Russians Want Communism

[rice349]

According to a recent report by Reuters (amongst others), when polled, the people of Russia have increasingly disapproved of Putin's attempts to reform, and are actually calling for a return to communism. Out of 1500 Russians asked, only 17% actually supported Putin's miniscule reforms, while 21% favored a strict return to socialism, and 57% favored reforms that were more socially minded. This numnber, while still not in the majority, shows that the people of Russia are beginning to prefer the system of socialism over free-market entreprenurship.I was curious as to what your thoughts were on this, and what these numbers mean to you?

[bunk]

Archangel style :D

[codyvo]

Well I still think Putin is an ok guy but Russia would fare much better if they were socialist but the US will step in before they let that happen.

If Stalin meant man of steel then is Putin man of poot?

[bolshevik butcher]

Russia dosn't need another Stalin, and Putin looks like the next Stalin to me :(

[Son of the Revolution]

Well, its good to see the russian people havent been turned against socialism by that fiasco known as the Soviet Union. Another Union would suck but a democratic form of socialism would be good. Still, like codyvo said, the yanks would never let that happen. :angry:

[resisting arrest with violence]

Putin has finished destroying the country. He picke up where Gorbachev and Yeltsin left off. Socialism should be brought back to help the people that need it. Those who oppose should be sent into exile.

[rice349]

(resisting arrest with violence)

Putin has finished destroying the country. He picke up where Gorbachev and Yeltsin left off. Socialism should be brought back to help the people that need it. Those who oppose should be sent into exile.

I couldn't agree more :)

(Clenched Fist)

Russia dosn't need another Stalin, and Putin looks like the next Stalin to me

Could you explain this a little bit more to me please, as far as I know, Stalin and Putin are nothing alike. Stalin actually tried to make socialist progress and stood up for the workers...what the hell has Putin done?

(Son of the Revolution)

Well, its good to see the russian people havent been turned against socialism by that fiasco known as the Soviet Union. Another Union would suck but a democratic form of socialism would be good. Still, like codyvo said, the yanks would never let that happen.

The Soviet Union was not perfect by any means, but before the betrayal of Khruschev and the other revisionists the soviet union was a pretty damn good model of the power and progressive change that can be brought about via socialism. If you want democratic socialism or social democracy that is a whole other issue. Usually, democratic socialists and social democrats are completely opposed to communism in general, and would prefer a system more like that of Sveden.

[Hiero]

On some news show or somethign similiar Putin said the Soviet Union break up was wrong, and Russia shouldn't forgot its history as the rest of the world wants it to.

This was at a time when the communist party and others were celeberating th october revolution.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by resisting arrest with [email protected] 22 2005, 09:33 PM
Putin has finished destroying the country. He picke up where Gorbachev and Yeltsin left off. Socialism should be brought back to help the people that need it. Those who oppose should be sent into exile.
So you actually think that just because someone doesn't agree with you they should be sent into exile, isn't that a bit fascist?

[rice349]

So you actually think that just because someone doesn't agree with you they should be sent into exile, isn't that a bit fascist?

No, it's not fascism. In fact, this type of dealing with reactionaries is used in all sorts of political systems, typologies, etc. Its used her in the United States all the time, but not so blatently. Every government has their own form of exile, it has been used by the fascists, but its also been used by socialists, democratic states, etc.

When labeling something fascist its important to note what exactly fascism is. Calling the wish to exile those who are counter-revolutionary fascist doesn't really do justice to exile nor does it show a clear understanding of what fascism actually is.

[Redmau5]

Stalin and benefits for workers ? That's something you don't hear very often. Stalin may have started off "socialist" but, as always, he was corrupted by power. By the mid-1930's he was only concerned with maintaining the bureaucratic nature of the the Communist party rather than maintaining workers rights. Obviously many people may have benefited under Stalin but many benefited under Hitler as well. So advocating a return to the Stalinist era with a Stalinesqe leadership is just as bad as the far-right advocating Nazism.

Im confident that if Lenin had not of died in 1924, he would have reformed the centralised structure of the state some time in the early 30's, after he had weeded out the anti-socialist elements in Russia and familiarised people with Bolshevik teaching. Unfortunatly for everyone else, Stalin beat Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky to the leadership. He then went on to become the biggest mass murderer the world has ever known (im not saying some of those involved in the Purges didn't deserve it, but 15 million tells me Stalin was a little bit paranoid). People could not live in peace under Stalin, with regular denunciations against people who may have been "disliked" by some one else. It is in the nature of any Stalinist state to control every aspect of every individual and any one who begs to differ is threatened with exile and/or execution.

Fact is, Stalin tainted Socialism and set it back many years. Supporting a return to Stalinist ways will only continue to scar Communism, and that is exactly what the Right wants.

However, the people of Russia supporting a return to Socialism can only be a good sign. :D

[rice349]

While there were some crimes committed by Stalin's government, I sincerely think the positives outweigh the negatives; besides, it was an experimental system at a time in which the Soviet Union was facing extreme hardships. Stalin may have overreacted at times, but another important aspect to remember is that he also had commandants underneath him, Voroshilov and Ordzhonikidze were pretty brutal at times too.

[I've Defected]

1500 is a very small sample population. I don't think we should jump to any conclusions based on this information

[novemba]

I can only hope if it happens they set a good example, and in 50 years poor americans will look at russia and say, "I wished I lived there" instead of the other way around.

[NovelGentry]

It's not that people are supporting a return to socialism, it's that the people who grew up under the USSR 1) haven't died yet 2) still believe what they had was socialism. Reactionary as ever it would seem. But hey, I don't blame them, I pity them, they saw some real hard times, and continue to see real hard times with the destruction of the USSR.

[Redmau5]

I think it was a little more than "over-reaction" on Stalin's part. He killed many people for the sheer sake of it. If there was a village harbouring a suspected "enemy of the state", then the only sure-fire way to get rid of he/she was to wipe out the whole village. That was Stalin's method. Regardless of men, women or children, Stalin ordered them all dead. Take for example Bukharin, one of Stalin's closest and earliest comrades. He even helped draw up the 1936 Stalinist constitution, the most "democratic" constitution in the world. Yet, as he was viewed as a threat to Stalin's total bureacracy, he was put on show-trial and then executed. Lenin called Bukharin the "goldenboy of the party", so why would Stalin want someone so popular killed ?

Stalin was disliked by Lenin, despised by Trotsky and the majority of the party viewed him as a "cold, unimaginative bureaucrat." I have to hand to him, the way he aquired power was cunning and clever, but it was one of the few things he was good at.

[rice349]

Bukharin was also very disliked though by others such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev (the Left-Opposition)

[Latin America]

There is a lot of comunists out there! It could happen!!!

[LSD]

besides, it was an experimental system

Oh... like National Socialism.


at a time in which the Soviet Union was facing extreme hardships

Oh... like Germany in the 30s.


Stalin may have overreacted at times

Oh... like Hitler.


but another important aspect to remember is that he also had commandants underneath him

Oh... like Hitler.


While there were some crimes committed by Stalin's government, I sincerely think the positives outweigh the negatives

Gee whiz, Mr. Stalin, I know you've murdered millions of people, but golly, you've got the nicest little mustache I've ever seen on a man...

Excatly what were those "positives" again?

I'd love to know what "outweighs" genocide.

[rice349]

The series of 5 year plans that radically shifted the economy from feudalism to socialism (while completely jumping an important stage in dialectical materialism), and bringing the Soviet Union almost equal to that of the West after centuries of backwardsness. Just a quick little example...

[LSD]

Not to be redundant, but both Schacht and Goerring had "five year plans".

Both of which were astonishingly successful in taking Germany from complete economic ruin and effective occupation to a leading place in Europe.

Again... it doesn't "outweigh" the crimes of National Socialism.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:30 AM
The series of 5 year plans that radically shifted the economy from feudalism to socialism (while completely jumping an important stage in dialectical materialism), and bringing the Soviet Union almost equal to that of the West after centuries of backwardsness. Just a quick little example...
He wouldn't have had to shift the economy if he didn't screw up all the systems Lenin installed, oh and making little five year plans doesn't outweigh the millions he killed. Oh and even if killing people that disagree with you isn't textbook Mussolini fascism it is still dictatorial and evil and Bush-like.
STALINISM SUCKS!!!

[rice349]

STALINISM SUCKS!!!

if you had at any point any validity to your argument, you just blatantly lost it with this comment...


Not to be redundant, but both Schacht and Goerring had "five year plans".

Both of which were astonishingly successful in taking Germany from complete economic ruin and effective occupation to a leading place in Europe.

Again... it doesn't "outweigh" the crimes of National Socialism.

Your redundant comparison of national socialism and Stalin's brand of socialism is really running very weak. There is really no comparison, in fact I think there's already a thread that completel repudiates the notion of "stalinism" being the same as nazism (national socialism).

[NovelGentry]

The series of 5 year plans that radically shifted the economy from feudalism to socialism (while completely jumping an important stage in dialectical materialism), and bringing the Soviet Union almost equal to that of the West after centuries of backwardsness. Just a quick little example...

The problem with this is material conditions fast forward and people's mindsets did not. Assume for a minute they were materially conscious, then they're aware of the country's progression in that sense, but in being so they do not automatically become class conscious, or for that matter socialist minded.

What you use as a "quick little example" of the success is more along the lines of a half-truth example of why it failed.

By skipping that step, your reactionaries are now stuck in feudalism, while the majority of your people in support of progression are still waiting to progress to capitalism. There's always a select few far more progressive than that, and maybe the party was those people, but they tried to lead and appeal to a mass who was awaiting the spoils of capitalism.

[LSD]

Your redundant comparison of national socialism and Stalin's brand of socialism is really running very weak. There is really no comparison, in fact I think there's already a thread that completel repudiates the notion of "stalinism" being the same as nazism (national socialism).

"the same"? No.

Comparable? Yes.

You're making the claim that repugnant acts (genocide, mass murder, forced deportations, systemic assasinations, political oppression etc..) can be counterbalanced by "positive" acts (improving the economy).

My comparison was to demonstrate the fallacy of this position.

Based on the premise that you do not support National Socialsim (which I desperately hope to be true), I am attempting to illustrate the the basis on which you justify Stalinism is equally as potent in defending Naziism.



But, I think the record of genocide and murder truly speaks for itself.

Again, I ask how you can claim that any economic progress is sufficient justification for the crimes the Soviet Union under Stalin (and, to be sure, its other leaders) committed.

Exitus Acta Probare Potest!

[rice349]

First, yes you are correct in your assumption that i am staunchly against national socialism...

secondly, while i do not advocate genocide, mass murder, and total political suppression, i do not think their has been a fair and objective look at the Stalin era of the Soviet Union. There is a lot of lies and mistruths about the numbers of those who were "massacred" during the Stalin years.

However, a lot of the people who were executed ultimately deserved it; i.e. the bourgois, counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries, etc. These are people who had lived so long in a feudal system or theocratic dictatorship in which the poor were nothing but mere beasts of burden. Should we feel sorry for their deaths?

And yes, there were colleagues of Stalin's who were sent to the gulags, but many of them were turning into anti-revolutionaries and trying to undermine the Stalin government, which was ultimately, in the best interest of the workers.

The cost of liberation for the workers, especially at the expense of the reactionaries and capitalists/feudal lords, can never be "too high."

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:00 AM

STALINISM SUCKS!!!

if you had at any point any validity to your argument, you just blatantly lost it with this comment...




So because I think that murderous dictators SUCK I have no validity to my argument? That makes no sense, it just goes to show that you cower away when we tell you the truth about Stalins constant reign of tyranny.

[codyvo]

STALINISM SUCKS!!!!

with validity

[rice349]

No i don't cower away, i just simply said that ignorant, immature rants that were cool when we were in junior high school (like saying the opposing foot ball team sucks) is counter-productive and shows a complete lack of ability in explaining yourself in intelligent discussion...that's all...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Stalin did not kill millions of people, nor did he commit genocide.
This is utter bourgeois rubbish.

As rice349 said, the industrial, technological, social, political, and economic progress made during Stalin's leadership was done at the cost of only the lives of those who actively threatened socialism. Nothing wrong here. Moving on.

Secondly, I don't believe that Russians will get the communism that they want without revolution. I am glad, however, that they are socially conscious enough to know that the freedom they aspire to enjoy is attainable only through communism.

[rice349]

Stalin did not kill millions of people, nor did he commit genocide.
This is utter bourgeois rubbish....the industrial, technological, social, political, and economic progress made during Stalin's leadership was done at the cost of only the lives of those who actively threatened socialism

спасибо (thank you!)

[LSD]

However, a lot of the people who were executed ultimately deserved it; i.e. the bourgois, counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries, etc. These are people who had lived so long in a feudal system or theocratic dictatorship in which the poor were nothing but mere beasts of burden. Should we feel sorry for their deaths?

Yes!

"counter-revolutionary" is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, the state.

Should I believe that murder is justified because the "leader" tells me that the victim was "counter-revolutionary" or "reactionary" or "bouregois revisionist"?

Sorry, but, as I recall, "threatening the public interest" has been the excuse for every state sanctioned atrocity in the last thousand years.

Germany claimed it was protecting "Aryans" from the Jews.
China claimed it was protecting peasants from "intellectual elites"

Even Cambodia claimed its genocide was for the protection of its "society".

As did Rwanda, and Turkey, and America a hundred years before,

...and Britain a hundred years before that.

...and Spain two hundred years before that.

The specific terminology may have changed. We've gone from "savages" to "reactionaries", but the moral invalidity hasn't changed.

Mass murder is not justified because you say it is.

By what right does the "emperor" or the "king" or, yes, the "party" unilaterally decide who "deserves" to live or die.

I don't know if Stalin's victim's "deserved" their fate, but neither do you.

No one does!

We have only Stalin's word and some weak fragmented records of the time to go on. But even if they were "reactionary" and "counter-revolutionary" and "bouregois revisionists", I contend that Stalin and his colleagues had no right to kill them.

The state, any state, even one that arrogantly calls itself "proletarian" does not have the right to make such decisions.

Ever.


And yes, there were colleagues of Stalin's who were sent to the gulags, but many of them were turning into anti-revolutionaries and trying to undermine the Stalin government, which was ultimately, in the best interest of the workers.

Bukharin, Rykov, Yagoda, Krestinsky, Rakovsky, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Kirov, Tomsky...

hmmm... its amazing how many of his coleagues "turned into anti-revolutionaries".

Must of been contageous seening that pretty much all of his original politbureau colleagues "caught" it.

:P

Stalin must have had a natural immunity I guess, since he was clearly never infected.

What a lucky man... :rolleyes:


The cost of liberation for the workers, especially at the expense of the reactionaries and capitalists/feudal lords, can never be "too high."

Yes it can.

Here are some examples:

If everyone dies... it's too high.

If the worlds resources are so depleted that no human society can reasonable survive... it's too high.

If the "liberated workers" are reinslaved by worse oppressor... it's too high.

The liberation of the worker is essential, but nothing is that important.

Liberation resulting in death or devastation or, yes, political enslavement is not truly liberation at all!


Stalin did not kill millions of people, nor did he commit genocide.
This is utter bourgeois rubbish.

secondly, while i do not advocate genocide, mass murder, and total political suppression, i do not think their has been a fair and objective look at the Stalin era of the Soviet Union. There is a lot of lies and mistruths about the numbers of those who were "massacred" during the Stalin years.

Ah good, the "everything bad about stalin is BOUREGOIS LIES!!!!" argument.

I was waiting for that old mainstary to rear its little head.

The evidence for crimes committed by Stalin is overwhelming.

It comes from records, witnesses, reports, post-1991 declassified documents, memoirs, statistics, intelligence...

Stalin's brutal assault on the Red Army is historical fact.

As are Yezhov/Beria 's "excesses".

The famine in the Ukraine may be "controversial", but I doubt even you could deny entirely Stalin's responsibility for what occured.

So, the question we are left with is...what?

How many millions did Stalin kill?!?
Did Stalin kill more or less than hitler?!?

I don't know the answers, but I do know that Stalin's actions were not "nescessary for communism" and were not justified.

And that's enough.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:41 PM


Could you explain this a little bit more to me please, as far as I know, Stalin and Putin are nothing alike. Stalin actually tried to make socialist progress and stood up for the workers...what the hell has Putin done?


Stalin, killed millions of peole and was a rutless dictator. You are clealrley a stalinist, the last i checked putin was locking up all those in his way, he has the support of the press, so he can do whatever he likes within reason.

[T_34]

I'm not advocating the Purges of the 30's or Putin imprisoning his enemies, there is quite a difference between sending millions to theirs deaths in Siberia, and imprisoning hostile elements. Stalin was a wicked bastard, parnoia controlled his actions, on a huge scale, and History has judged him accordingly, but Putin is just being a clever politician (which Stalin was once, without killing his enemies). To compare 15 million dead with a few hundred or a few thousand in prison is ludacris. Putin is nothing at all like Stalin.

[codyvo]

Why does everyone seem to think it is acceptable to simply kill all who stand in the way of revolution. That goes against the whole theory of equality, in Nazi Germany they thought the jews were in the way of the whites prospering so they killed them.

Apparently you don't understand that you can't just kill someone because they don't agree with you.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:25 AM
secondly, while i do not advocate genocide, mass murder, and total political suppression, i do not think their has been a fair and objective look at the Stalin era of the Soviet Union. There is a lot of lies and mistruths about the numbers of those who were "massacred" during the Stalin years.


Lies and mistruths ? That argument may have stood up in the Soviet era but when the wall came down and the archives opened, people seen the full extent of Stalin's regime. Sure he may have industrialised Russia and brought them up to speed with capitalist society, but at what cost ? Break-neck industrialisation can never jusify the amount of workers and peasants killed under Stalin.

Stalin was only concerned with one thing: himself. Everything else he did to "benefit" workers came from some sort of selfish intelligence. Stalin knew he had to keep some workers happy by giving them a reasonable living, while at the same time killing the rest of them in order to strike fear into people. He didn't do it out of genuine compassion for the proletariat. Stalin only used terror to further his own power, whereas Lenin used it to strengthen the Revolution.

And by the way, Trotsky only disliked Bukharin on a political level, not a personal one.

[T_34]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 23 2005, 02:45 AM
Not to be redundant, but both Schacht and Goerring had "five year plans".

Both of which were astonishingly successful in taking Germany from complete economic ruin and effective occupation to a leading place in Europe.

Again... it doesn't "outweigh" the crimes of National Socialism.
Goering's 5 year plan a success? It may have improved Nazi Germany's economy, but it missed all of it's big targets, and arguably cost them the war, as Germany could never keep up with the USSR and USA

[Son of the Revolution]

The Soviet Union was not perfect by any means, but before the betrayal of Kruschev and the other revisionists the Soviet Union was a pretty damn good model of the power and progressive change that can be brought about via socialism. If you want democratic socialism or social democracy that is a whole other issue. Usually democratic socialists and social democrats are completely opposed to communism in general and would prefer a system more like that of Sveden

The Soviet Union went down the toilet long before Kruschev came to power, it was progressive yes but even nazi Germany was progressive in economic terms. I am most definitely NOT a social democrat, I just think social democracy is preferable to totalitarian Stalinism.

[rice349]

There are acceptable casualties in pursuit of revolution. Total revolution cannot come without some blood shed. Communism will never be able to win over those whom it seeks to destroy, so we can expect severe retribution from reactionary and capitalist forces--therefore, tactics that were made popular by Stalin such as political suppression become synonymous with a successful revolution.

Stalin took precautionary measures to bring about some stability in a system that clearly wasn't ready for socialism. Again, according to dialectical materialism, Russia had not suffered enouhg exploitation due to the lack of industrialization. WHen the Bolsheviks took over, they weren't leading a popular movement against the Whites. The White armies amassed some pretty significant numbers, and there were legitimate concerns that White agents were going to infiltrate the soviet government, so, there is reason to the actions taken by comrade stalin.

[Redmau5]

If "comrade" Stalin was so great, then why did Lenin criticise him in his secret testimony before he died ? He warned the party against Stalin, but Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev thought this testimony was best kept under raps, as they were all staunch opponents of Trotsky. Despite orders for it to be read out at the 13th party congress, they refused.

I bet Zinoviev and Kamenev regretted that.

[fincham]

I don't think Russia will ever return to Communism. There are too many factors that would prevent it, not least of which being the United States. I think Russia and Putin have accepted participation in a "free" market as an inevitability. If not for needing more money, communism might work.

[Rebel For Life]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:44 PM
There are acceptable casualties in pursuit of revolution. Total revolution cannot come without some blood shed. Communism will never be able to win over those whom it seeks to destroy, so we can expect severe retribution from reactionary and capitalist forces--therefore, tactics that were made popular by Stalin such as political suppression become synonymous with a successful revolution.

Stalin took precautionary measures to bring about some stability in a system that clearly wasn't ready for socialism. Again, according to dialectical materialism, Russia had not suffered enouhg exploitation due to the lack of industrialization. WHen the Bolsheviks took over, they weren't leading a popular movement against the Whites. The White armies amassed some pretty significant numbers, and there were legitimate concerns that White agents were going to infiltrate the soviet government, so, there is reason to the actions taken by comrade stalin.
some blood shed codyvo is talking about killing every one that disagrees with you and stalin did kill millions of people he went freeking crazy! i dont see how you can just turn the other cheek on the bad things he did yes he did meny good things but he also did an equal amount of bad things sutch as kill his own people with only little or no proof at all that they where ploting aganst him im going with the not killing every one that disagrees with your ideas ;) and what
makaveli_05 said is vary true

[rice349]

"comrade" Stalin was so great, then why did Lenin criticise him in his secret testimony before he died ? He warned the party against Stalin

Because he was suffering from strokes (and perhaps syphillis), which can cause severe effects on the brain and thought-patterns.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:21 AM

"comrade" Stalin was so great, then why did Lenin criticise him in his secret testimony before he died ? He warned the party against Stalin

Because he was suffering from strokes (and perhaps syphillis), which can cause severe effects on the brain and thought-patterns.
Oh so it is just coincidental that Lenin was criticizing Stalin on his death bed even though he said repeadetly in his books (What is to be Done) that a dictator will be the end of a socialistic society.

Lenin knew exactly what he was talkin about, he would have said those things stroke or no stroke.

[rice349]

Oh so it is just coincidental that Lenin was criticizing Stalin on his death bed even though he said repeadetly in his books (What is to be Done) that a dictator will be the end of a socialistic society.

Lenin wrote What Is To Be Done sometime between 1901-1902, after the revolution he had a different mindset in which the Soviet Union was to be ruled. He even helped establish a stronger, more centralized power base before his deathbed. I am by no means calling Lenin a dictator, you should also note that Lenin was quite flattering of Stalin throughout a good portion of his career with him. And, even after he became more critical of Stalin, he realized Stalin's ability to organize and authoritate the revolution were crucial, and viewed him as a integral part of the workers' movement.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:34 AM

Oh so it is just coincidental that Lenin was criticizing Stalin on his death bed even though he said repeadetly in his books (What is to be Done) that a dictator will be the end of a socialistic society.

Lenin wrote What Is To Be Done sometime between 1901-1902, after the revolution he had a different mindset in which the Soviet Union was to be ruled. He even helped establish a stronger, more centralized power base before his deathbed. I am by no means calling Lenin a dictator, you should also note that Lenin was quite flattering of Stalin throughout a good portion of his career with him. And, even after he became more critical of Stalin, he realized Stalin's ability to organize and authoritate the revolution were crucial, and viewed him as a integral part of the workers' movement.
Yes earlier in his life he did like Stalin but Stalin changed so much in the time during and just after WW2 that it is hardly comparable, and Lenin did write that a dictator would be the fall of a socialist society.

[rice349]

Stalin changed in accordance to how the Soviet Union needed him. I agree that Lenin didn't want as strong a central government as Stalin consolidated; however, he also didn't realize the struggles that would have to be deatl with in coming post-revolutionary decades...

[codyvo]

I agree with that but Stalin didn't deal with it in the best manner possible.

[rice349]

I agree with that but Stalin didn't deal with it in the best manner possible.

Thank you, while you may not agree neither of us are in his shoes, you have to imagine, Stalin's position was one of immense responsibility and the pressures facing him provoked him to take action that might not appear to be the most peaceful, but extreme times called for extreme measures.

[codyvo]

Finally we find something that we can agree on despite our differance in beliefs.

[LSD]

*sigh*

Stalin was a dictator.
Lenin was a dictator.


I am by no means calling Lenin a dictator

Oh, I am! :lol:


Stalin changed in accordance to how the Soviet Union needed him.

What the Soviet Union "needed" was democracy and civil rights.

Stalin didn't "change" in that direction, did he?


Because he was suffering from strokes (and perhaps syphillis), which can cause severe effects on the brain and thought-patterns.

The Soviet Union was not communist, nor was it "on the road" towards communism, nor was it socialist.

Not under Lenin, not under Stalin, not ever!

[rice349]

Soviet Union was not communist, nor was it "on the road" towards communism, nor was it socialist

Nobody who isn't a total retard has said that the Soviet Union was communist, as far as it being socialit how was it not? The Soviet Union (prior to Khruschev) was marked by strong centralized state ownership of pretty much everything? That not may be democratic socialism, or anarcho-socialism, but it is a variety of socialism (and no, before you start you cannot label 'national socialism' as a type of socialism because it is something completely different) --just in case you were planning on going that route.

[LSD]

and no, before you start you cannot label 'national socialism' as a type of socialism because it is something completely different) --just in case you were planning on going that route.

I would never do such a thing.


as far as it being socialit how was it not? The Soviet Union (prior to Khruschev) was marked by strong centralized state ownership of pretty much everything? That not may be democratic socialism, or anarcho-socialism, but it is a variety of socialism

It's state capitalism.

The economy was sure in the hands of the state, but it wasn't in the hands of the society.

Likewise, an incentive-based system persisted and production was controlled by a class elite. Workers had zero power, and classism flourished.

There was no democratic control over the economy, no democratic control over the means of production, no democratic control over anything, actually.

Hell, even private property remained!

[Zingu]

Back to subject.


Its true, Russians are getting sick of their brief flirtation with Capitalism. But they are not nessecarily wanting the return of the Soviet Union; even though the CP has been gaining in strength, the Nazbols, or National Bolsheviks; a Social Fascist party; has been gaining strength among the younger parts of the Russian population. Just like the Communists; the fascists always denouce the same thing the Communists denouce, the point is; which system sounds more promising. After the failure of holding up State Socialism in Russia, unfortunately Fascism sounds like the better option in Russia. More spefically; Social Fascism, the "National Bolshevik" kind. (Whatever that is).

The ideology of the National Bolsheviks:


National Bolshevism is an ideology that attempts to combine elements of fascism and stalinism. Influenced heavily by the idea of geopolitics, National Bolshevism seeks a merger between Russia and the rest of Europe in a union to be known as Eurasia. The ideology claims a direct link to Hegel, whom it presents as the father of idealism. In addition, it is fiercely anti-American in tone. It is also highly traditionalist in the mould of Julius Evola. Economically the National Bolsheviks seek to marry the New Economic Policy of Vladimir Lenin to the Corporatism of Benito Mussolini.

National Bolshevism as an intellectual movement claims to have its roots in World War I Germany, where nationalist writers such as Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Junger were prepared to tolerate the spread of communism as long as it took on the clothes of nationalism and abandoned its world-wide mission (an idea which seemed abhorent to the communists themselves). Meanwhile, in Russia, as the civil war dragged on, a number of prominent "Whites" switched to the Bolshevik side because they saw it as the only hope for restoring greatness to Russia. Amongst these was Professor Nikolai Ustrialov, initially an anti-communist, who came to believe that Bolshevism could be modified to serve nationalistic purposes. His followers, the Smenavekhites (named after a series of articles he published in 1921 Smena vekh or "Change of Landmarks"), came to regard themselves as National Bolsheviks, borrowing the term from Niekisch. Stalin's idea of "socialism in one country" was seen as a victory by the National Bolsheviks.

In Western parlance, the term "National Bolshevism" has, on occasion, been applied to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his brand of opposition to communism. However, strictly speaking, Solzhenitsyn cannot be labeled a National Bolshevik since, whilst he was not anti-authoritarian, he wished a revival of Russian culture that would see a greater role for the Russian Orthodox Church and a withdrawal of Russia from its role overseas into a state of international isolationism. Solzhenitsyn and the vozrozhdentsy (or "revivalists" as his followers became known) thus differed from the National Bolsheviks who were not religious in tone (although not completely hostile either) and who felt that involvement overseas was important for the prestige and power of Russia.

Amongst the leading practitioners and theorists of National Bolshevism are Thomas Sutter, Aleksandr Dugin and Eduard Limonov, who leads the National Bolshevik Party in Russia. The movement also likes to claim Otto Strasser as a disciple.

So uhm, should we panic or celebrate? :(

[LSD]

So uhm, should we panic or celebrate?

Panic, unfortunately.

The National Bolsheviks are basically Nazis without the Germany part.

Scarry motherfuckers...

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:53 AM
Nobody who isn't a total retard has said that the Soviet Union was communist, as far as it being socialit how was it not? The Soviet Union (prior to Khruschev) was marked by strong centralized state ownership of pretty much everything? That not may be democratic socialism, or anarcho-socialism, but it is a variety of socialism (and no, before you start you cannot label 'national socialism' as a type of socialism because it is something completely different) --just in case you were planning on going that route.
The USSR wasn't in any way shape or form socialist under Stalin. The state became the new ruling class and the class system wasn't abolished. You had the upper working-class (basically low-ranking party officials), then you had the working-class (just average citizens) and finally those who were living in poverty (which was a huge part of the population). The state effectively became the bourgeois which Marx described as the prelude to socialism. The only difference between Stalinim and Marxism was Marx described the bourgeois state as a democracy, whereas Stalinism entailed brutal dictatorship.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Son of the [email protected] 23 2005, 09:35 PM

The Soviet Union was not perfect by any means, but before the betrayal of Kruschev and the other revisionists the Soviet Union was a pretty damn good model of the power and progressive change that can be brought about via socialism. If you want democratic socialism or social democracy that is a whole other issue. Usually democratic socialists and social democrats are completely opposed to communism in general and would prefer a system more like that of Sveden

The Soviet Union went down the toilet long before Kruschev came to power, it was progressive yes but even nazi Germany was progressive in economic terms. I am most definitely NOT a social democrat, I just think social democracy is preferable to totalitarian Stalinism.
I'd say libreal capitalism was preferable to totalitarian stalinism.

[rice349]

I'd say libreal capitalism was preferable to totalitarian stalinism.

Gee, I think this could be expected out of someone who's signature says, Stalinism sucks....

[bolshevik butcher]

Thought it would comfirm it :D .

[rice349]

by the way, liberal capitalistm is only better than reactionary capitalism, not "stalinist totalitarianism."

[LSD]

by the way, liberal capitalistm is only better than reactionary capitalism, not "stalinist totalitarianism."

Actually "liberal capitalism" is better than many things.

Feudalism for one.
Stalnism for another.

[NovelGentry]

Closer to socialism under Stalin than under Lenin (but I'm still not gonna call it socialism).

[rice349]

well yeah, liberal capitalism is better than feudalism; however, libreal capitalism is actually one of the greatest barriers to real change in the fact that it tries to create conditions that don't give the worker liberation or equality, but just happy enough not to complain...pretty deceptive really..

[LSD]

Oh absolutely!

There's no doubt that Capitalism's flexibility and tolerance are at the heart of its staying power. As long as people are "all right", they'll keep buying into the system.

Luckily for us, capitalism is ultimately self-defeating and is rapidly driving the world towards a crisis point.

[rice349]

Luckily for us, capitalism is ultimately self-defeating and is rapidly driving the world towards a crisis point.

You're definitely right on this one Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; however, it may take a significantly long amount of time for the amount of exploitation to infuriate the workers to the point of revolution, especially with the emergance of a HUGE middle class in the most industrialized nations...how long are we all willing to wait for the exploitation to get so severe in nations in which the majority of those whoi fit the description of proletariat, are staunch anti-communists?

[Redmau5]

Well hopefully a recession, an economic slump of some sort. If something like that happened, i think the prole would soon wake up and realise the downside of capitalism.

If there is no slump any time soon, well then there are two options:
1. Wait even longer on a slump.
2. Armed revolution by a group operating in the "name" of the working-class. :ph34r:

[rice349]

. Armed revolution by a group operating in the "name" of the working-class.

With the massive middle class, this seems like it ultimately is going to be the case in industrialized nations like the United States..

[Redmau5]

Well if the capitalist machine shows no signs of slowing, then armed revolution seems like the only alternative. Especially for frustrated communists who are sick of the working-class' refusal to wake up to their own exploitation.

But in a country like the US, you would need quite a large support base of socialists willing to work for the revolution. If there was any sort of revolution, the reaction from the army would be fierce. How do you suppose that would be dealt with by any would-be revolutionaries ??

[rice349]

But in a country like the US, you would need quite a large support base of socialists willing to work for the revolution. If there was any sort of revolution, the reaction from the army would be fierce. How do you suppose that would be dealt with by any would-be revolutionaries ??

Well no matter what would-be revolutionaries would have to undergo some severe training if it were to be any sort of revoltuion without a large base. Any form of army reaction would hopefully bring about excruciating scrutiny from the rest of the world, in which we could use to our advantage.

Or, if it is going to be small scale armed revolution, there is the less popular method of running a campaign similar to that of FARC (but much more disciplined and organized). Tactics would have to be semi-guerilla, semi-"terrorist." We could follow the tactics used by FARC or the old Medellin Cocaine Cartel, not to the same degree but you get where I'm going at. However, the most important thing would be still a large enough amount of people--roughly 25,000 plus to mobilize attacks against financial and governmental institutions while not separating ourselves completely from the workers and the general public as to not alienate ourselves.

[NovelGentry]

There's no doubt that Capitalism's flexibility and tolerance are at the heart of its staying power. As long as people are "all right", they'll keep buying into the system.

Luckily for us, capitalism is ultimately self-defeating and is rapidly driving the world towards a crisis point.

Welcome back materialism. Anyone can look at the social compromise as a defining factor of "how long" -- the question is of course, if you jump the gun, and the material conditions are not what they should be, do you need to go that extra mile and bare down with a largely reactionary population.

This would be the case in most failed examples no-doubt, regardless of what one thinks was the central cause. It amazes me people can still blame the collapse of a system on select revisionists in the government -- I'm not saying they didn't cause the shit to crumble, but the people didn't bother to pick up the peices and try to rebuild what was there, and that has to make you question.

If indeed it is something completely out of our hands, and we must wait for said material conditions, these compromises are little more than safety nets. Strangely though, I would assume capitalism, in it's rapid progression of the material conditions, would last a far shorter time and feudal stages or the lengths of empires.


You're definitely right on this one Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; however, it may take a significantly long amount of time for the amount of exploitation to infuriate the workers to the point of revolution, especially with the emergance of a HUGE middle class in the most industrialized nations...how long are we all willing to wait for the exploitation to get so severe in nations in which the majority of those whoi fit the description of proletariat, are staunch anti-communists?

I've long said I'd run with any revolution, whether I thought it was premature or not. The term "middle class" bugs me though -- and it really breaks down the class roles and tries to blur the line between exploiter and exploitee. It seems quite common among those who would want us to believe that it is the fault of the working class of advanced capitalist nations that we are not at socialism yet. As if it comes down strictly to someone's decision.

You may be willing to accept a strong subjective role in whether or not revolution is triggered, but I'm not. And I think if you depends on a person or group of people trying to lead that revolution on their own subjective grounds, you're going to run into a lot of problems, and your only way to settle them without dropping the whole thing will be through and authoritarian government.

This is, without a doubt in my mind, why the USSR went the way it did.


Well hopefully a recession, an economic slump of some sort. If something like that happened, i think the prole would soon wake up and realise the downside of capitalism.

Would it though? Or would it just open up the still reactionary minds to all options, including the likes of a direct route to fascism? You push the material consciousness but still lack class consciousness -- a whole bunch of people fighting for a better life, but a better life for themselves and the ones they directly care about, not for their class.


If there is no slump any time soon, well then there are two options:
1. Wait even longer on a slump.
2. Armed revolution by a group operating in the "name" of the working-class.

Why wait for a slump? Material consciousness can be had without actually having to suffer from material conditions -- so long as one is willing to open their eyes. As can class consciousness. We need to push these realizations and stop with foolish propaganda that tries to sell communism like another product on the capitalist market.

Start appealing to the the whole person, not just their empty stomachs and growing desire for "better times."


With the massive middle class, this seems like it ultimately is going to be the case in industrialized nations like the United States..

With that kind of faith in the working class, there's little doubt it will be.


Especially for frustrated communists who are sick of the working-class' refusal to wake up to their own exploitation.

Oh yeah, no doubt it's our duty to bestow their freedom upon them... whether they like it or not. I can really picture some smooth acceptance there. You NEED class consciousness for a functionaning socialist system, you can't force that on them, nor can you think the simplicity of "You're the working class, they exploit you!" is going to throw them into understanding their true position in the current social order.


But in a country like the US, you would need quite a large support base of socialists willing to work for the revolution. If there was any sort of revolution, the reaction from the army would be fierce. How do you suppose that would be dealt with by any would-be revolutionaries ??

As you would need in any strong and healthily structured capitalist society. A broken vanguard paradigm isn't going to get you very far here. And of course, this leads to our argument "We must make revolution in the third world first!" -- of course... that paradigm "works" there... it's just not sustainable.

To see a true evolution of capitalism (that's had it's due) to socialism (and eventually communism) -- you need the vast majority of the working class, and you need them to actually feel their own pulse and the pulse of their class, not just the "Bread and Peace" you're selling.


Well no matter what would-be revolutionaries would have to undergo some severe training if it were to be any sort of revoltuion without a large base. Any form of army reaction would hopefully bring about excruciating scrutiny from the rest of the world, in which we could use to our advantage.

Or, if it is going to be small scale armed revolution, there is the less popular method of running a campaign similar to that of FARC (but much more disciplined and organized). Tactics would have to be semi-guerilla, semi-"terrorist." We could follow the tactics used by FARC or the old Medellin Cocaine Cartel, not to the same degree but you get where I'm going at. However, the most important thing would be still a large enough amount of people--roughly 25,000 plus to mobilize attacks against financial and governmental institutions while not separating ourselves completely from the workers and the general public as to not alienate ourselves.

You've already alienated yourself from them as a separate revolutionary body, and the more you think about how to poise your tactics without them in mind, you only serve to alienate yourself more.

I've found a lot of extremely class conscious people around this board -- and when you hear them talk they talk with amazing sympathy for the working class. They have a love for what they consider their people, and what they know themselves to be. There's a strong case you'll never have a successful revolution by replacing party consciousness or guerrilla consciousness for class consciousness.

Here's an idea, don't separate yourself at all from the workers. Stand by them, whether they're willing to stand by you or not.

[rice349]

NovelGentry all your points are right on and very good, particularly rasing materialist and class conscious. And i agree with you on alot of things you said; however, while i do hold an incredible amount of respect and esteem for the working class, i cannot help but to think of all the damage which has been done in regards to miseducation in general regarding class consciousness and how to best deal with the mistruths they have been informed on. Alot of the people on this board (who aren't communists or anarchists) are aware of class consciousness, but there are a lot of workers who fall under democrat and republican and steer clear of the mere mention of "class." While the importance and benefit of having a mass-support of the working class would be imperative, i don't know how plausible it is when the government has worked very hard in turning the working class against itself to serve its own interests as the capitalist ruling class.

[NovelGentry]

i cannot help but to think of all the damage which has been done in regards to miseducation in general regarding class consciousness and how to best deal with the mistruths they have been informed on.

Nor should any respectable communist -- it is a problem we face directly. The question is, do we face that problem as an obstacle for us alone to overcome, thereby abandoning class support in a general sake, but FOR their sake or do we focus strictly on overcoming it with them.

I'd much rather overcome it with, rather than regardless of them.


Alot of the people on this board (who aren't communists or anarchists) are aware of class consciousness, but there are a lot of workers who fall under democrat and republican and steer clear of the mere mention of "class."

And do so precisely because they are not class conscious. Regardless of sliding into a position of doing something about it, class consciousness serves first as realizing, in the very least anyway, where your position is. Traditionally it seems communist and leftist movements in general have focused primarily on telling people what needs to be done, when skipping directly over the point of showing them why they're the ones who need to do something about it. We've traditionally tried to bring up revolutionary consciousness in spite of class consciousness, not as an extension of it.


While the importance and benefit of having a mass-support of the working class would be imperative, i don't know how plausible it is when the government has worked very hard in turning the working class against itself to serve its own interests as the capitalist ruling class.

Fair enough -- but I'm not so sure how plausible a successful and true working class revolution is without reversing that. I've even been told their support is "imperative." You use a word like that for a reason, whether you're directly conscious of that reason or not (not saying you are or aren't). But think about what their support being imperative REALLY means.

Where does this movement go without them except into the same basket as their previous "representatives." ?

[rice349]

You're right, it is imperative, however when i used it (though i didn't put it in the right context) i meant it was imperative for any successful in a post-revolutionary era. By that, i think after we fill the power vacuum, we have to win the hearts and minds of the working class by basically like you said, enlightening them to class consciousness and the necessity of our movement.

My thoughts are we could successfully overthrow capitalism in the United States without broad, massive support; hwoever, if we want to sustain that power and allow socialism to prevail, we will ahve to work hard to struggle against pre-revolutionary biases and prejudices. However, it seems that with a lot of people that whatever social authority exists either plays an extremely important role (or completely dictates) their ideology and individual thoughts. If we can assume power, we can therefore eradicate all of these social authorities that are counterposed to what we are trying to do, creating a knowledge and information vacuum in which we must voraciously fill!

[Redmau5]

The main question is:
Do we wait until the proletariat become class conscious and overthrow the government(s) in a mass revolution or;
Do we take power and then educate the proletariat to become class conscious ???

[rice349]

I believe if we wait until we have the masses completely behind us, we will see the problems facing the poorest of americans progress to insurmountable exploitation and deprivation. Therefore, i think in the best interest of our comrades it will have to be the latter ( we take power and then educate the proletariat to become class conscious).

However, we shoul always continue to teach and educate the proletariat about class consciousness while in our attempt to assume power. Mass propaganda and information would be essential.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:41 PM
Therefore, i think in the best interest of our comrades it will have to be the latter ( we take power and then educate the proletariat to become class conscious).


Agreed. Obviously mass revolution would be preferable, but as far as i can see the awakening of the proletariat won't happen any time soon. So what are we supposed to do ? Sit back and watch the masses continue to be exploited ?

[NovelGentry]

By that, i think after we fill the power vacuum, we have to win the hearts and minds of the working class by basically like you said, enlightening them to class consciousness and the necessity of our movement.

I'm not sure that's what I said. I believe we have to act as leaders, yes, but it is not some sacred duty or even our position to pass on "enlightenment." Overall, people have to enlighten themselves, we're here to answer questions and point them in the right direction.


My thoughts are we could successfully overthrow capitalism in the United States without broad, massive support; hwoever, if we want to sustain that power and allow socialism to prevail, we will ahve to work hard to struggle against pre-revolutionary biases and prejudices.

I have no doubt this is possible. But in not allowing people to actually grasp this on their own and by bringing the burden of fighting these reactionary thoughts the only solution you can offer is strict authoritarianism or extremely centralized democracy.

And I understand why. You canot ALLOW people who don't understand or believe in what this is all about to have a say in how it goes, or they will simply revert it to something extremely similar to the old system.

You need new people before you can have a new society and thus a new world.

And while it may be possible to maintain power while we try and "enlighten" them as you put it, this is my question:

In so destroying capitalism and attempting socialism WITHOUT the full support, agitation, and comprehension of a vast majority of the working class... do we destroy WITH capitalism the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, and thus the ability for these people to even become class conscious?

Here is my point. The minute you destroy capitalism and change it to even authoritarian socialism, you have destroyed with capitalism the OLD class distinctions. Thus it becomes infinitely more difficult for someone to actually understand what you're trying to tell them. Their material conditions have changed. They are no longer being exploited, and thus you can only tell them about the way it USED to be. So unless they were already materially conscious before you destroyed capitalism, the chance to make them materially conscious becomes insanely difficult because that is indeed no longer their material conditions. Much the same, the old proletariat doesn't really exist anymore, as there is no one exploiting them.

You can say "You used to be the proletariat and these assholes used to be the bourgeoisie, they exploited you" However, you can say that now, with living proof, with examples, in cojunction with the material conditions that go along with the exploitation -- thus making the actual probability if not the possibility of people actually becoming conscious a whole lot brighter.

Get what I'm saying?

We've seen the outcome of trying to push it. And yes, while we might be materially consciouss and class conscious, and thus a bit bored with current society and looking for something better -- it is difficult to say that we are in a position to sweep that away from other people. As we have progressed, so does the rest of the working class.


However, it seems that with a lot of people that whatever social authority exists either plays an extremely important role (or completely dictates) their ideology and individual thoughts. If we can assume power, we can therefore eradicate all of these social authorities that are counterposed to what we are trying to do, creating a knowledge and information vacuum in which we must voraciously fill!

You can teach a dog to fetch, but he'll never understand why he's doing it.

There in lies your problem. What you seek to do is not actually making people conscious, but training them. It's temporary at best, and if you are capable of doing it, so is anyone else who happens to assume power.

There in lies why a true revolution can never be toppled. I've heard two people over the past few days say that the state presents the possibility for controlling the people. This is bollocks if you listen to what I'm saying.

If indeed you do it your way, and communists seize the state, they do so only to actually replace the current brainwashing that the current bourgeois controlled/capitalist state does. Your interest is not actually in working class consciousness, but just making the people work towards socialism/communism. Hell, you can make them work towards ritualistic suicide if you want.

We need conscious people, not worker drones. There's no freedom in state brainwashing, and it won't carry society very far, quite the contrary, it will ALWAYS leave society to the whim of the rulers. You'd be doing nothing different than what mostly any other large shift change in power has done previously, and you leave society open to be pushed in exactly the same way you have pushed them, but in a different direction.

The power has to come directly from the workers, anything else is just smoke and mirrors which will HAVE to be maintained indefinitely by authoritarian control.

[NovelGentry]

Agreed. Obviously mass revolution would be preferable, but as far as i can see the awakening of the proletariat won't happen any time soon.

I still think it's funny you can't see the objective contradiction of this whole thing.

You're destroying the old class society, and then trying to make people class conscious for a class that doesn't exist anymore.

Remember Marx and Engels pointed out the Proletariat is NOT just the working class. All societies have a working class, but the proletariat is different, it is created and dies with capitalism. You wipe out capitalism, and you wipe out the social relation of worker to capitalist, and thus you wipe out the actual existence of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as a class.

You CANNOT make people class conscious in a world where their class no longer exists and it will be EXTREMELY difficult, if not also impossible to make people materially conscious of the old system, while providing them with the new material conditions of the new system. In fact, I would say they can't actually be conscious of it.

I think therefore I am -- This is your bridge of consciousness. Consciousness grows with us, we come into existence and we become conscious of ourselves, we go out into society and we become conscious of society -- you cannot make someone consciouss of something that's in the past, you can only educate them on it and there is a difference -- a huge difference.

[rice349]

Capitalism won't immediately be overthrown with our taking power, in fact, it can't be destroyed until we take power. After assuming power, the new proletarian government would have 2 jobs: descend upon the masses with unrelentless propaganda and education to make them aware that communism is best for them. Secondly, while this is going on, radically nationalize every aspect of the economy, then after we destroy the physical remnants of capitalism, we begin restructuring society. So taking power isn't what necessarily destroys capitalism therefore eliminating the proletariat, restructuring society is what essentially performs this function. It's just that whether or not this type of restructuring will come at the hands of the masses, or the few who lead the masses.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Have you people ever stopped to think maybe most of what you hear about Stalin and the USSR is bullshit and that it wasnt so bad after all. Have a read about the neo-cons and see what you think, I fear a lot of you will criticise anything that isnt perfect, gets to me sometimes.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

In this growing imperialist stage of capitalism there's hardly any middle class left, From the 1980's till now the growing imperialism has nearly destroyed all that was once considered as being the middle class!

[NovelGentry]

Capitalism won't immediately be overthrown with our taking power, in fact, it can't be destroyed until we take power.

Right, but in order to actually achieve said consciousness, it's not feasible for them to do it after capitalism is gone, which is what you propose to do. You say take power, and THEN educate. But in taking power we are wiping away the constructs of the old system -- and thus actually becoming CONSCIOUS becomes and improability of and impossibility.


After assuming power, the new proletarian government would have 2 jobs: descend upon the masses with unrelentless propaganda and education to make them aware that communism is best for them.

But this is a far cry different from any class consciousness. Sure, it may be what's best for them, but they have no reason to particularly feel comradery between the people of the old proletariat. To them, those people are just other workers thrown into the loop the same as them, and they will deal with it just the same. You're not building off any revolutionary mindset, but the old mindsets of capitalism. And as much as you can convince them that was wrong, you can't actually grow within them the change in society you're looking for a) because they never were conscious of the old one and b) because the society they're in now isn't even the type of society you're trying to grow.

You want these people to feel compassion for their fellow workers, you want them to work hard for the sake of society, and you want them, at some point, to be ultra democratic and objective. But even in the society you're trying to teach them how to do this in you provide them with no reason.

The act of revolution itself is what will bring the workers together and give them that comradery (class consciousness). The requirement of a NEW means by which to run post-revolutionary society will give them that sense of ultra-democracy. And the changes they see materially born out of this new society in comparison to their own will solidify them with objectivity (material consciousness).

Your system provides state control over workers and "reeducation programs" as if they are sheep. If they by chance talk to fellow workers or feel any compassion with one another it is in distrust of your system which has replaced their old boss with the state. YES, your state may be looking out for them, but it's questionable they'll see it that way. Their material conditions change, but they never really had any old consciousness, they see things are more equal and they question "how can I move up? why am I bothering with this?" -- Sure they may work by chance that if they don't the state will not provide for them, but they see no personal control over what they gain from work. And their new system, if not more centralized and authoritarian than their old, probably leaves them with the same apathy that this system does already "Why bother voting? It's not going to REALLY change."


Secondly, while this is going on, radically nationalize every aspect of the economy, then after we destroy the physical remnants of capitalism, we begin restructuring society. So taking power isn't what necessarily destroys capitalism therefore eliminating the proletariat, restructuring society is what essentially performs this function.

But the proletariats existence is not dependent on the the bourgeoisie's existence. In taking power you effectively run the bourgeoisie out of town -- if not kill a good amount of them immediately. Do you really think any capitalist is gonna stick around to keep exploiting the workers? Quite the contrary, in the process of doing this workers are probably going to raid the shit out of stores, factories, whatever just to get enough to survive in the mean time until you restructure.

But as a class they no longer exist and share their responsibility as workers. In fact, they don't know what the hell they are, even if they had a slight clue before. They can't be sure of what their new masters (you) are going to do until you actually do it, regardless of whatever you told them before. And even still, if they are aware they will become equal workers within the new society, they are already aware of their new position, and thus whatever they become conscious of in terms of existing is NOT what they were, but what they are going to be. They are just workers now... before they were the proletariat, being exploited by the bourgeoisie and creating but not sharing equally in the product of their labor. If they didn't become conscious of that then, you're not gonna be able to make them conscious of it now.


It's just that whether or not this type of restructuring will come at the hands of the masses, or the few who lead the masses.

If the revolution came at the hands of the masses, you can be ensured that the restructuring would. More, you can be sure the masses support whoever they elect as their leaders IF they decide on leaders in any traditional sense. They never chose you to lead the revolution for them, in what sense do they feel any attachment to you, your party, or any of those supporting you? -- the answer is, they don't, and they probably wouldn't for a long time.

Unless of course you make everything all rosey and dandy. Which you can do, but you must remember, you have your limits, you have what NEEDS to be done, and you have what you refuse to allow, which just so happens to be what they still believe were their freedoms in the old system. And since they never found class consciousness and broke out of the old system, their mindsets are still living in it.

How many times did Lenin tell any of the common workers supporting his revolution that religion was against their goals? All I'm aware he said was Bread, Peace, and Land. It was propaganda, tell them what they want to hear and nothing they don't, and get them to support you without actually understanding. You may very well do the same, and you may very well get in the same position, and you may very well bend society extremely close to socialism in simple terms of production/consumption/structure/politics.

But you're never gonna bend their mind towards what you want, because what you want doesn't sound good, because they never became consciouss of it on their own.

[NovelGentry]

Have you people ever stopped to think maybe most of what you hear about Stalin and the USSR is bullshit and that it wasnt so bad after all. Have a read about the neo-cons and see what you think, I fear a lot of you will criticise anything that isnt perfect, gets to me sometimes.

Of course. And I'll tell you the same thing I told this kid who used to hang out in the IRC channel called Vlad. I don't think Stalin is evil, or mean, or whatever. I think he did what he had to do. He was not in control. He, like anyone else had to meet the material conditions set down, which were indeed the necessity to industrialize, etc. When he met a stopper, he wiped them out, and did so rightfully.

I don't sit here and say: Stalin killed so many people! Stalin didn't listen to anyone else! He was just an evil dictator!

What I will say flat out is he was wrong. He was wrong, Lenin was wrong, Trotsky was wrong, Bukharin was wrong -- the whole bunch of them were wrong. Not evil, simply wrong.

They thought they could take a nation of peasants from a pre-capitalist farmscape to a post-capitalist ready for socialism industrial powerhouse. They thought they could do this and somehow skip over capitalism... and they thought they could do it within a century. They were wrong.

What's worse about Stalinists today, particularly in the US, is they do not realize that this system was fitted to it's material conditions. Authority exists on the basis that people don't know how to do it themselves. And for what Lenin and Co. wanted, the Russian people DIDN'T know how to do it themselves. They barely had any idea how to do capitalism themselves.

They wanted working class consciousness before the working class even existed. And now the Stalinists in advanced capitalist countries want to fast forward that consciousness -- along with material consciousness.

It doesn't make sense. It would make a whole lot of sense if this was Russia in 1917. And I'd probably be all for it, hell I might even flat out believe it would work. For awhile it might of seemed like this reverse way of doing things actually had a chance. But we've seen now that it doesnt, and with hindsight we can the the many vast number of reasons why it doesn't. So why are we trying to apply it to the United States in 2005?

[rice349]

Ahh, Novelgentry i see the point you've been trying to make and it is a very good one...it is that feeling of comradeship of the proletariat to ONE ANOTHER that is truly important. However, my conflict with this arises in that how can we be sure that this will take place amongst the masses, the masses are easily distracted; alot of workers perform activities that are detrimental to even the most moderate bourgeois liberal labor movement, like rejecting labor unions in the workplace. WIthout interference into their mindset, is it feasible that these workers will be willing to accept comradeship with their fellow proletarians and change from a very egoistic philosophy to communism?

[NovelGentry]

However, my conflict with this arises in that how can we be sure that this will take place amongst the masses, the masses are easily distracted; alot of workers perform activities that are detrimental to even the most moderate bourgeois liberal labor movement, like rejecting labor unions in the workplace. WIthout interference into their mindset, is it feasible that these workers will be willing to accept comradeship with their fellow proletarians and change from a very egoistic philosophy to communism?

I'm not saying don't push them, and don't talk to them, and don't challenge them. Indeed push them, talk, yell, challenge, shove this shit down their throats every chance you get. Just don't start a revolution in their name and expect them to fullfill it properly just because you train them like dogs.

Again, I think what must be done is some SERIOUS agitation and promotion. Our numbers are probably a lot smaller than we even imagine. But the ball needs to get rolling in our unification. As it stands there's a number of parties and sects that really need to pull together and drop all this nonsense and just get out there and do shit.

Not to sound like some Fight Club nut, but I think large scale corporate vandalism on that level is important. But leave a message, and make the actual message be heard loud and clear. That is a responsibility of all communists AND anarchists. Whenever we see something that sticks it to capitalism -- I think far too many of us just shut their trap. Correct anyone you hear saying bullshit and not seeing the truth.

Personally, I'd like to see something like The Weathermen/Weather Underground, but maybe not go to shit this time around. Where places are actually being destroyed and vandalized -- and likewise, with no harm to every day people.

And then let it be all our (the communists) responsibility to promote the action itself and explain the truth. There needs to be something big, and something that really shakes shit up. I'm not talking local 5 o'clock news "Che spraypainted on police station" -- I'm talking CNN for months straight while FBI and Police are looking for suspects in multiple corporate and office bombings (again, DON'T HURT PEOPLE -- not even the bourgeoisie at this point).

This is of course not the first stage I propose, before that I propose as I loosely stated before that we organize. Do a standing protest for a singular goal and do it until we get it. Get the message out first and then move on to at least somewhat agitating action.

I've actually got a whole book I'm writing on this called Revolutionary Method -- don't expect it for a few more months though.

You still want to try it your way with your Leninist vanguard and a dream of proletariat-training school... have a blast. And as I said... I'll join any serious movement regardless of form. But the minute that shit goes stale, don't expect me not to say "I told you so."

Just as a note: Do not let it die -- the movement that is. Once you start you push forward. You push until people are out in the streets smashing ATMs. But again, the message itself is the important part, the other shit is just to grab their attention. And don't beef up the message with stuff they can't understand -- they don't need a course in Marxist Philosophy and the Dialectic, speak in plain English and make your points clear. -- Just some ideas.

[rice349]

I've actually got a whole book I'm writing on this called Revolutionary Method -- don't expect it for a few more months though

I would definitely be interested in taking a look at this... and yes i think a movement very similar to the Weatherman/WUO would be an excellent idea for the time being.

However, I disagree with the fact that it should not harm human beings--even the bourgeois. The rich, the capitalists, the bourgeois, the reactionaries should all be viewed as the enemy and should not be exempt from facing the consequences for centuries of deprivation and exploitation. Setting an example of these groups will prove to be very important in the fight against them. However, this would be foolish to pursue with too small a group. It would be necessary to have a very large collection of cadres to operate as autonomous cells who are in effect controlled by a central governing body underground to organize and plan attacks on both the bourgeois and its institutions.

[rice349]

Upon reading another article regarding this topic (russians wanting communism back) i learned how the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is planning on aiding its citizens in a return to communism/socialism: by texting and sending messages on cell phones!!! Yes, it's really true. As horribly pathetic as this sounds, the leadership of the chauvinistic, and quasi-nationalistic communist party thinks this will be a great way to bring about social change. WHile this seems rather laughable compared to real action, it makes communists look rather sad and child-like. What ever happened to Pravda? What happened to the mass organizational skills that gave communists legitimacy even before people realized what their actual plans were.

Apparently, the CPRF believes that the party needs to make a transition from public demonstrations, to petty graffitti and cell phone messages with a "catchy tune."

Is this what communism has become? Where are our mass organizations and ability to demand political respect and authority? What is to be done about this and what are we currently doing about the fact we are so disorganized and so small as it is?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by resisting arrest with [email protected] 22 2005, 09:33 PM
Putin has finished destroying the country. He picke up where Gorbachev and Yeltsin left off. Socialism should be brought back to help the people that need it. Those who oppose should be sent into exile.
moron.

Do you call a society in which one cannot speak one's mind being communist?!?!
WAKE UP! Communism needs dissenters, it needs people who think for themselves, what you are talking about destroyed the first revolution

[Kez]

I havent had time to read through all the posts, but just to say, this "revival" of people wanting socialism is not new.

People were against the onslaught of capitlaist counter-reforms from the start.

an example of this is shown here.
http://www.marxist.com/Russia/october93_events.html

not the brutal scenes by police, the police of the new capitalist state.

[NovelGentry]

Communism needs dissenters, it needs people who think for themselves, what you are talking about destroyed the first revolution

Reality destroyed the first revolution.

[rice349]

Do you call a society in which one cannot speak one's mind being communist?!?!
WAKE UP! Communism needs dissenters, it needs people who think for themselves, what you are talking about destroyed the first revolution

I call it dictatorship of the proletariat in which the rights of opponents are completely suspended, not communism however.


this "revival" of people wanting socialism is not new.

People were against the onslaught of capitlaist counter-reforms from the start.

True

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:47 AM
Stalin changed in accordance to how the Soviet Union needed him. I agree that Lenin didn't want as strong a central government as Stalin consolidated; however, he also didn't realize the struggles that would have to be deatl with in coming post-revolutionary decades...
Stalin ended socialism in the soviet union, how cn you possibly have socialism, when the men at the top have a much hiher standing of living than the workers?

[rice349]

First off, while i don't approve of the leaders and upper levels of the party having a better life, i don't think this takes away from the soviet union being socialist. Again, when examining the soviet union its important to look at it in a different scope than one normally thinks of socialism. Certain thinks that may have been unorthodox had to be undertaken to compensate for the fact that Russia never underwent capitalist industrialization, in turn, they responded to this with socialist industrialization. Overall, i do not see how the Soviet Union was not socialist on the basis that it was classified with state ownership, land/wealth distribution, massive public works campaigns, and the lives of the workers increased significantly compared to how they were in pre-revolution era Russia.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:06 PM
First off, while i don't approve of the leaders and upper levels of the party having a better life, i don't think this takes away from the soviet union being socialist. Again, when examining the soviet union its important to look at it in a different scope than one normally thinks of socialism. Certain thinks that may have been unorthodox had to be undertaken to compensate for the fact that Russia never underwent capitalist industrialization, in turn, they responded to this with socialist industrialization. Overall, i do not see how the Soviet Union was not socialist on the basis that it was classified with state ownership, land/wealth distribution, massive public works campaigns, and the lives of the workers increased significantly compared to how they were in pre-revolution era Russia.
The USSR existed for over 70 years and it was never on the road to socialism. Stalin could have chosen to at least put the Soviet Union on that road, but bureaucratic power mattered more to him. How can the Soviet Union be called socialist when the state became the new ruling class? And although many people benefited, there was still mass poverty.

USSR = State capitalist and bureacratic collectivist

[rice349]

Some may argue however, that bureaucratic power is perhaps most beneficial to organizing a socialism society that will eventualyl lead to communism. Your arguments are coming from your own preconceived notions of what socialism is supposed to be.

[viva le revolution]

Finally the Russian people are sick of a twisted fascade called democracy in Russia.
In reality Russia now is nothing more than a gangster=run country pampering Oligarchs and becoming an imperialist lackey no longer commanding even a fraction of the respect it once had.
In my opinion Russia should learn from this and return to socialism daring to stand up to the imperialistic west.
Russia should also give up Chechnya as it was a war of expansion begun by the Tsars of Russia and mistakenly adopted by the U.S.S.R as a war of it's own.
In my opinion before reverting back to socialism Russia should give up Chechnya as it is imperialistic war if they do not they will only be fooling themselves and betraying the spirit of socialism and it's aims