROLF Ok sir I'll get my groove on for communism

Zingu
4th December 2004, 06:26
I have no arguement.

Now I need to learn to dance to I can "groove".

ÑóẊîöʼn
4th December 2004, 12:34
No thank you. (http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/kerntext.html)

It's not communism and I don't want it.

Dr. Rosenpenis
4th December 2004, 16:59
Communism necessarily must stem from an industrialized capitalist society.

NovelGentry
4th December 2004, 17:13
Communism necessarily must stem from an industrialized capitalist society.

This is a touchy statement. Assuming communism simply is a defined socio-economic stage in our future history, I don't think there is any actual requirement that communism must be stemmed from capitalism. If someone could find method to achieve it under other current systems, I would not discredit the posssibility of it being communist on that fact alone. What is harder for some people to accept and what makes this statement 100% accurate in my book is simply the belief that no other such method is possible and that the only workable method is one from taking us from capitalism to communism, and even then I argue you still need a fairly pragmatic method.

Professor Moneybags
4th December 2004, 17:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:59 PM
Communism necessarily must stem from an industrialized capitalist society.
Yes communism first requires an industrial society to commandeer, which then collapses when it is unable to maintain it.

The Feral Underclass
4th December 2004, 18:57
Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Dec 4 2004, 06:53 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Dec 4 2004, 06:53 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 04:59 PM
Communism necessarily must stem from an industrialized capitalist society.
Yes communism first requires an industrial society to commandeer, which then collapses when it is unable to maintain it. [/b]
Surely you must bore yourself? You certainly bore me.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
4th December 2004, 21:17
Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Dec 4 2004, 05:53 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Dec 4 2004, 05:53 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 04:59 PM
Communism necessarily must stem from an industrialized capitalist society.
Yes communism first requires an industrial society to commandeer, which then collapses when it is unable to maintain it. [/b]
Sure. That is exactly what happened to almost every communist revolution. It starts out well meaning enough then becomes a monster. A monster that economicially grinds to a halt but does a good job at producing mass graves and secret executions. Yes they are quite efficient at that industry. Yes many people here probably don't call that communism, but that is what really happens.

China
Soviet
Poland
Cambodia
North Vietnam
etc.

So if your a betting man. What do you say? Given any random country, based on previous odds. What are the chances that in any random country that has a revolution, that the revolution will become a monster.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
4th December 2004, 21:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:25 AM
ROLF Ok sir I'll get my groove on for communism
That is very noble.

But.

How many people will follow that noble idea?

eyedrop
4th December 2004, 22:59
Sure. That is exactly what happened to almost every communist revolution. It starts out well meaning enough then becomes a monster. A monster that economicially grinds to a halt but does a good job at producing mass graves and secret executions. Yes they are quite efficient at that industry. Yes many people here probably don't call that communism, but that is what really happens.

But what if they weren't communists to start with? You can't discredit our ideas because someone with a completely different set of ideas claimed to be the same and fucked up.

Many of us here don't advocate a centralised government as all those examples you listed.


It is as if I had discredited your capitalism because some rabid hindu had claimed to be practicing capitalism while beating up another man.


Judge people on the ideas they say they advokate, not those you believe they advocate.

Dr. Rosenpenis
4th December 2004, 23:07
Cambodia was never even socialist at all. There is not a single leftist faction that supports the Khmer Rouge.

Vietnam and China are not socialist either. Maybe at some point, but not anymore. China ceased to be socialist a long time ago. Vietnam did so when the Soviet bloc collapsed.

The Soviet Union was indeed socialist. When it ceased to be socialist is debatable. Some would say when Stalin died, some would say when Stalin took over.

Cuba is just beautiful.

NovelGentry
5th December 2004, 00:00
Some would say when Lenin started the NEP

Latifa
5th December 2004, 02:15
Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Dec 4 2004, 09:18 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Dec 4 2004, 09:18 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 06:25 AM
ROLF Ok sir I'll get my groove on for communism
That is very noble.

But.

How many people will follow that noble idea?[/b]
I was joking, I'd never be content as a farmer.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
5th December 2004, 22:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:59 PM

Sure. That is exactly what happened to almost every communist revolution. It starts out well meaning enough then becomes a monster. A monster that economicially grinds to a halt but does a good job at producing mass graves and secret executions. Yes they are quite efficient at that industry. Yes many people here probably don't call that communism, but that is what really happens.

But what if they weren't communists to start with? You can't discredit our ideas because someone with a completely different set of ideas claimed to be the same and fucked up.

Many of us here don't advocate a centralised government as all those examples you listed.


It is as if I had discredited your capitalism because some rabid hindu had claimed to be practicing capitalism while beating up another man.


Judge people on the ideas they say they advokate, not those you believe they advocate.
OK. Then who has had a communist revolution?

ahhh_money_is_comfort
5th December 2004, 22:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:07 PM
Cambodia was never even socialist at all. There is not a single leftist faction that supports the Khmer Rouge.

Vietnam and China are not socialist either. Maybe at some point, but not anymore. China ceased to be socialist a long time ago. Vietnam did so when the Soviet bloc collapsed.

The Soviet Union was indeed socialist. When it ceased to be socialist is debatable. Some would say when Stalin died, some would say when Stalin took over.

Cuba is just beautiful.
By what stardard is Cuba beautiful?

Is it one that I and many of my neighbors find beautiful?

ahhh_money_is_comfort
5th December 2004, 22:14
Originally posted by Latifa+Dec 5 2004, 02:15 AM--> (Latifa @ Dec 5 2004, 02:15 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:18 PM

[email protected] 4 2004, 06:25 AM
ROLF Ok sir I'll get my groove on for communism
That is very noble.

But.

How many people will follow that noble idea?
I was joking, I'd never be content as a farmer. [/b]
Well better get used to the idea of farming. So far this is the only stable form of communism that I can find. It is also heavily dependant on the charasmatic leader. I'll have too see if it survives the passing of older leadership, but I wager these guys will be around for a while. I think that got a good plan for long term stability. Anyhow, they are a very passionate and dedicated bunch. Not your 'average worker'.

Dr. Rosenpenis
6th December 2004, 01:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:08 PM
By what stardard is Cuba beautiful?

Is it one that I and many of my neighbors find beautiful?
Cuba is the only successful third world country as well as the only successful socialist country. Cubans enjoy freedom, equality, and a high standard of living. What more could you ask for?

Read this (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)

ahhh_money_is_comfort
6th December 2004, 01:40
Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Dec 6 2004, 01:10 AM--> (RedZeppelin @ Dec 6 2004, 01:10 AM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 05:08 PM
By what stardard is Cuba beautiful?

Is it one that I and many of my neighbors find beautiful?
Cuba is the only successful third world country as well as the only successful socialist country. Cubans enjoy freedom, equality, and a high standard of living. What more could you ask for?

Read this (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html) [/b]
Thanks for the civils lesson in Cuba. I agree that democracy is much different in many places. Even the Greeks had different and incompatible versions of democracy. Take for example Spartans and Athenians. Both democratic and also both incompatible and very different. When I say incompatible I mean that a Spartan can not move to Athens, and continue his notions of citizenship and democracy in Athens.

But this is what I understand about Cuba:

http://www.fh.org/cdi_cuba

They are hungry. We have hungry in the USA too, but for different reasons. We got lots of food here, but we don't get it to people who need it. They have hungry because they don't have anything to eat. Which is typical of 3rd world countries. They simply don't have enough production to go around to all the hungry. In the USA production is not a problem. We got lots to eat and we are even giving it away, maybe even to Cuba.

Dr. Rosenpenis
6th December 2004, 01:46
Compare Cuba to the rest of the developing third world.
Very few people, if any at all, actually die of malnutrition in Cuba. The people referred to in that site are probably victims of the recent hurricanes.

Every Cuban, especially those in Havana, have access to local doctors, recreation centers, schools, and food suppliers. Also local governing bodies.

Cuba has undeniably successfully phased out the problem of poverty and starvation that plagues the capitalist third world.

DaCuBaN
6th December 2004, 01:59
Whilst this discussion on cuba - the nth on this site, surely (do a search and you will see) - is very nice and all, I'd like to drag the topic kicking and screaming back where it's meant to be:

From TheFarm's website:


In the late 1970s...ideological consideration of restructuring and reorganizing the community was also initiated. By 1982, restructuring had been completed, and in 1983 The Farm was decollectivized. Barter was replaced by money as the medium of exchange; The Farm was incorporated and issued stock as a means of generating capital, and all affiliated communities became independent units. In 1982, "the gate was closed," and a limitation was imposed on the length of time visitors could remain in the community. The practical effect of this policy was to discourage new members. Since 1982, only about a dozen people have been accepted into the community.

I'm sorry, but once it may have been something resembling a communist society (even if in the micro scale), but it seems it hasn't been that way for twenty years. Also:


Because of their rural lifestyle and more conservative values, The Farm's neighbors frowned on a more liberal expression of sexuality, and because the community needed the assistance of these neighbors, it was thought best to conform in appearance and in public pronouncement to the prevailing norm. While a minority continued to live in multiple marriages, the community seems to have decided at this time that a monogamic social order promised greater long-term social stability, and so monogamy became an essential element of internal community ideology.

Their "experiment" has been "contaminated" - it seems it's not possible to succeed at communism whilst capitalism (and accompanying ills) still exists. To use an analogy particular to my profession, it's like trying to run *nix through win9x - pointless and certain to end in disaster.

For an example of "working communism", I suggest you look up the Paris Commune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune).

ahhh_money_is_comfort
6th December 2004, 02:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:46 AM
Compare Cuba to the rest of the developing third world.
Very few people, if any at all, actually die of malnutrition in Cuba. The people referred to in that site are probably victims of the recent hurricanes.

Every Cuban, especially those in Havana, have access to local doctors, recreation centers, schools, and food suppliers. Also local governing bodies.

Cuba has undeniably successfully phased out the problem of poverty and starvation that plagues the capitalist third world.
I still would not want to export thier quality of life to me. I am doing just fine and don't need to change. Although if you wish to make that trade, then more power to you for your idealism. I doubt you will have few followers from my friends and neighbors.

http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%...%20disease.html (http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/Cuban%20blindness%20disease.html)

This is an indicator of what Cubans get to eat. The lack of vitamins and food has compounded the problem. Let's face it though. You and I know that this is also related to trade sanctions. You and I know that Cuba has always needed outside help and has never been completely self sufficient.

Dr. Rosenpenis
6th December 2004, 02:25
Are you suggesting that Cubans generally have more to eat than say... Mexicans? Then why isn't that "epidemic" vision crisis reported about Mexico? Millions of Mexicans live in poverty with little or nothing to eat for very long periods of time. I think both you and I know that.
So why isn't this problem seen in Mexico?

I'll tell you why. Because it's bourgeois crap.

read this (http://www.unm.edu/~nvaldes/Cuba/nutri.htm)

It's very clearly unbiased, stating both the problems and improvements regarding nutrition in Cuba.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has stated that the "drastic change" in income distribution in Cuba led to a major increase, on the order of 13 to 14%, in food demand leading to an improvement in overall diet.[26] In fact, despite the drop in food production, the country achieved a progressive increment in its caloric intake per inhabitant--which has remained above the minimum daily requirement. By 1975, the actual caloric intake had matched the mathematical average of the 1950s. By 1981 the daily caloric consumption per capita reached almost 2900.[27] In all of Latin America, only Argentina surpasses Cuba.


I doubt you will have few followers from my friends and neighbors.

Freudian slip?

ahhh_money_is_comfort
6th December 2004, 02:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:59 AM
Whilst this discussion on cuba - the nth on this site, surely (do a search and you will see) - is very nice and all, I'd like to drag the topic kicking and screaming back where it's meant to be:

From TheFarm's website:


In the late 1970s...ideological consideration of restructuring and reorganizing the community was also initiated. By 1982, restructuring had been completed, and in 1983 The Farm was decollectivized. Barter was replaced by money as the medium of exchange; The Farm was incorporated and issued stock as a means of generating capital, and all affiliated communities became independent units. In 1982, "the gate was closed," and a limitation was imposed on the length of time visitors could remain in the community. The practical effect of this policy was to discourage new members. Since 1982, only about a dozen people have been accepted into the community.

I'm sorry, but once it may have been something resembling a communist society (even if in the micro scale), but it seems it hasn't been that way for twenty years. Also:


Because of their rural lifestyle and more conservative values, The Farm's neighbors frowned on a more liberal expression of sexuality, and because the community needed the assistance of these neighbors, it was thought best to conform in appearance and in public pronouncement to the prevailing norm. While a minority continued to live in multiple marriages, the community seems to have decided at this time that a monogamic social order promised greater long-term social stability, and so monogamy became an essential element of internal community ideology.

Their "experiment" has been "contaminated" - it seems it's not possible to succeed at communism whilst capitalism (and accompanying ills) still exists. To use an analogy particular to my profession, it's like trying to run *nix through win9x - pointless and certain to end in disaster.

For an example of "working communism", I suggest you look up the Paris Commune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune).
OK TheFarm not communist.

But why should I look at the Paris Commune? Please point me in the right direction. Which part of it is proof or a micro-model that can be stable communism?

DaCuBaN
6th December 2004, 02:50
The Paris Commune is (arguably) the only example of communism to date (the argument being; has communism ever existed at all); working or otherwise.

This site (http://www.marxists.org/history/france/paris-commune/) has reams of useful information on the crushed attempt at self-determination, democracy and freedom in the heart of revolutionary France. Enjoy :cool:

ahhh_money_is_comfort
6th December 2004, 03:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:50 AM
The Paris Commune is (arguably) the only example of communism to date (the argument being; has communism ever existed at all); working or otherwise.

This site (http://www.marxists.org/history/france/paris-commune/) has reams of useful information on the crushed attempt at self-determination, democracy and freedom in the heart of revolutionary France. Enjoy :cool:
Thanks, but that is not really want I wanted. What I want is a baseline. A baseline to compare vs a freemarket. You know that lots of communist theory gets throw around here as fact. Theory does not = fact nor does it equal proof. I see lots of claims here such as

1) I will work less under communism.
2) Communism produces more.
3) Communism produces better quality.
etc.


Well I what to 'see the money'. I want to see the comparison, before I believe it. Of course if you and I are just talking and babbling that is OK. But if you are trying to convince me that you are right and are standing on theory alone, I don't believe you. Theory is not proof.

So what I'm looking as aspects that can be baselined. Such as similiar types of factories or industries working on micro scales. To date I have not found any baselines. I have not found any small population under quasi communist conditions that can be baselined with other similiar small free market models. So the best that any communist can say about 1,2,3 is 'I think 1,2,3 will happen', not 1,2,3 WILL happen.

DaCuBaN
6th December 2004, 03:23
I mentioned this in another thread: I'm not a communist per se. I can only give you what information I have pertaining to this discussion - Linkage (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm)

It's not communism and it's a bit off-beat, but it beats conjecture.


1) I will work less under communism.
2) Communism produces more.
3) Communism produces better quality.

All are covered at the above site - although not directly in regards to "communism" in the way you consider it, it's still highly relevant.

Don't Change Your Name
6th December 2004, 13:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:40 AM
But this is what I understand about Cuba:

http://www.fh.org/cdi_cuba
"meeting physical and spiritual need worldwide"????

"build Christ's kingdom"????

"Prayer Needs for Cuba"????

"Six evangelical churches and 15 medical doctors from the Ministry of Health will lead an effort to bolster nutrition amongst undernourished.
Churches will assist needy families through medical doctors who are believers.
Community health centers will receive medicines and food supplies.
Christian medical doctors will be trained to be community facilitators."????????

Err....that's just a "religious charity" website.
Next time use a more "objective" source, since this kind of sites only will show "what's wrong".

Oh, and:


Since 1959, Fidel Castro has held a tight rule on the Communist country.

They don't know what communism is


The country is now slowly recovering from a severe economic recession in 1990, following the withdrawal of former Soviet subsidies and the continued US embargo that has been in place since 1961.

What most cappies forget.

By they way you can't compare Cuba and yanquiland. That's a fallacy. You better compare Cuba to other simmilar countries.

Vinny Rafarino
6th December 2004, 15:50
Well I what to 'see the money'. I want to see the comparison, before I believe it. Of course if you and I are just talking and babbling that is OK. But if you are trying to convince me that you are right and are standing on theory alone, I don't believe you. Theory is not proof.


You're still confused.

You can't "see the money" because money no longer exists in a Communist society.

Perhaps if you were to ask the right question, you would get the right answer. I suggest that you do some research on Communism, Socialism and Capitalism; you may not even need to ask any questions at that point, that is assuming you can understand the material.

In any case, no one in their right mind would ever confuse Communist theory with empirical fact. All we can do is hope that when Capitalism collapses, Communist theory will be able to be eventually be placed into practise and begin to show positive results.

On a side note, the Paris Commune for all purposes does not provide any substancial
evidence to support the theory that Communism, as we understand it to be, will be a suitable alternative to Capitalism in the modern era. It merely proves that Communism was possible on a micro scale within a society that was socially, technologically and industrially inferior to, att he very least, our current conditions.

Exploited Class
6th December 2004, 18:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 07:15 PM
This is an indicator of what Cubans get to eat. The lack of vitamins and food has compounded the problem. Let's face it though. You and I know that this is also related to trade sanctions. You and I know that Cuba has always needed outside help and has never been completely self sufficient.
Well I suppose then you would be very quick to own up to your own country's inequities as it enters its own largest trade gap. Unable to fulfill its own need's and requiring outside help. Proving America also alone is not completely self sufficient.

And would the great depression seated in America's own history be proof alone that capitalism does not work, as millions at that time died of starvation? As producers in order to drive up market prices threw out train loads of food, instead of feeding the most needed? There is a heartlessness feeling abundant in capitalism that will never provide for all, sadly it doesn't even have that goal entrenched anywhere in its ideology.

Better to have a goal that is proper to all and fail, than to have a goal that deliberately keeps a significant portion of the population out of the possibility to have at all. There has never been 0% unemployment in a capitalist economy and that is deliberate in design. However give me the lofty promises of socialism with it failures, than Capitalism's successes.

If the success of Capitalism is to keep 40 million out of healthcare, 1 out of 5 children in poverty and more people than livable waged jobs, give me the failures of socialism any day.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
7th December 2004, 02:08
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 6 2004, 03:50 PM

Well I what to 'see the money'. I want to see the comparison, before I believe it. Of course if you and I are just talking and babbling that is OK. But if you are trying to convince me that you are right and are standing on theory alone, I don't believe you. Theory is not proof.


You're still confused.

You can't "see the money" because money no longer exists in a Communist society.

Perhaps if you were to ask the right question, you would get the right answer. I suggest that you do some research on Communism, Socialism and Capitalism; you may not even need to ask any questions at that point, that is assuming you can understand the material.

In any case, no one in their right mind would ever confuse Communist theory with empirical fact. All we can do is hope that when Capitalism collapses, Communist theory will be able to be eventually be placed into practise and begin to show positive results.

On a side note, the Paris Commune for all purposes does not provide any substancial
evidence to support the theory that Communism, as we understand it to be, will be a suitable alternative to Capitalism in the modern era. It merely proves that Communism was possible on a micro scale within a society that was socially, technologically and industrially inferior to, att he very least, our current conditions.
I'm sorry for confusing you. "Show me the money" is a uphamism for 'prove it'.

Anyhow I think you answered my question fully and to the point. The best that communist is a hope that the thoery will happen. My contention is that the hope has occured several times already. The hope was in Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia. The result was not the 'hope' but instead a nightmare. I'm a betting man. Odds are that for any random country that has a revoultion, if the odds are consistant, that revolution will also be a nightmare in the end.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
7th December 2004, 02:13
Originally posted by Exploited Class+Dec 6 2004, 06:39 PM--> (Exploited Class @ Dec 6 2004, 06:39 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 07:15 PM
This is an indicator of what Cubans get to eat. The lack of vitamins and food has compounded the problem. Let's face it though. You and I know that this is also related to trade sanctions. You and I know that Cuba has always needed outside help and has never been completely self sufficient.
Well I suppose then you would be very quick to own up to your own country's inequities as it enters its own largest trade gap. Unable to fulfill its own need's and requiring outside help. Proving America also alone is not completely self sufficient.

And would the great depression seated in America's own history be proof alone that capitalism does not work, as millions at that time died of starvation? As producers in order to drive up market prices threw out train loads of food, instead of feeding the most needed? There is a heartlessness feeling abundant in capitalism that will never provide for all, sadly it doesn't even have that goal entrenched anywhere in its ideology.

Better to have a goal that is proper to all and fail, than to have a goal that deliberately keeps a significant portion of the population out of the possibility to have at all. There has never been 0% unemployment in a capitalist economy and that is deliberate in design. However give me the lofty promises of socialism with it failures, than Capitalism's successes.

If the success of Capitalism is to keep 40 million out of healthcare, 1 out of 5 children in poverty and more people than livable waged jobs, give me the failures of socialism any day. [/b]
Self-sufficient? You mean trade with other nations? Hey that is what a successful free market nation does, it trades with other nations for resources.

I'm sorry we can not be socialist in my country. Frankly I'd rather be communist, but we can not be socialist, we can not afford it.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
7th December 2004, 02:17
Originally posted by Exploited Class+Dec 6 2004, 06:39 PM--> (Exploited Class @ Dec 6 2004, 06:39 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 07:15 PM
This is an indicator of what Cubans get to eat. The lack of vitamins and food has compounded the problem. Let's face it though. You and I know that this is also related to trade sanctions. You and I know that Cuba has always needed outside help and has never been completely self sufficient.
Well I suppose then you would be very quick to own up to your own country's inequities as it enters its own largest trade gap. Unable to fulfill its own need's and requiring outside help. Proving America also alone is not completely self sufficient.

And would the great depression seated in America's own history be proof alone that capitalism does not work, as millions at that time died of starvation? As producers in order to drive up market prices threw out train loads of food, instead of feeding the most needed? There is a heartlessness feeling abundant in capitalism that will never provide for all, sadly it doesn't even have that goal entrenched anywhere in its ideology.

Better to have a goal that is proper to all and fail, than to have a goal that deliberately keeps a significant portion of the population out of the possibility to have at all. There has never been 0% unemployment in a capitalist economy and that is deliberate in design. However give me the lofty promises of socialism with it failures, than Capitalism's successes.

If the success of Capitalism is to keep 40 million out of healthcare, 1 out of 5 children in poverty and more people than livable waged jobs, give me the failures of socialism any day. [/b]
My whole point is the failure of communism is a terrible nightmare. You can not deny that Russia, China, Cambodia, North Vietnam were COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONS that went bad. Yes they were not communist at the end, but they started with the idealism. The idealism lead directly into social injustice and secret mass graves. Given the odds of the # of communist revolutions and the # of revolutions than became nightmares, what are the odds that the next random country that has a revolution is also going to be a nightmare? I think it is pretty close or above 90%.

Exploited Class
7th December 2004, 03:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:17 PM
My whole point is the failure of communism is a terrible nightmare. You can not deny that Russia, China, Cambodia, North Vietnam were COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONS that went bad.
Failures of communism, although not exactly pretty, were not all nightmares. That means a lot coming from a socialist that is a staunch anti-soviet person. But I am realistic to exactly how far their failures exist and can see the exact same failures in Western Society's capitalism.


You can not deny that Russia, China, Cambodia, North Vietnam were COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONS that went bad.

Well I would certainly not put China in that boat. Socialism isn't the issue there and really that country is coming out ahead. The issue is traditional values, large sparsely populated areas over great distances with a lot of minor factions. China had severe issues well before any socialist components existed. China will be the next super power in 10 years. I don't think #2 in the world out of 100+ countries is really a failure.

More than likely China will be #1 with the US being #2. Unfortunetly with a large trade gap, a weakened dollar, a dependency on foreign oil, outsourcing of jobs across seas, loss of manufacturing, inflation with hints of stagnation around the corner (zero growth with inflation), constant unemployment, high cost of footing a war on terrorism almost completely alone, realisticly the US will be equals with Canada. More countries are preparing to drop the dollar standard. Unfortunetly with the rising cost of tuition 33% incremental 4 year increase in many 4 year universities, America will not be much of a service industry it was hoping to gear up to be.

Soviets were far from failures, they took a 3rd world country and in 1 generation made it into the 2nd super power in the world. In order to keep up with the soviets America had to pay for the present by sacrificing the future. The issue of Trade Gaps and Defecit Spending is now coming back to bite America in the ass. The real issues with the Soviet Empire was not so much gulags, something that America has and should be visible to anybody that goes to a major city. We do not ship off those who refuse to work to syberia, we leave ours to the street without I.D., Addresses, wages, healthcare, in fact ours is a little worse because they don't usually even have protection from the elements. You have heard of people going to gulags to never be seen again, well how many homeless people do you think that occurs to, in a country that does not have 0% unemployment you will delibertly create a homeless "gulag class" on purpose.

I don't see the Vietnam revolution as going bad or consider it a failure, if it is at all to be considered a failure it was because of the U.S. involvement in a civil war it had no buisness being in. Majority of the population was pro-communist party at the time. Dropping napalm, bombs from planes, burning down villages, killing innocent civilians in the mass for "kill numbers" and off shore bombing by ships is what made that civil war messy.

All civil wars and revolutions are messy. America of course didn't have a messy revolution. Why? Because it takes a month or more to get orders and troops back and forth from America to Britiain by sail. However look at the civil war within America. Something of which the increased federal powers mandated by Abraham Lincoln, many people feel America lost that war and created a large and imposing federal government.


Yes they were not communist at the end, but they started with the idealism.
Well I think what you are seeing here is that Socialism/Communism is fucking awesome and people know it. Once a person understand's their exploited existence the idea of socialism harkens good things. Now you have a very popular idea being tossed around, some bad people hijack that power.

There are plenty of 3rd world countries that have had capitalist revolutions going from Monarchies. Africa is your best place to look. Now do you have any idea how many people died in the Congo Wars? How many people are dying in all those capitalist revolutions? Those are tribal wars trying to take control of production by a minority and seize property for a ruling class in order to trade on a world free market. So to blantaly pull some failures like the Pol Pot, is truly unfair to credit the socialist ideal to that, I might as well say that Hitler was a capitalist. He seized control of lands and properties, the stock market in Germany did not go away. WWII and WWI were all about seizing control of power and land. America didn't wait till the very end to jump into the European Front for no reason. They let everybody else use up thier resources then went in a took over afterwards at a discount price.


The idealism lead directly into social injustice and secret mass graves.
So all the American Native Indians that died over a 100 year period, to the brink of genocide for capitalism growth? America playing fucking capitalist trade wars with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, costed how many lives? How about all the union wars and the people that died in those? Whole cities choked of supplies so a union stand up would fall. How many slaves supported the American economy that helped it become a super power later?


Given the odds of the # of communist revolutions and the # of revolutions than became nightmares, what are the odds that the next random country that has a revolution is also going to be a nightmare?

Actually if you know anything about innovation, the more failures you have the greater chance of success you will have at the next turn. Your failures, if you are paying attention, will teach you how to do right the next time.

You want to look to better success than the recent failures, look to western Europe. Every year those socialist countries are getting rated #1 place on earth to live. Sure you might say, "They tax the hell out of you." well how much are you willing to pay to live in the #1 country? Do you want to pay less taxes and live in Peru? You can pay less taxes and live in a shithole or pay the most and be #1 in everything but crime, poverty, and malnutrition with homelessness.


I think it is pretty close or above 90%.
Considering more western countries are adopting more and more socialist programs and leaving the free market behind and the crule intentions of capitalism behind. I would say the next socialist revolutions will be much more succesful. America's ability to dictate world policies by instituting coups and insurgents is getting less likely. America will not be able to afford to disrupt another civil war and socialist revolution like it did in the days of the past. Socialists are now winning democrat elections worldwide.

You know America looks good right now, this very small minute tick of western society. To be so bold to think this is the end all, is short sighted to say the least. I suppose many a Roman citizen could not invision the falling of their empire.

The failures of communist societies can partly be blamed on America. If you know all the ends and out of true American history, you will see that most of what the soviets did, America did as well to their own populace. If America could have co-existed with the soviets a little better instead of initiating a cold war with them, socialism in Russia could have turned out much better. America would have been on the same track of authoritorian style government if it hadn't been geography. We don't have to erect giant walls to protect our citizens, our 2 neighbors are our allies. We have 2 giant oceans for walls.

But we have the same propaganda. We started indoctrination of the youth, like the Hitler Youth and the Soviet's version of the Boy Scouts. We had our KGB that deystroyed dissenters called COINTELPRO. We pushed legislation that broke our basic teniments of society like Pledges to a Flag, putting God everywhere, to break a seperation of church and state. We had gulags, our streets, we didn't park our tanks in our neighbor's countries like say what happened with Poland, Czech, E. Germany, but we used economic forces to control our allies as well.

We created a cold war, economic brutality, propaganda and forced communist nations to use innapropriate direct methods of control on their people. The Cold war broke the communist revolutions and sank them into bankruptcy, however the debt that America went in will cost America dearly soon. Once Americans find out that for every dollar they send away on taxes, 30 cents goes to just paying off intrest on the national debt, and they see their spending power removed, less upper class paying taxes because of trickle down economics, or voodoo economics, we'll talk about the failures of capitalism.

Guest1
7th December 2004, 06:28
Not to mention early Capitalist revolutions had their spectacular failures too. *cough* Napoleon *cough*. Eventually, things worked out.

And they will for Socialism too.

Already, Capitalism has created technologies that bare the seeds of its own destruction. Technologies that make it superfluous, and in some cases a hindrance.

Look at Linux and the Free Software Movement, look at peer to peer file sharing, look at sites like WikiPedia (http://www.wikipedia.org).

All of it is proving that gift economies work, and are more efficient and dynamic than market systems.

A_Devious_Mind
7th December 2004, 09:03
pfff. thats just foolish and gay.


MOD EDIT

Please read the che-lives guidelines concerning one line posts and homophobia.

RedAnarchist
7th December 2004, 09:15
how do you mean gay? Isnt that a little homophobic? (i dont know if your comment was non-serious or not)

Comrade Hector
7th December 2004, 18:45
For ahhh_money_is_comfort: Just out of curiosity, was Cambodia's Khmer Rouge doing a great job making mass graves before or after the United States funded their operations?

Xvall
9th December 2004, 22:22
This is by far the stupidest thread I've seen today. I'm going to make one just like it.

Vinny Rafarino
10th December 2004, 00:17
I'm sorry for confusing you. "Show me the money" is a uphamism [sic] for 'prove it'.

Anyhow I think you answered my question fully and to the point. The best that communist is a hope that the thoery will happen. My contention is that the hope has occured several times already. The hope was in Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia. The result was not the 'hope' but instead a nightmare. I'm a betting man. Odds are that for any random country that has a revoultion, if the odds are consistant, that revolution will also be a nightmare in the end.

Perhaps in your confusion you misread the statement "you're still confused" as "I'm confused"; I advise that you read it again.

Considering how easily you were confused by that, it's not shocking that you also misused the word "uphemism".

Since you're a "betting man", I will lay you six to one that you did not know that Cambodia was never a Socialist country transitioning into Communism.

It's funny to me that no matter how many times you are instructed, you still don't get it.

JudeObscure84
10th December 2004, 20:26
Communism necessarily must stem from an industrialized capitalist society.

So that's why you guys want the US so bad. :rolleyes:

ahhh_money_is_comfort
11th December 2004, 00:34
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10 2004, 12:17 AM

I'm sorry for confusing you. "Show me the money" is a uphamism [sic] for 'prove it'.

Anyhow I think you answered my question fully and to the point. The best that communist is a hope that the thoery will happen. My contention is that the hope has occured several times already. The hope was in Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia. The result was not the 'hope' but instead a nightmare. I'm a betting man. Odds are that for any random country that has a revoultion, if the odds are consistant, that revolution will also be a nightmare in the end.

Perhaps in your confusion you misread the statement "you're still confused" as "I'm confused"; I advise that you read it again.

Considering how easily you were confused by that, it's not shocking that you also misused the word "uphemism".

Since you're a "betting man", I will lay you six to one that you did not know that Cambodia was never a Socialist country transitioning into Communism.

It's funny to me that no matter how many times you are instructed, you still don't get it.
What I have to say about communism producing tyranical governments is pointless. Commies will deny it all. The excuse is "that is not communism". Call it what you want. You can not deny that the Khmer Rouge started a communist revolution in Cambodia. I bet if YOU were alive back then that at the beginning of the revolution in Cambodia, YOU would be calling them commrade.

synthesis
11th December 2004, 01:37
No, Cambodia was NOT a communist revolution. Without any moral denunciations, the ideology of Pol Pot is materially regressive, whereas any movement claiming the title of Marxist must necessarily be materially pro-technology; i.e. technologically progressive.

Pol Pot advocated the agrarianization of Cambodia. Whereas Marxism focuses on the rural population flocking to the cities to perform industrial tasks, the Khmer Rouge completely scattered the urban population into farms. This is as anti-Marxist as you get.

How did Pol Pot get overthrown? Not by anything involving America. In fact, our government sent him funds. No, he was deposed by Vietnamese forces who were trying to end his practices of ethnic cleansing.

Professor Moneybags
11th December 2004, 08:13
Pol Pot advocated the agrarianization of Cambodia. Whereas Marxism focuses on the rural population flocking to the cities to perform industrial tasks

Can you provide quotes from the communist mannifesto to support this ?

Osman Ghazi
11th December 2004, 11:50
Can you provide quotes from the communist mannifesto to support this ?


Not off the top of my head but either way, it doesn't matter. Marxism is more a function of what Marxists think than what Marx thought.

However, I think that the evidence is that Marx rested his trust in the proletariat, making a specific distiction from the peasantry. Also, he noted that societies grew more radical as cities became larger and the proletarian class grew.

But more importantly, what are you trying to say? That Marxists are opposed to urbanization? That Marxists really did support Pol Pot.


I bet if YOU were alive back then that at the beginning of the revolution in Cambodia, YOU would be calling them commrade.

That's quite possible, considering that if I were born in 1950's Cambodia, I'd almost certainly be an ignorant peasant.

Vinny Rafarino
11th December 2004, 23:23
Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Dec 11 2004, 12:34 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Dec 11 2004, 12:34 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 10 2004, 12:17 AM

I'm sorry for confusing you. "Show me the money" is a uphamism [sic] for 'prove it'.

Anyhow I think you answered my question fully and to the point. The best that communist is a hope that the thoery will happen. My contention is that the hope has occured several times already. The hope was in Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia. The result was not the 'hope' but instead a nightmare. I'm a betting man. Odds are that for any random country that has a revoultion, if the odds are consistant, that revolution will also be a nightmare in the end.

Perhaps in your confusion you misread the statement "you're still confused" as "I'm confused"; I advise that you read it again.

Considering how easily you were confused by that, it's not shocking that you also misused the word "uphemism".

Since you're a "betting man", I will lay you six to one that you did not know that Cambodia was never a Socialist country transitioning into Communism.

It's funny to me that no matter how many times you are instructed, you still don't get it.
What I have to say about communism producing tyranical governments is pointless. Commies will deny it all. The excuse is "that is not communism". Call it what you want. You can not deny that the Khmer Rouge started a communist revolution in Cambodia. I bet if YOU were alive back then that at the beginning of the revolution in Cambodia, YOU would be calling them commrade. [/b]
Actually kid, I most certainly was alive prior to the Cambodian "revolution" in '70..

However being only a few years old at the time, I was mostly concerned about playing with my action man.

In all my years as a Communist, I have never met any other Communist that supported the nonsense that transpired in Cambodia.

RedAnarchist
11th December 2004, 23:26
The people who think that the Khmer Rouge are Communist are the same idiotic fools who think China is a worker's paradise :lol:

synthesis
12th December 2004, 09:04
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 11 2004, 01:13 AM

Pol Pot advocated the agrarianization of Cambodia. Whereas Marxism focuses on the rural population flocking to the cities to perform industrial tasks

Can you provide quotes from the communist mannifesto to support this ?
The part about the rural population flocking not necessarily written in the Manifesto as such. It's simply historical fact. Marx's writings focused on the industrial proletariat which largely originated from freed serfs heading to the cities. Pol Pot's ideology was to force the exact opposite of this sequence of events, and as progress is necessary in Marxism, the two are irreconcilable.

Forward Union
12th December 2004, 09:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:34 AM


What I have to say about communism producing tyranical governments is pointless. Commies will deny it all.

Communism doesn't implement a government, so how it could accidentally form one is beyond me. To my knowledge its people that form governments, not ideologies.


The excuse is "that is not communism". Call it what you want.

Its not an excuse its a fact, perhaps you wish it wasn't, you'll have to live with it. And no, I wont call it what I want, I'll call it what it is.


You can not deny that the Khmer Rouge started a communist revolution in Cambodia.

I could, perhaps it was intended to be a communist, it certainly didn't turn out like that.


I bet if YOU were alive back then that at the beginning of the revolution in Cambodia, YOU would be calling them commrade.


doubt it. Its the same today. I don't support the FARC, they're a leftist movement. I don't actively support the cause in nepal, Kashmir.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
13th December 2004, 01:13
Originally posted by [email protected]Dec 11 2004, 01:37 AM
No, Cambodia was NOT a communist revolution. Without any moral denunciations, the ideology of Pol Pot is materially regressive, whereas any movement claiming the title of Marxist must necessarily be materially pro-technology; i.e. technologically progressive.

Pol Pot advocated the agrarianization of Cambodia. Whereas Marxism focuses on the rural population flocking to the cities to perform industrial tasks, the Khmer Rouge completely scattered the urban population into farms. This is as anti-Marxist as you get.

How did Pol Pot get overthrown? Not by anything involving America. In fact, our government sent him funds. No, he was deposed by Vietnamese forces who were trying to end his practices of ethnic cleansing.
OK. Cambodia not a revolution communist.

Then who was?

So far I can only get some agreement here is that Cuba was the only communist revolution.

Capitalist Imperial
19th December 2004, 21:37
Enough of the rhetoric, it's time to annex.

ÑóẊîöʼn
19th December 2004, 22:38
Why the hell are you sitting in front of your computer talking to us loser commies?
You should be in Iraq kicking the shit out of the locals. Hopefully you will grow some balls, sign up and get your head blown off by an RPG-7.

Fuck off.

synthesis
19th December 2004, 22:52
Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Dec 12 2004, 06:13 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Dec 12 2004, 06:13 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 01:37 AM
No, Cambodia was NOT a communist revolution. Without any moral denunciations, the ideology of Pol Pot is materially regressive, whereas any movement claiming the title of Marxist must necessarily be materially pro-technology; i.e. technologically progressive.

Pol Pot advocated the agrarianization of Cambodia. Whereas Marxism focuses on the rural population flocking to the cities to perform industrial tasks, the Khmer Rouge completely scattered the urban population into farms. This is as anti-Marxist as you get.

How did Pol Pot get overthrown? Not by anything involving America. In fact, our government sent him funds. No, he was deposed by Vietnamese forces who were trying to end his practices of ethnic cleansing.
OK. Cambodia not a revolution communist.

Then who was?

So far I can only get some agreement here is that Cuba was the only communist revolution. [/b]
I would say that the closest thing to a Communist revolution that has happened yet was about a century and a half ago in Paris.


On March 26 the Paris Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on the government, handed in its resignation to the National Guard, after it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris "Morality Police". On March 30 the Commune abolished conscription and the standing army, and declared that the National Guard, in which all citizens capable of bearing arms were to be enrolled, was to be the sole armed force. It remitted all payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April, the amounts already paid to be reckoned to a future rental period, and stopped all sales of article pledged in the municipal pawnshops. On the same day the foreigners elected to the Commune were confirmed in office, because "the flag of the Commune is the flag of the World Republic".

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers — in a word, "all that belongs to the sphere of the individual's conscience" — was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually applied. On the 5th, day after day, in reply to the shooting of the Commune's fighters captured by the Versailles troops, a decree was issued for imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried into effect. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion of the National guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing. On the 12th, the Commune decided that the Victory Column on the Place Vendôme, which had been cast from guns captured by napoleon after the war of 1809, should be demolished as a symbol of chauvinism and incitement to national hatred. This decree was carried out on May 16. On April 16 the Commune ordered a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization of these co-operatives in one great union. On the 20th the Commune abolished night work for bakers, and also the workers' registration cards, which since the Second Empire had been run as a monopoly by police nominees — exploiters of the first rank; the issuing of these registration cards was transferred to the mayors of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. On April 30, the Commune ordered the closing of the pawnshops, on the ground that they were a private exploitation of labor, and were in contradiction with the right of the workers to their instruments of labor and to credit. On May 5 it ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.


Sounds pretty good to me. The problem was that it was isolated and thus vulnerable to external suppression.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
20th December 2004, 01:41
Originally posted by DyerMaker+Dec 19 2004, 10:52 PM--> (DyerMaker @ Dec 19 2004, 10:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:13 PM

[email protected] 11 2004, 01:37 AM
No, Cambodia was NOT a communist revolution. Without any moral denunciations, the ideology of Pol Pot is materially regressive, whereas any movement claiming the title of Marxist must necessarily be materially pro-technology; i.e. technologically progressive.

Pol Pot advocated the agrarianization of Cambodia. Whereas Marxism focuses on the rural population flocking to the cities to perform industrial tasks, the Khmer Rouge completely scattered the urban population into farms. This is as anti-Marxist as you get.

How did Pol Pot get overthrown? Not by anything involving America. In fact, our government sent him funds. No, he was deposed by Vietnamese forces who were trying to end his practices of ethnic cleansing.
OK. Cambodia not a revolution communist.

Then who was?

So far I can only get some agreement here is that Cuba was the only communist revolution.
I would say that the closest thing to a Communist revolution that has happened yet was about a century and a half ago in Paris.


On March 26 the Paris Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on the government, handed in its resignation to the National Guard, after it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris "Morality Police". On March 30 the Commune abolished conscription and the standing army, and declared that the National Guard, in which all citizens capable of bearing arms were to be enrolled, was to be the sole armed force. It remitted all payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April, the amounts already paid to be reckoned to a future rental period, and stopped all sales of article pledged in the municipal pawnshops. On the same day the foreigners elected to the Commune were confirmed in office, because "the flag of the Commune is the flag of the World Republic".

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers — in a word, "all that belongs to the sphere of the individual's conscience" — was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually applied. On the 5th, day after day, in reply to the shooting of the Commune's fighters captured by the Versailles troops, a decree was issued for imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried into effect. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion of the National guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing. On the 12th, the Commune decided that the Victory Column on the Place Vendôme, which had been cast from guns captured by napoleon after the war of 1809, should be demolished as a symbol of chauvinism and incitement to national hatred. This decree was carried out on May 16. On April 16 the Commune ordered a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization of these co-operatives in one great union. On the 20th the Commune abolished night work for bakers, and also the workers' registration cards, which since the Second Empire had been run as a monopoly by police nominees — exploiters of the first rank; the issuing of these registration cards was transferred to the mayors of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. On April 30, the Commune ordered the closing of the pawnshops, on the ground that they were a private exploitation of labor, and were in contradiction with the right of the workers to their instruments of labor and to credit. On May 5 it ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.


Sounds pretty good to me. The problem was that it was isolated and thus vulnerable to external suppression. [/b]
OK. Paris the only real communism.

But you see you have a slight problem here. It is an advertisement problem. It is this:

Lots of guys all over the world calling themselves communist and starting revolutions....

and let me get this straight...

...the are not communist?

Dr. Rosenpenis
20th December 2004, 01:46
It doesn't really matter what they call themselves, okay? Their goal was communism, their method was a dictatorship of the proletariat. They never attained communism.

Saint-Just
20th December 2004, 14:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:17 PM
Sure. That is exactly what happened to almost every communist revolution. It starts out well meaning enough then becomes a monster. A monster that economicially grinds to a halt but does a good job at producing mass graves and secret executions. Yes they are quite efficient at that industry. Yes many people here probably don't call that communism, but that is what really happens.

China
Soviet
Poland
Cambodia
North Vietnam
etc.

So if your a betting man. What do you say? Given any random country, based on previous odds. What are the chances that in any random country that has a revolution, that the revolution will become a monster.
These economies of these countries never ground to a halt. Communism collapsed in Russia through a concerted political effort to destroy it. The communist era ended in China through a political coup.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
22nd December 2004, 00:23
Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Dec 20 2004, 02:31 PM--> (Chairman Mao @ Dec 20 2004, 02:31 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 09:17 PM
Sure. That is exactly what happened to almost every communist revolution. It starts out well meaning enough then becomes a monster. A monster that economicially grinds to a halt but does a good job at producing mass graves and secret executions. Yes they are quite efficient at that industry. Yes many people here probably don't call that communism, but that is what really happens.

China
Soviet
Poland
Cambodia
North Vietnam
etc.

So if your a betting man. What do you say? Given any random country, based on previous odds. What are the chances that in any random country that has a revolution, that the revolution will become a monster.
These economies of these countries never ground to a halt. Communism collapsed in Russia through a concerted political effort to destroy it. The communist era ended in China through a political coup. [/b]
But I thought the capatialist forces were weak and on the way down the toilet, but the reality as those economies just got weaker, the capitialist got stronger. Isn't that Marxist theory? Capitialism is supposed to implode? It did not do that.

Back to the Philippines and Iran. A communist revolution in the Philippines? Do you call those guys commrades?

How about Iran? Are they commrades?

And the Paris Commune? I can not seem to find what they manufactured. Did they make anything? Produce anything? Have any assembly lines? Have factories?

ahhh_money_is_comfort
30th December 2004, 20:16
Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Dec 22 2004, 12:23 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Dec 22 2004, 12:23 AM)
Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 20 2004, 02:31 PM

[email protected] 4 2004, 09:17 PM
Sure. That is exactly what happened to almost every communist revolution. It starts out well meaning enough then becomes a monster. A monster that economicially grinds to a halt but does a good job at producing mass graves and secret executions. Yes they are quite efficient at that industry. Yes many people here probably don't call that communism, but that is what really happens.

China
Soviet
Poland
Cambodia
North Vietnam
etc.

So if your a betting man. What do you say? Given any random country, based on previous odds. What are the chances that in any random country that has a revolution, that the revolution will become a monster.
These economies of these countries never ground to a halt. Communism collapsed in Russia through a concerted political effort to destroy it. The communist era ended in China through a political coup.
But I thought the capatialist forces were weak and on the way down the toilet, but the reality as those economies just got weaker, the capitialist got stronger. Isn't that Marxist theory? Capitialism is supposed to implode? It did not do that.

Back to the Philippines and Iran. A communist revolution in the Philippines? Do you call those guys commrades?

How about Iran? Are they commrades?

And the Paris Commune? I can not seem to find what they manufactured. Did they make anything? Produce anything? Have any assembly lines? Have factories? [/b]
Just wondering. Ever get the chance to decide if Iran and Philipinees communist revolutions going to end up as oppressive regimes?

Djehuti
31st December 2004, 07:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:59 PM
Communism necessarily must stem from an industrialized capitalist society.
Accually, Marx changed his opinion on later days.
Read his letter to Vera Zasulich, he here explains that it is possible to skip capitalism under certain rare conditions. But thats not specially intresting at all, especially not in these times when the whole world are capitalistic anyway.

Djehuti
31st December 2004, 07:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:17 AM
My whole point is the failure of communism is a terrible nightmare. You can not deny that Russia, China, Cambodia, North Vietnam were COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONS that went bad. Yes they were not communist at the end, but they started with the idealism.
Accually, you are wrong. None of them have experienced a communist revolution.
Most of our so called "communist states" are by the way copies of the Soviet-system.


"Yes they were not communist at the end, but they started with the idealism."

Totaly irrelevant. A group however large, who thinks that communism sounds like a good idea can not achieve it. Atlest not according to Marx. Seizing power in a country is one thing, but a revolution is a totaly different thing, and much more complicated.
The only power that can create a communist society is the material communist movement. And that movement exists only as a potentiality in the struggles of the working class. The liberation of the working class can only be the work of the working class itself. A group of communists putting down the state and seizeing power can never do this, their intent does not mather. And even though I am willing to admitt that the bolsheviks, or atleast most of them did have communism as their intent, I do dare to say that most of these other states, like North Korea or Cambodja, etc never even had that much.