Yeah, I feel ridiculous asking this

[Jaded Revolutionary]

But why is the major argument against Communism is that "it won't work" ? Why exactly won't it work? What is it's major flaws as opposed to Capitalism (in a right-wingers point of view)

I know I'm a n00b, but hopefully someone will be able to help me out here..

[slim]

The thing is that there has never really been a true communist country so its more western propaganda that argues that it failed.

[jaytone11]

Western though suggest that communism is not possible due to the human instinct that it restricts freedom and leads to dictatorships,
Which is a bunch on nonsense of course,
Its not human instincts to make others the majority suffer for the lavish lifestyles of the few, humans react and behave according to their material consciousness, the right wing determines freedom by means of capatil, plain and simple
Communism has never been accomplished but to say it doesnt work is bullshit,
who says capatalism works , it works for 10percents of the world, thats the basis for capatalism, there is no way around it, to succeed you must exploit for the Us to have a high standard of living , Latin America must suffer as well as other regions, capatalism leads to imperialism no way around it.

[Organic Revolution]

this should be moved to OI so she can get a perspective of a right winger like she asked.

[Axel1917]

Well, given that you are new, I would recommend reading some actual works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotksy. They will tell you about how things, work, and a lot of capitalistic arguements of today were refuted in such works.

See:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

http://www.socialistappeal.org/edplan/index.php

[Ele'ill]

The thing is that there has never really been a true communist country so its more western propaganda that argues that it failed.

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

[Lord Testicles]

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

There wasn't a world revolution thats what went wrong. The victory of communist revolution in one or more countries is only partial until the balance of forces has tided decisively against capitalism. That means the communist revolution must triumph more or less simultaneously in most of the advanced countries if it is nor to suffer deformation and counterrevolution in one form or another. The struggle for communism is a unified world struggle and must be based upon proletarian internationalism.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:50 PM

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

There wasn't a world revolution thats what went wrong. The victory of communist revolution in one or more countries is only partial until the balance of forces has tided decisively against capitalism. That means the communist revolution must triumph more or less simultaneously in most of the advanced countries if it is nor to suffer deformation and counterrevolution in one form or another. The struggle for communism is a unified world struggle and must be based upon proletarian internationalism.
I would also make the point that our movements have been sabotaged every damn time:
(Thanks to Disgustipated for posting this ;) a great quote)

The boys of capital; they chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century-without exception-has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement-from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the EMLN in El Salvador-not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
-William Blum

[KC]

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

Leninism

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:04 PM
Leninism
Quoted for emphasis

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:04 PM

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

Leninism
That is an answer for one incident but the broader answer is counter-revolutionary activities in general, facilitated by external reactionary forces.

[workersunity]

i would say the two major ones, are the incentives, and that there is no govt, people dont think they can live without a leader over them, they are falsey made to believe they need a master

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:29 PM
i would say the two major ones, are the incentives,
Yes, counter-revolutionary incentives that are roughly due to the capitalist network abroad, lending more credit to efforts toward an international movement.


and that there is no govt, people dont think they can live without a leader over them, they are falsey made to believe they need a master

Not only that but people are deprived of the chances to run their own lives in a capitalist society (so they have mental dependency for a “master”), they generally don't know how to work for themselves and others in a cooperative manor. People need to learn how to not be reliant on masters and work with peers. This needs to be an educational movement as much as anything else and is really a cultural revolution in part.

[Jaded Revolutionary]

Thanks a lot for the help everyone. I definitley need to do some more reading on this (when I finish Anderson's biography on Che that is ;))

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:04 PM

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

Leninism
Funny, without Leninism there would have been nothing of importance in the history of the working class movement, sure, maybe a few failed communes.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+Sep 22 2005, 10:57 PM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Sep 22 2005, 10:57 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 09:04 PM

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

Leninism
Funny, without Leninism there would have been nothing of importance in the history of the working class movement, sure, maybe a few failed communes. [/b]
If you think Leninism is the important aspect of our history of struggle, I woudn't call you a leftist, more like a semi-apolitical Lenin groupie.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+Sep 22 2005, 09:57 PM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Sep 22 2005, 09:57 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 09:04 PM

The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?

Leninism
Funny, without Leninism there would have been nothing of importance in the history of the working class movement, sure, maybe a few failed communes. [/b]
So what the fuck do you have to show for it?

A host of failed revolutions and the complete discrediting of the entire community of legitimate progressives in the only countries with the technology to support anything like real communism.

You could argue that those two "accomplishments" were mainly brought about by capitalist agitation and propaganda and I would agree with you, at least regarding the latter. And Western intervention certainly caused its share of misery for places like Nicaragua, Vietnam, and the Congo.

But the facts are inescapable: the Leninist experiments failed. They weren't defeated - fuck Blum. The Russian Revolution failed. The Chinese Revolution failed. Cuba? Guess what, we can postulate all we want about Castro's replacement but a movement built on a personality will not sustain the loss of that personality.

The communes? Shanghai, Paris? They didn't fail. They really were defeated. Look it up.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:40 PM
The thing is, those countries failed to establish the system; even when they had the intent to do so. What went wrong?
The revolutionaries believed in a transition period called "socialism" which would be ruled by the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Years before any of those revolutions, class struggle anarchists warned that if a "dictatorship of the proletariat" were established it would just recreate the class system the revolutionaries wanted to abolish. To oversimplyfy things, government bureaucrats would use their position of authority within the dictatorship to establish themselves as a new ruling class and exploit those below them. The leaders would be corrupted by power, or killed by those who were corrupted by power. The solution is to skip this whole "temporary" dictatorship crap and go straight to communism. The state must be smashed immediately, along with capitalism.


I would also make the point that our movements have been sabotaged every damn time

And they will also be sabotaged in the future. That's what capitalists do, they're not just going to give up without a fight. If the Marxist way of defending against that destroys the revolution and leads to Stalinism then another way must be found or the mistakes of the past will be repeated.

[KC]

That is an answer for one incident but the broader answer is counter-revolutionary activities in general, facilitated by external reactionary forces.

Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism.


Funny, without Leninism there would have been nothing of importance in the history of the working class movement, sure, maybe a few failed communes.

If you studied the Russian Revolution you'd understand that the Bolsheviks came to power through a whole lot of failed promises and half truths, with only a minority in line with them. Remember the Constituent Assembly? The Bolsheviks destroyed it because it wasn't in their favor (i.e. when it met for the first and last time, they voted down the Bolsheviks' power. So, without Leninism a revolutionary Constituent Assembly would have been implemented, which is what everybody wanted in the first place. Stalin never would have come to power, as there would have been no way to, and the whole mess with the USSR never would have happened.

[Hiero]

The main argument is that all societies that took up some form of central planing faced stagnation, and this in the end cause unrest in the people and lead to the downfall.

[Led Zeppelin]

If you think Leninism is the important aspect of our history of struggle, I woudn't call you a leftist, more like a semi-apolitical Lenin groupie.

Why do most people here hate Lenin but see Marx as a god-like figure?

Leninism is Marxism in practice, if you hate one then also hate the other please, don't be a hypocrite.

Oh yeah, and if i'm not a "leftist" then who is? You?


So what the fuck do you have to show for it?

At present; nothing.

What has anarchism "to show for it"? Nothing.

What has orthodox Marxism "to show for it"? Nothing.

What has Communism in general "to show for it"? Nothing.

That is why I analyze history and look at the most successful theory, which is obviously Leninism, then correct its flaws.


A host of failed revolutions and the complete discrediting of the entire community of legitimate progressives in the only countries with the technology to support anything like real communism.

How exactly was Communism discredited? Look at Russia today, is capitalism discredited by that? Is capitalism discredited by Nazism and fascism? No, it isn't discredited because, get this, people in imperialist nations (or any nation for that matter) are not class-conscious, in other words they oppose Communism by definition.


You could argue that those two "accomplishments" were mainly brought about by capitalist agitation and propaganda and I would agree with you, at least regarding the latter. And Western intervention certainly caused its share of misery for places like Nicaragua, Vietnam, and the Congo.


I just argued something else, although propaganda plays a part in that.


the Leninist experiments failed. They weren't defeated

Failed and defeated are basically the same.

If something gets defeated all the time it's a failure.


The communes? Shanghai, Paris? They didn't fail. They really were defeated.

See above.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why do most people here hate Lenin but see Marx as a god-like figure?

Strawman. Most people here see Marx as an authority on Marxism, not a god-like figure.


Leninism is Marxism in practice, if you hate one then also hate the other please, don't be a hypocrite.

Leninism is not Marxism in practice, it is Lenin's ideology in practice.



That is why I analyze history and look at the most successful theory, which is obviously Leninism, then correct its flaws.

Why is Leninism so "successful" when it's track record is so abysmal?


Failed and defeated are basically the same.

If something gets defeated all the time it's a failure.

Not in this case. The communes were defeated by by stronger external forces, while most Leninist nations fail in their goals due to problems inherent within.
Both however suffered the consequences of bad decision making.

[enigma2517]

Leninism is Marxism in practice, if you hate one then also hate the other please, don't be a hypocrite.

Ha!

Maybe one form of practice I'll give you that. Although I kinda missed the part where the workers had control over stuff. I thought that was, you know, sort of the main point of it all.

Saying that one is the other is just as dogmatic as saying that the Catholic Church and "God" are the same thing. Nice try

[Led Zeppelin]

Most people here see Marx as an authority on Marxism, not a god-like figure.


Actually they do, Marx is almost never criticized (see the thread on this subject) while Lenin is criticized all the time.

Even anarchists praise Marx.


Leninism is not Marxism in practice, it is Lenin's ideology in practice.


And it just happens to be that "Lenin's ideology" is based on Marxism.


Why is Leninism so "successful" when it's track record is so abysmal?

Compared to the others.


Not in this case.

Precisely in this case.


The communes were defeated by by stronger external forces, while most Leninist nations fail in their goals due to problems inherent within.


So? Because the communes got defeated by external forces every time they are a failure.

Of course if one wants to "do exactly the same" as Lenin, Stalin or Mao did then they will fail also, but being a Leninist is more than just "doing exactly the same as Lenin did", also, remember thet Stalin and Mao did not do "exactly what Lenin wanted", i.e., they were Leninist to a certain extent.

[Led Zeppelin]

Although I kinda missed the part where the workers had control over stuff. I thought that was, you know, sort of the main point of it all.


Yes, great idea, let's give the workers --who are the minority-- "control over stuff".

If only you were around in 1917, the USSR would have still existed today.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually they do, Marx is almost never criticized (see the thread on this subject) while Lenin is criticized all the time.

Sour grapes?


Even anarchists praise Marx.

I don't know, maybe that's because there's something to Marx's theory?


And it just happens to be that "Lenin's ideology" is based on Marxism.

As are many others.


Compared to the others.

You mean all those authoritarian socialist nations that are now capitalist or turning capitalist? Yeah, I suppose that is the sweet sweet smell of success! (More likely the stench of bullshit!)


So? Because the communes got defeated by external forces every time they are a failure.

Can't you get it through your stupid thick head? The socialist nations were not defeated by guns and bombs, they failed in their stated goals because their ideology was flawed.


Yes, great idea, let's give the workers --who are the minority-- "control over stuff".

What kind of fantasy land are you living in? If the workers are the minority then I'm a Martian.

[Led Zeppelin]

The socialist nations were not defeated by guns and bombs, they failed in their stated goals because their ideology was flawed.


That doesn't matter you fool, failures are failures.

Also, why is a mod flaming me?


What kind of fantasy land are you living in? If the workers are the minority then I'm a Martian.

I was referring to 1917 Russia. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That doesn't matter you fool, failures are failures.

The nature of failures and defeats is important.


Also, why is a mod flaming me?

I was not simply flaming you, I was providing an argument as well. You can't whinge about flaming simply because I hurt your fragile little ego.

[Led Zeppelin]

The nature of failures and defeats is important.


Yes, in one case the nature can be changed, in the other it can't.


I was not simply flaming you, I was providing an argument as well. You can't whinge about flaming simply because I hurt your fragile little ego.

Ok, you are a stupid piece of shit because you can't understand the above.

[KC]

If you studied the Russian Revolution you'd understand that the Bolsheviks came to power through a whole lot of failed promises and half truths, with only a minority in line with them. Remember the Constituent Assembly? The Bolsheviks destroyed it because it wasn't in their favor (i.e. when it met for the first and last time, they voted down the Bolsheviks' power. So, without Leninism a revolutionary Constituent Assembly would have been implemented, which is what everybody wanted in the first place. Stalin never would have come to power, as there would have been no way to, and the whole mess with the USSR never would have happened.

[Led Zeppelin]

Lazar, I ignored your post on purpose, there is nothing I have to say in response to that.

[No. 355728]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
What has orthodox Marxism

Maxism is a theory that's progressive, calling a marxist an orthodox is an insult.

[Led Zeppelin]

Maxism is a theory that's progressive, calling a marxist an orthodox is an insult.

I know, that's why we call them that. :lol:

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Jaded [email protected] 22 2005, 11:13 AM
But why is the major argument against Communism is that "it won't work" ? Why exactly won't it work? What is it's major flaws as opposed to Capitalism (in a right-wingers point of view)

I know I'm a n00b, but hopefully someone will be able to help me out here..
Most the people saying that don't know what communism is. It would make all spheres of society (especially economics, as that's the basis of social relationships) democratic. Democratic decision making is proven to work, so there's no empircal basis for saying it 'can't work.'

[quincunx5]

Democratic decision making is proven to work, so there's no empircal basis for saying it 'can't work.'


Democracy is a failure. IT is only good for expedience, and nothing else.

[Freedom Works]

Originally posted by Jaded [email protected] 22 2005, 11:13 AM
Why exactly won't it work?
Because of the inconsistencies of the logic.

Specifically, collectivists are not all on the same page, which inevitably fucks up any large scale revolution.

[Sabocat]

DyerMaker:

But the facts are inescapable: the Leninist experiments failed. They weren't defeated - fuck Blum. The Russian Revolution failed. The Chinese Revolution failed. Cuba? Guess what, we can postulate all we want about Castro's replacement but a movement built on a personality will not sustain the loss of that personality.

How can an experiment fail when there is constant outside influences trying to abrogate the results? You could make the statement that all the Leninist models would have failed on their own, but we will never really know will we?

Was the Paris Commune then also a failed experiment because it was defeated by the forces of reaction? The Spanish Civil War?

The bottom line is however that the U.S. has worked tirelessly to economically and militarily strangle and otherwise antagonize every communist movement/experiment.