Fasinated and Confused

[Ray]

Hi my name is Ray.
I am a "beginner" with che and all he stood for.
I live in Sydney and am 16y.o. Because of where i live i am brought up in a Capitalist society. Tho i clearly see Capitlism is far from a Flawless system. I love and relate to All of Guevara' s ideals and princlibles interesting me further.

The only implication of communism is what i can see from Russia and China. Applied there, the problems there are immense and constant, alot less then that of America and Australia. So is it that Che stood for another 'Version' of communism or is it that you are prepared to accept a fate of Chinas with Communism inforced?

just a quick question which is really stupid...look at the top left of your screen the 1st symbol you see in read...what does it symbolize? thankyou

Please email me ([email protected]) or post a response if you feel you can give me a better understanding of this concept. Any help will be immensly appreciated.

Thankyou all for reading and your time.
Desperate Plee for undertanding

Ray.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:37 AM
The only implication of communism is what i can see from Russia and China.
The Russian revolution never achieved communism although they had a go at it. The Russian government of Lenin and later Stalin were socialist.

China has never been communist either, only in name. China also had a "socialist" government and implimented some sociualist programmes based on the teachings of Mao tse-Tung.

Communism is a theory for a society which has developed into a stateless, classless society where humans work in co-operation under the maxim "from each according to ability, to each according to need."


just a quick question which is really stupid...look at the top left of your screen the 1st symbol you see in read...what does it symbolize? thankyou

It is a symbol of workers power where the industial worker symbolised with the hammer meets the Agricultural workers symbolised by the syth.

[Dyst]

Sure he didn't mean the anarchist (A)?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:25 PM
Sure he didn't mean the anarchist (A)?
Yes.

[blackwaffle]

i am also a n00b. but it seems to be that china is more fasict than communist, despite what they call themselves.

[encephalon]

those countries that have called themselves Communist in the past century have, for the most part, used marxist ideology to create a mass following for an elite few, instead of a mass following of the masses (if that makes any sense..). It simply replaced one class system based on capital with one based on political connections.

That isn't to say, however, that the original revolutionaries of said countries--like lenin or trotsky in russia--weren't real communists/marxists, because they believed in everything they did. The system they tried to replace capitalism with over the years, though, after the original revolutionaries were for all practical purposes gone, was ineffective in a world of capitalism.

The revolutions were sincere, but the practical application after the fact in a sea of capitalism was problematic. So those "communist" countries went against the very ideals communists are supposed to hold dear, and instated something akin to state controlled capitalism. In some cases, this is very similar to fascism, you're correct, especially in the case of china today.

The governments that call themselves communist establishments are not representative of the communist movement. Unfortunately, they are more visible than the real actions and intent of communism, and therefore people generally think those are communist countries, and therefore all communists really believe in some kind of fascist state/corporation setup.

And last, those countries were not ready for socialism at all, although russia, in a more developed state than now, would be prime for socialism--historically, the ideals of social labor are built within russian culture. They lived and worked in pseudo-communes all through feudalism. But, once again, they weren't ready, nor was china, korea, or any other place. In fact, nobody will be ready for socialism until a very great majority of the world is ready for socialism. The number one rule is that revolution of the proletariat must be global in order to persist. Otherwise, they will be denied the resources needed to survive--like what happened to russia very quickly (china is now playing a different role than russia ever did.. they're one big ghetto market for capitalists to exploit in order to empower themselves and keep things civil at home). Cuba is faring much better than other "communist" countries, especially in regards to education, but the US embargo alone is crippling.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:24 AM
i am also a n00b. but it seems to be that china is more fasict than communist, despite what they call themselves.
How are they fascist?

[encephalon]

well, they are 1) authoritarian, and 2) practice corporatism. These are two of the main facets of fascism in practice.. they are not, however, fascist in an ideological sense.

[NovelGentry]

Any government could be authoritarian, regardless of whether it is fascist or not. As far as practicing "corporatism" this is a facet of almost any modern economy which is NOT socialism. If you're going to call something fascist you better be damn sure it's fitting of the ideological sense. This would be no different than saying a system is communist because practically speaking it had no money or private industry. The ideological and theoretical side is as important as the practical issues, if not more so.

Fascism has a lot more to it than authoritarianism and corporatism.

[encephalon]

Any government could be authoritarian, regardless of whether it is fascist or not. As far as practicing "corporatism" this is a facet of almost any modern economy which is NOT socialism. If you're going to call something fascist you better be damn sure it's fitting of the ideological sense. This would be no different than saying a system is communist because practically speaking it had no money or private industry. The ideological and theoretical side is as important as the practical issues, if not more so.

Fascism has a lot more to it than authoritarianism and corporatism.

I would agree, for the most part, with the first paragraph. The second paragraph, however, I would take issue with: the main points of fascism are complete subjugation to the will of that state and the will of the state working in the interests (and by the hands) of the ruling class of business elites. The Nazi's never claimed to be a fascist ideology, yet nonetheless they are classified as such because of these characteristics.

Its doctrine includes contempt of democracy and labor unions outside of state control; so does china. The largest difference is that the communist party in china claims to be working for the well-being of the working class, whereas fascist regimes in the early 20th century claimed exactly the opposite: that the best interests of the ruling elite were actually for the best interests of all people (much like the U.S...).

The ideological side of America--that of democracy--does little to actually put it into practice, and instead prevents true democracy from taking hold, because many people accept its validity. The same is true in regards to China. It's the same problem with religion: if people are convinced something is true, they will do nothing against an establishment that blatantly disregards everything they supposedly stand for

All things in fascist ideology follow directly from the fascist practice of totalitarianism coupled with corporatism. The modern conception of fascism is simply called by a host of different names, and clouds the reality of the current world structure. Whether it's called democracy or communism or monarchy, its defining characteristics are the same. Most of the world follows a model bearing very close resemblance to classical fascism, but with varying degrees of authoritarianism. I don't believe China is an exception. The coupling of capitalism and fascist practice--regardless if that's what we call it--is entirely inevitable.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/R...y/mussolini.htm (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm)

[NovelGentry]

The second paragraph, however, I would take issue with: the main points of fascism are complete subjugation to the will of that state and the will of the state working in the interests (and by the hands) of the ruling class of business elites.

While it is complete subjugation to the will of the state, it says nothing about the will of the state working in the interests of the ruling class or business elites. At least not to my knowledge. In fact, quite the contrary, the idea as I understand it is that ONLY by submitting yourself to the will of the state can man as an individual find his own interests, in that his interest should always BE the upholding of the state.

I wasn't aware that the doctrine ever said a damn thing about a ruling class or business elites.

One can easily BEND any authoritarian government to look like fascism. Afterall, the fact that it's authoritarian means that there is obvious classes, those with authority, and those without it. Assuming a Marxist definition of the state, the RULING class would be those with authority, they are in fact organized to BE the state. Thus by simple authority everyone is to work to uphold the state.

This appears to be the very same bend you're trying to get to apply a "fascism" label to China. The communist party is the ruling class, thus their organization and consequent oppression of the other classes represents the state, and through their authority everyone is expected to uphold the states will.

There are of course differences with fascism, the state alone is not enough, but the national pride that CAN go along with it. While China may have this I'm unaware it is to the level in which a fascist state's would be, that is to say, nationality is not so strongly upheld that people are oppressed based on differing nationality.

Fascism upholds one truth and one truth above all others, that with a state there is an enemy to the state and thus an enemy of the people. To my knowledge no such enemy is targetted in China for blatant abuse and oppression. I could be wrong, but if it is even the case, I don't think it would be on any level out of the ordinary of other types of systems.

[encephalon]

Assuming a Marxist definition of the state, the RULING class would be those with authority, they are in fact organized to BE the state. Thus by simple authority everyone is to work to uphold the state.

true.


This appears to be the very same bend you're trying to get to apply a "fascism" label to China. The communist party is the ruling class, thus their organization and consequent oppression of the other classes represents the state, and through their authority everyone is expected to uphold the states will.

I honestly believe "fascist" more aptly describes china's government moreso than "communist" does. If anything, this is shown by the fact that the chinese government works more in the interest of corporations rather than the interests of the worker; while at the same time stating that they are working in the interest of the working class against capitalists. This is aboslutely false. A great many party members are those very capitalists that communism actively condemns.

The Communist party of China is far from communist. They are also far from democratic. In their complete opening up to capitalism, they have completely disregarded their own core principles.

I cannot think of any (unbiased) political definition closer than fascism to the structure of china today. It is far from communust, far from republican, far from democratic, far from monarchy. At best, I see it as a fascist oligarchy under the guise of stalinism (maoism was abandoned years ago). It is surely not Communist, in direction nor activity.

Can anyone provide a more accurate political definition?

I'm not condemning china for anything, at least no more than I would condemn any other country. I simply think that, according to the core principles of any political school, china bears a closer resemblance to fascism than it does to any other system. I think it's pointless to have such an aversion to calling something fascist, even if they call themselves communist, if that's what their system most resembles. And thus far, with the knowledge I have (which could quite well be incomplete--if so, hopefully someone will point it out to me), the chines communist party looks most like a subterfuge fascist regime.

Perhaps this should be moved into a section other than "Learning."

[NovelGentry]

I honestly believe "fascist" more aptly describes china's government moreso than "communist" does. If anything, this is shown by the fact that the chinese government works more in the interest of corporations rather than the interests of the worker; while at the same time stating that they are working in the interest of the working class against capitalists. This is aboslutely false. A great many party members are those very capitalists that communism actively condemns.

I never said it was communist, nor do I think that's a word which describes them either. I would call them State Capitalist.

[bur372]

http://struggle.ws/pdfs/spain.pdf

Proves collectivisim works without dictatorship of the proletariat.

Ahh the looks of the republicans faces when they figure out collectivisim does not require dictatorship of the proletariat

[encephalon]

was not fascist italy, too, state capitalist?