10 Questions on Marxism

[Orange Juche]

I've been a member of this forum for a while, just haven't been here in a while.

I have been anti-capitalist since I was 15 (I'm currently 19) and have been searching around for the most logical and practical system of which to have in place in a post-capitalist society. The reason I continue to switch around, I believe, is that I am not very educated on anti-capitalist theories.

I used to consider myself a communist/leninist... but after returned to subscribing to the philosophy of democratic socialism. I've been thinking alot lately, and from what I know of Marxist/Leninist philosophy, it seems as if I get to know more, and the more it makes sense to me, that maybe it will come to me as the most viable alternative to capitalism. So, I have a few questions :-). You can respond by E-mail if you would like, my email is: [email protected]

1) On the communist FAQ, it states; These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class. As a democratic socialist, what is unclear to me?

2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?

3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?

4) Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?

5) Could someone give me a basic outline of what trotskyism is/represents? (just a real brief thing, I don't want to make anyone pump out an extensive thing :-P)

6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?

7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?

8) Is there anything else in how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is run that any of you feel should be adjusted or changed?

9) I've heard Lenin is reponsible for millions of deaths. True (if so, justified?)? False?

10) Many people I debate with claim that socialism failed because everybody ended up "piss poor," had to wait in very long lines for food, shotty living conditions ect. Any response to that?


Sorry about there being so much to answer... I just want to become well educated on this (considering the only thing my high school "taught" us in regards to Marxism was by making us read Orwell's "Animal Farm" and using that as "proof" that socialism doesn't work.). Thanks! :lol:

[Connolly]

Ill answer what I can.......


2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?

Yes there have been many so called "socialist" countries in the past and present who have commited horrible crimes against their own people, china, USSR, Cambodia, Angola. Libya, Cuba - all have done it - no doubt.

But are these socialist? socialism meaning the next, more advanced production mode with a correlating society.

No. None were socialist or communist societies for obvious reasons.


3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?

well it may or may not be true, it wouldnt shock me in the least if it were the case. But again - CUBA IS NOT SOCIALIST - its a backward facing shit hole with a centralised minority dictatorship.

not my idea of an advanced democratic "commune".


4) Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?

When was the last time Castro asked the people whether they wanted him there or not?

more than likely never.


6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?

Put it this way. If someone went around sending out leaflets saying support the restoration of feudalism (ie, Kings and Queens, Feudal Lords, Craft masters and peasants, hard back braking methods of growing crops, making clothes and tools by hand) - wouldnt you think Whacko? You would think this chaps living in the past........

Why would people want to retrogress to some previous, inferior laboursome form of society?

Not to mention what it would take to achieve such a thing ( the destruction of all advanced machinary and advanced scientific (and otherwise) knowledge).

What would we do?

Ignore him/her. Material reality will dictate the nature of society.


7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?

If you mean a leninist/maoist dictatorship - yes - a 100% record for this.

If you mean what Marx meant - the power of one class over another (without the need for minority control) - I would reckon - providing its a progressive built from below revolution - very difficult to corrupt!!


8) Is there anything else in how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is run that any of you feel should be adjusted or changed?

Leninist Vanguard RUBBISH!!


9) I've heard Lenin is reponsible for millions of deaths. True (if so, justified?)? False?

Again - irrelevent. Who gives a crap - why dwell on these bad historical events.


10) Many people I debate with claim that socialism failed because everybody ended up "piss poor," had to wait in very long lines for food, shotty living conditions ect. Any response to that?

Socialism hasnt happened yet.

Well, put it this way. Everyone is much poorer now than if the ruling class were overthrown. If it were not the case, the boss wouldnt make profit.

He needs to steal the workers labour and the product the worker makes to have profit.

Eliminate the boss and hey presto, no stealing/theift = better off.

sorry for such a shabby response comrade - really short on time :) :) :blush:

[Orange Juche]

If you mean what Marx meant - the power of one class over another (without the need for minority control) - I would reckon - providing its a progressive built from below revolution - very difficult to corrupt!!

What Marx meant? How is that different from Leninism/whats been practiced thus far?



sorry for such a shabby response comrade - really short on time :) :)

It wasn't shabby! :D Thanks for the response!

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:47 PM
I've been a member of this forum for a while, just haven't been here in a while.

I have been anti-capitalist since I was 15 (I'm currently 19) and have been searching around for the most logical and practical system of which to have in place in a post-capitalist society. The reason I continue to switch around, I believe, is that I am not very educated on anti-capitalist theories.

I used to consider myself a communist/leninist... but after returned to subscribing to the philosophy of democratic socialism. I've been thinking alot lately, and from what I know of Marxist/Leninist philosophy, it seems as if I get to know more, and the more it makes sense to me, that maybe it will come to me as the most viable alternative to capitalism. So, I have a few questions :-). You can respond by E-mail if you would like, my email is: [email protected]

1) On the communist FAQ, it states; These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class. As a democratic socialist, what is unclear to me?

2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?

3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?

4) Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?

5) Could someone give me a basic outline of what trotskyism is/represents? (just a real brief thing, I don't want to make anyone pump out an extensive thing :-P)

6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?

7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?

8) Is there anything else in how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is run that any of you feel should be adjusted or changed?

9) I've heard Lenin is reponsible for millions of deaths. True (if so, justified?)? False?

10) Many people I debate with claim that socialism failed because everybody ended up "piss poor," had to wait in very long lines for food, shotty living conditions ect. Any response to that?


Sorry about there being so much to answer... I just want to become well educated on this (considering the only thing my high school "taught" us in regards to Marxism was by making us read Orwell's "Animal Farm" and using that as "proof" that socialism doesn't work.). Thanks! :lol:
It is good that you have recognized capitalism as a system that is not viable for long.
" 1) On the communist FAQ, it states; These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class. As a democratic socialist, what is unclear to me?"
Well assuming that that stands for social-democracy, the fundamental shortcoming of socioal democracy is that it seeks to reconcile itself with bourgeois parliamentarism and ultimately capitalism, failing to recognize the inherent need for bourgeois parliamentarism as an off-shoot of oppressing workers. It becomes abundantly clear that reconciliation within this system is impossible. because this system is in itself a product of irreconcilable class antagonisms. Therefore, social-democrats instead of advocating a revolution of the proletariat, abolishing capitalism, prefer reformism and somehow taking up the impossible task of reconciling antagonistic worker interests with those of the bourgeoisie.



"2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?"
'Atrocities' i would doubt, but certainly mistakes. What needs to be understood before jumping upon the sensationalist bandwagon( something many on this forum do) is to look at the context and material conditions in which those actions took place. Mistakes certainly took place. That's undeniable.


"3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?"
There is no dearth of falsified propaganda churned out against Cuba. However whats truly remarkable is that despite 'rat-infested' 'shitholes' for hospitals, Cuba's healthcare system is second to none in the western hemisphere. Kind of contradictory isn't it? If in the unlikely scnario it were true, doesn't shine a good light on the inferior healthcare standards of the U.S does it? To sum up, no it is not true.




"4) Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?"
The right to recall is central to democratic centralism, so every general secretary or any other office-bearere within a communist party is liable for recall if the members deem fit. This of course includes Lenin, Castro even Stalin.




"5) Could someone give me a basic outline of what trotskyism is/represents? (just a real brief thing, I don't want to make anyone pump out an extensive thing :-P)"

Trotskyism is a deviation from actual Leninism. In the historical context it has proven to be a counter-revolutionary theory. Aspects of Menshevism are rather pronounced in it. the theory of 'permanent revolution' a central tenet of Trotskyism basically states that only a simoultaneous uprising by proletarians of different countries will bring about a socailist system, of course contradictory to Lenin's 'uninterrupted' revolution. Needless to say this theory ignores uneven development within the capitalist systems themselves, Varying levels of class consciousness in different countries. A purely utopian concept.



"6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?"
An unlikely scenario, but in that case that individual would qualify as a counter-revolutionary.



"7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?"
Of course like every other political system, it is susceptible to infiltration by counter-revolutionary elements and bourgeois and petty-bourgeois class interests, that is labelled Revisionism, the only way to fight it is by vigilance of the masses and cadres against such trends. Unfortunately the Soviet Union succumbed to this, including China. If you are unclear as to the reasons for this failing i would be happy to post on that comrade.


"8) Is there anything else in how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is run that any of you feel should be adjusted or changed?"
Not the Basic concept nor the central tenets but obviously the dictatorship of the proletariat can take on various forms depending upon the material circumstances in each country. Therefore to traet it as a monolithic concept, concrete and unalterable would be mistaken.


"9) I've heard Lenin is reponsible for millions of deaths. True (if so, justified?)? False?"
False.



"10) Many people I debate with claim that socialism failed because everybody ended up "piss poor," had to wait in very long lines for food, shotty living conditions ect. Any response to that?"
That is pure propaganda imagery. The soviet Union had health and social services that far surpassed Europe and the united states at the time. One needs only to take a look at Russia today to look at the 'progress' capitalism has brought in it's wake, or the huge proportion of the poor of the third world that adhere to the 'free-market' concept.

Comrade, feel free to ask as many questions as you like, i or any other comrade would be more than willing to attempt to answer them.

[Orange Juche]

Questions in repsonse to "viva le revolution":


"'Atrocities' i would doubt, but certainly mistakes."

I hear alot about the "atrocities" under Stalin (I don't know the true facts to it, personally). Is there anything you can say on that?







"Trotskyism is a deviation from actual Leninism. In the historical context it has proven to be a counter-revolutionary theory."

How so? (and out of curiosity, what is your personal opinion on Stalin?)






"An unlikely scenario, but in that case that individual would qualify as a counter-revolutionary."

How do you feel the government should react to counter-revolutionaries?






"If you are unclear as to the reasons for this failing i would be happy to post on that comrade."

That would be great! :-)






"One needs only to take a look at Russia today to look at the 'progress' capitalism has brought in it's wake,"

Yeah. I remember even hearing that alcoholism went up 300%. Another "opiate of the masses" if you will.






"Comrade, feel free to ask as many questions as you like, i or any other comrade would be more than willing to attempt to answer them."

Thanks alot, I really appreciate it! :-) Another question - what do you feel is a good response of the government to religion, or churches? Should people be allowed to "pray" or be religious at all? Should places of worship be allowed?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

1)On the communist FAQ, it states; These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class. As a democratic socialist, what is unclear to me?

I am unsure, maybe it means that 'democratic socialists' think that they can reform capitalism and neo-liberalism until they achieve the 'liberation of their class'. They are probably being attacked for being reformist, and working 'within' the system that oppresses the working class. Meaning they are not revolutionary. I think calling them 'liberal democratic welfare orientated liberals' would be more accurate.

2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?

Well so far, the only so called socialist governments have been in lesser and less developed countries. Using Russia as an example, the communist party, which dominated totally the soviet government did mean there were many people sent to labor camps, where they died. So depending on whether, you view the government of Prussia as 'socialist' will determine your answer. I would say there has not yet been a socialist government, only government's dominated by vanguard parties , called the communist party.

Any other country that has elected a socialist party to form government, the socialist party has just been another neo-liberal party.


3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?

I have no idea whether that is true. There may be a wide variety of standards between hospitals in Cuba. They do however, have a large supply of doctors, which they often export to other countries to help in a crisis, like Venezuela.
4)Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?

Honestly, i doubt it. Castro would be out by now if it was a progressive party. Lenin, well he banned factions at the 10th (?) party congress. Democratic centralism, is bull.

5) Could someone give me a basic outline of what trotskyism is/represents? (just a real brief thing, I don't want to make anyone pump out an extensive thing :-P)

Well, its a divergence on Leninism. Leninists that wanted to move away from Stalinism, it is the strongest theory within the UK socialist parties. Unfortunately, it is quite contradictory sometimes, and inherently Leninist.

6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?

If we managed to achieve socialism then i think they would be mocked. Have you ever seriously seen anyone handing out fliers, to reintroduce landlords, become peasants and such? If there were demonstrations for capitalism, and they were supported by very many people, then something would be seriously wrong with that country/society.

7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?

Dictatorship of the proletarian means, workers dominating all aspects of a given society. It does not mean putting Lenin and the Bolsheviks in power. Therefore, it is not corruptible.

8) Is there anything else in how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is run that any of you feel should be adjusted or changed?

When and if the workers control everything, they should make everything democratic, in a direct way. Oh and ban Leninist and Maoists parties.


9) I've heard Lenin is responsible for millions of deaths. True (if so, justified?)? False?

Debatable, as he had to defend the Russian revolution from the counter revolutionaries. Fighting with pillows and water guns just wouldn't cut it. However, leaders of large countries in violent times, are often responsible for the lives and deaths of people under them. But this is also true for the revered leaders of the U$A, with the killing of very many native Americans. It's happened a lot.

10) Many people I debate with claim that socialism failed because everybody ended up "piss poor," had to wait in very long lines for food, shotty living conditions ect. Any response to that?

First, i would say socialism has never existed. Where it is thought of to have existed, they have all been in poor countries anyway, and likely would have not received much better living standards, food and health care under capitalism.

If you accept that the USSR, China, N. korea, Cuba ect were socialist then you will have a hard time debating because you are defending a system that oppressed the working class.

Hope thats help :)

[Storming Heaven]

A few of my perspectives...


2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?


Apart from the atrocity of government you mean? :P

I don't think there have been any nations in history who can truely claim to be 'socialist' or 'communist' (the defining factor here being worker's control), so there can't be any atrocities committed by such governments...

... However, there have of course been several nations that have claimed to be 'socialist', and that have been viewed as such by the Western public. The governments of these nations (the USSR, China, etc.) have committed atrocities.


3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?


Last I heard, Cuba was a very poor country. They probably have their facts straight, but it doesn't matter much either way. Another Cuba isn't what I have in mind.


4) Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?


Quite possibly (although I must confess I can't verify this statement). But what matters is not that they are recallable to any 'workers' party, but to workers themselves.


6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?


Let them! Freedom of speech, and of belief is absolute. Freedom of action, however, is not. If they started to implement a capitalist system, and the exploitation this involves, then it is a different story.


7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?

It depends exactly what you mean by 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and also by 'corruption'. If you mean a government that rules over it's citizens, yes, it is corruptable. If it took the form of an egalitarian and participary form of collective decision-making, I think the chance of corruption is very much reduced.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 28 2006, 05:21 AM
I don't think there have been any nations in history who can truely claim to be 'socialist' or 'communist' (the defining factor here being worker's control), so there can't be any atrocities committed by such governments...

... However, there have of course been several nations that have claimed to be 'socialist', and that have been viewed as such by the Western public. The governments of these nations (the USSR, China, etc.) have committed atrocities.
Since your views differ from that of Leninists, how as a Marxist do you envision a socialist society to be? How would it differ from places like Cuba and the USSR?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:11 PM
Questions in repsonse to "viva le revolution":


"'Atrocities' i would doubt, but certainly mistakes."

I hear alot about the "atrocities" under Stalin (I don't know the true facts to it, personally). Is there anything you can say on that?







"Trotskyism is a deviation from actual Leninism. In the historical context it has proven to be a counter-revolutionary theory."

How so? (and out of curiosity, what is your personal opinion on Stalin?)






"An unlikely scenario, but in that case that individual would qualify as a counter-revolutionary."

How do you feel the government should react to counter-revolutionaries?






"If you are unclear as to the reasons for this failing i would be happy to post on that comrade."

That would be great! :-)






"One needs only to take a look at Russia today to look at the 'progress' capitalism has brought in it's wake,"

Yeah. I remember even hearing that alcoholism went up 300%. Another "opiate of the masses" if you will.






"Comrade, feel free to ask as many questions as you like, i or any other comrade would be more than willing to attempt to answer them."

Thanks alot, I really appreciate it! :-) Another question - what do you feel is a good response of the government to religion, or churches? Should people be allowed to "pray" or be religious at all? Should places of worship be allowed?
"I hear alot about the "atrocities" under Stalin (I don't know the true facts to it, personally). Is there anything you can say on that?"
There is a lot of negative propaganda against Stalin, more so he has been demonised by the bourgeois media. For a comprehensive look at Russia, it's conditions, and the role of Stalin and the Bolshevik party i would recommend 'another view of Stalin' by Ludo Martens. A good read.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html



"How so? (and out of curiosity, what is your personal opinion on Stalin?)"
Trotskyism is a historical deviation from Marxism-Leninism and just rehashed Menshevism. For a comprehensive analysis of Trotskyism and it's counter-revolutionary i would reccomend 'Trotskyism or Leninism' by Harpal Brar. However i have not been able to locate an on-line version of it. Anyways to put it briefly:
Lenin advocated 'uninterrupted' revolution. ie. one copuntry at a time being won over to the revolution. This is due to the uneven development of capitalism and varying levels of class-consciousness in various nations. Trotskyism rejects this stating that it is impossible to build socialism until a wave of revolutionism engulfs the world. ie. a huge chunk of the world simoultaneously converts to socialism. Put simply; It is of no use to fight for revolution in your country because it is not possible to bulid socialism. Cloaked counter-revolution at it's best.
Next, Trotsky, like his Menshevik predecessors, classified the peasantry as counter-revolutionary. counter to Lenin's thesis that an alliance of the proletariat and peasantry is needed to destroy capitalism. Again a step back in revolutionary theory.
Next, Trotsky doomed the russian revolution to failure if a revolution did not take place in the first, industrialized world, specifically Germany. However this thesis was dismissed by both Lenin and Stalin, and the soviet union's vast development, victory in world war2 and post-war superpower status disproved this theory. Only with the infiltration of revisionism did the soviet union finally succumb to counter-revolution.
Next, Trotskyite partiies have continously since their inception , condemned every socialist state under the sun and have helped in counter-revolution. To take a look at an example, i am from Pakistan, here apart from my party the communist mazdoor kissan party(communist worker's and peasant's party), the other big party is Trotskyist tabqati jedojuhd(class struggle), they recieve all of their funding from abroad, relegating themselves to an NGO status, pandering to mainstream corrupt parties(not even left!), have time and again disrupted demonstrations and harrassed intellectuals. Revolution and vthe overthrow of the state has slipped off their agenda(if it ever was there), etc. etc. This is just a small sample of the counter-revolutionary role of Trotskyist parties.
In my opinion, Stalin was a good Marxist-leninist. please refer to the link.


"How do you feel the government should react to counter-revolutionaries?"
Depends, if it is only opinion or discussion then maybe courses in marxist education, however if it degenrates to armed actions and cooperation with foriegn imperialist forces then, death.





"If you are unclear as to the reasons for this failing i would be happy to post on that comrade."That would be great! :-)"



It would be a lengthy post but here goes;

During the war, due to the high losses suffered in the initial stages of the war, a lot of good communists gave their lives defending themselves against the fascist threat. The focus was not on the ideological clarity and quality of the party cadres but on the war and subsequent reconstruction. Therefore a lot of subservient elements had managed to infiltrate into the party. The leader of these subservent elements was Khruschev. After Stalin's death, and the reconstruction, due to lack of vigilance within the party these elements had found top posts within the party. So much so that Khruschev became a contender for leadership.
During that time tensions with the U.S were at their peak, Stalin died, leaving two contenders for leadership of the party, Molotov and Khruschev. Molotov representing the Marxist-Leninist faction and loyal to communism. At that point the U.S was stronger militarily and fearing that Molotov's hard-line Marxist-Leninist orientation would accelerate a conflict, Khruschev was elected. One of Khruschev's tactics to gain control and sideline the Marxist-Leninist faction within the party was the 'secret speech' at the 20th congress of the CPSU(B), where a personla slanderous attack upon Stalin was made. Of course needless to say the Trotskyites in Mexico and the U.S were overjoyed. Consequently Khruschev gained control of the party and most of the Marxist-Leninist faction was sidelined with Molotov himself sent to look after a factory iin a godforsaken corner of Russia.
Thus Revisionism took hold over the soviet union. In response to this speech, after extensive polemics the Chinese under Mao Tsetung and Albanians under Enver Hoxha, broke with the soviets. This is commonly referred to as the 'sino-soviet' split. The Chinese and Albanians defending Stalin and denouncing revisionism. Mao in his extensive polemics with Khruschev condemned Revisionism and correctly stated that it would lead to the re-emergence of capitalism. His prediction came true. Khruschev himself was ousted by his protege Brezhnevm who continued on the road to capitalist restoration. This trend crystallized under Gorbachev's policy of 'perestroika', which essentially allowed private property and holdings. Thus Mao was proved correct and the entire soviet economy came crashing down. Now Russia's economy is smaller than that of Norway!
However, China too succumbed to revisionism albeit due to a different reason. Mao instituted a 'cultural revolution' where subversive elements from the Chinese communist party were to be purged. However that movement was hijacked by zealous red guards and the ultra-leftist faction of the CPC and led to amny mistakes being committed. Due the severity and over-zealousness of the ultra-leftist actions and mistakes, the backlash was strong. Banking upon these errors the Right-deviationist faction of the party under Deng Xiaoping took control of China. And instituted 'Market-socialism'. Thus ever since China has been on the road of revisionism.

In a nutshell that's what happened, however if you have any specific questions regarding this please feel free to ask.



"Thanks alot, I really appreciate it! :-) Another question - what do you feel is a good response of the government to religion, or churches? Should people be allowed to "pray" or be religious at all? Should places of worship be allowed?"
Religion is a private matter and should be left that way. As far as private worship goes, no state has the right to interfere nor anybody else. As a point of reference the 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union under Stalin guaranteed freedom of conscience, according to which you were free to worship anybody or anything you like as long as it does not interfere with the secularism of the state.
ie. feel free, but if a religious outfit seeks to replace state rule with a theocracy then you're in trouble! Places of worship should be allowed. As long as those places do not become a source of subversion and counter-revolutionary activity.


If you have any more questions please ask away!

[Storming Heaven]

Since your views differ from that of Leninists, how as a Marxist do you envision a socialist society to be? How would it differ from places like Cuba and the USSR?

Hahahaha. I never looked at the name of the topic before posting. I am (relatively) new to the left, and my political opinions are still somewhat in flux, so I wouldn't call myself a Marxist, per se.

That said, I will continue digging. I may reach China yet!

As I mentioned, the defining factor of a socialist society (note the little 's'), is worker's control. Beyond this (and implications such as democracy, collectivism, etc.) we can only speculate and offer possibilites as to the exact form socialist society will take. Personally, I think that it is likely to take different forms in different places.


Put simply; It is of no use to fight for revolution in your country because it is not possible to bulid socialism.

viva le revolution, you seem to be (correctly) attributing revolutionary doctrines to Trotskyists, and then branding them counter-revolutionary!


Next, Trotsky doomed the russian revolution to failure if a revolution did not take place in the first, industrialized world, specifically Germany. However this thesis was dismissed by both Lenin and Stalin, and the soviet union's vast development, victory in world war2 and post-war superpower status disproved this theory. Only with the infiltration of revisionism did the soviet union finally succumb to counter-revolution.


The rapid industrialisation of Russia proves nothing at all in respect to Trotskyist theory. Trotsky believed the revolution to be defeated long before WW2 or the advent of Trotskyism.


Next, Trotskyite partiies have continously since their inception , condemned every socialist state under the sun and have helped in counter-revolution. To take a look at an example, i am from Pakistan, here apart from my party the communist mazdoor kissan party(communist worker's and peasant's party), the other big party is Trotskyist tabqati jedojuhd(class struggle), they recieve all of their funding from abroad, relegating themselves to an NGO status, pandering to mainstream corrupt parties(not even left!), have time and again disrupted demonstrations and harrassed intellectuals. Revolution and vthe overthrow of the state has slipped off their agenda(if it ever was there), etc. etc. This is just a small sample of the counter-revolutionary role of Trotskyist parties.


'Condemning every socialist state under the sun' is only counter-revolutionary if these states are truely socialist (regardless of what they claim). Trotskyists hold that they are not (the reason being that workers control is not a reality in these states). It is likely that the Tabqati Jedojuhd are quite happy to 'relegate themselves' to NGO status, precisely because they are revolutionaries. They seek to destroy the capitalist state, and replace it with Socialism.

You cannot simply expect to assume control of the capitalist state machinery and end up with socialism. All you will end up with is a different set of masters!

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 2 2006, 05:17 AM



Put simply; It is of no use to fight for revolution in your country because it is not possible to bulid socialism.

viva le revolution, you seem to be (correctly) attributing revolutionary doctrines to Trotskyists, and then branding them counter-revolutionary!


Next, Trotsky doomed the russian revolution to failure if a revolution did not take place in the first, industrialized world, specifically Germany. However this thesis was dismissed by both Lenin and Stalin, and the soviet union's vast development, victory in world war2 and post-war superpower status disproved this theory. Only with the infiltration of revisionism did the soviet union finally succumb to counter-revolution.


The rapid industrialisation of Russia proves nothing at all in respect to Trotskyist theory. Trotsky believed the revolution to be defeated long before WW2 or the advent of Trotskyism.


Next, Trotskyite partiies have continously since their inception , condemned every socialist state under the sun and have helped in counter-revolution. To take a look at an example, i am from Pakistan, here apart from my party the communist mazdoor kissan party(communist worker's and peasant's party), the other big party is Trotskyist tabqati jedojuhd(class struggle), they recieve all of their funding from abroad, relegating themselves to an NGO status, pandering to mainstream corrupt parties(not even left!), have time and again disrupted demonstrations and harrassed intellectuals. Revolution and vthe overthrow of the state has slipped off their agenda(if it ever was there), etc. etc. This is just a small sample of the counter-revolutionary role of Trotskyist parties.


'Condemning every socialist state under the sun' is only counter-revolutionary if these states are truely socialist (regardless of what they claim). Trotskyists hold that they are not (the reason being that workers control is not a reality in these states). It is likely that the Tabqati Jedojuhd are quite happy to 'relegate themselves' to NGO status, precisely because they are revolutionaries. They seek to destroy the capitalist state, and replace it with Socialism.

You cannot simply expect to assume control of the capitalist state machinery and end up with socialism. All you will end up with is a different set of masters!
"viva le revolution, you seem to be (correctly) attributing revolutionary doctrines to Trotskyists, and then branding them counter-revolutionary!"
Revolutionary theories??!!! Anubody with half a baboon's brain can figure out that a revolution in all countries simoultaneously is impossible. This is far from revolutionary, it is infantile! This theory in itself is absurd. The Trotskyite counter-revolution is widely documented in the works of Ludo Martens and Harpal Brar.


"The rapid industrialisation of Russia proves nothing at all in respect to Trotskyist theory. Trotsky believed the revolution to be defeated long before WW2 or the advent of Trotskyism."
Oh really, doesn't it run counter to the notion of 'permanent' revolution?
Isn't the survival of Russia, without a subsequent revolution in Germany and the industrialized world enough to discredit this 'permanent' foolishness? Trotsky's notions of the revolution's success are equally mysterious.... Take for example Trotsky's proposal for the militarization of labour and export of revolution through 'permanent' revolution... Seems like the Trots have a long way to go....



"It is likely that the Tabqati Jedojuhd are quite happy to 'relegate themselves' to NGO status, precisely because they are revolutionaries. They seek to destroy the capitalist state, and replace it with Socialism."
pERHAPS UNICEF relegates itself to NGO status precisely for this reason eh? The Trotskyite foolishness is expounded by your quick defence of this organization that is abandoned a program of revolution, instead workd as a left front of a corrupt mainstream party(PPP), like Labour in britain opening a left front calling itself socialist.... maybe it lives up to the Trots criteria of revolutionism but not a Leninists'. Or perhaps they seek to destroy the state by joining it?????? Seems like you are confused on BASIC Marxism my friend!
Nice to know that the Trots aren't getting any smarter!

[Enragé]

"Revolutionary theories??!!! Anubody with half a baboon's brain can figure out that a revolution in all countries simoultaneously is impossible. This is far from revolutionary, it is infantile! This theory in itself is absurd. The Trotskyite counter-revolution is widely documented in the works of Ludo Martens and Harpal Brar. "

Ofcourse its impossible to have such a thing, however the international revolution is the main goal. Thats the whole point. Socialism in 1 country doesnt work, the whole world should rise up.

now please wipe the foam off your mouth and go worship stalin somewhere.

[Storming Heaven]

Isn't the survival of Russia, without a subsequent revolution in Germany and the industrialized world enough to discredit this 'permanent' foolishness?

You don't seem to have grasped that the survival of Russia isn't what we're talking about. What concerns us is the survival of Socialism in Russia. Worker's control was not a reality in Russia for more than a few years after the revolution. Russia may well have survived, but Socialism was destroyed by the beaucratic counter-revolution that followed the civil war.


pERHAPS UNICEF relegates itself to NGO status precisely for this reason eh? The Trotskyite foolishness is expounded by your quick defence of this organization that is abandoned a program of revolution, instead workd as a left front of a corrupt mainstream party(PPP), like Labour in britain opening a left front calling itself socialist.... maybe it lives up to the Trots criteria of revolutionism but not a Leninists'. Or perhaps they seek to destroy the state by joining it??????

A Trotskyist organisation abandoning the idea of revolution? I'm no expert on Pakistani politics, but I doubt that this claim is true... In my experience with Trotskyist organisations, I would speculate that their apparent 'support' for the PPP was encouraging people to vote for the better of various bad alternatives, although without illusions. If my guess is correct, than they are struggling to acheive the best for workers, whilst maintaining a realistic perspective. Far from abandoning revolution, they are struggling to build one.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 3 2006, 06:29 AM


A Trotskyist organisation abandoning the idea of revolution? I'm no expert on Pakistani politics, but I doubt that this claim is true... In my experience with Trotskyist organisations, I would speculate that their apparent 'support' for the PPP was encouraging people to vote for the better of various bad alternatives, although without illusions. If my guess is correct, than they are struggling to acheive the best for workers, whilst maintaining a realistic perspective. Far from abandoning revolution, they are struggling to build one.
Well first of all you have absolutely no idea what the context of their actions are... let me fill you in... The PPP in the 70's under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto claimed to be following the path of socialism. of course the slogan 'roti,kapra,makaan' was forgotten as soon as he came to power. Siding with the feudal elements within the PPP he attempted to sideline the leftists and communists within the PPP. A sa result they left the party in droves and the PPP lost it's main base:the workers.
Whatever 'communists and leftists' are left are those who reconciled with the feudal leadership of the party. All are big landowners amd own mills. The leadership is extremely corrupt, with Zulkfiqar aLI bHUTTO'S daughter, Benazir Bhutto(current chairperson of the party)implicated in massive corruption scandals, and charged by a swiss court of embezzlement, she and her husband, senator asif ali zardari currently own vast landholdings, offshore nankaccounts, and even a castle in england! The genuine leftists element was long driven out of the party. Currently we have come across many disgruntled leftists and are attempting to organize them once again. Currently, under Musharraf's rule, the majority of the PPP has split from Bhutto, instead aligning itself with Musharraf as a king's party. The section that still opposes Musharraf is also a little confused, with one of the stalwarts of that faction actually the interior minister of Musharraf! And yet he claims that that faction opposes him! Even if this is 'entryism', it is a pathetic effor, since Musharraf came to power, he has not taken ONE dissenting decision or opinion! Tabqati Jedojuhd is currently stuck between a rock and a hard place, with their own workers leaving in droves!
They (tabqati jedojuhd) as a group are no longer relevant since they may have outside funding( principle source unknown) (Alan woods also contributes some) they haver no mass followijng nor any workers! I too before finding out about the existence of the CMKP, as a beginner to Marxism, for 2 months joined that organization.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:13 PM


now please wipe the foam off your mouth and go worship stalin somewhere.
Cute nice to see that Trots have not grown out of the trends of personal attacks, on the other hand, your whole ideology is founded upon personal attacks and character assasinations, sorry my mistake.

[kurt]

Before I begin, I'd just like to give you a little heads up. Some of this stuff is very controversial.

So, the stuff I am going to be telling you is coming from the position of an "ultra-left" marxist.


1) On the communist FAQ, it states; These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class. As a democratic socialist, what is unclear to me?

Well, I believe the main problem with democratic socialists is that they see bourgeois parliament as a viable means of struggle. The utter failure of the social democratic trend in the late 19th and early 20th century, combined with their more recent degenercy into utter servility to the bourgeois should be enough warning of the sham that is bourgeois democracy.


2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?
Well, when I think of atrocities, Pol-Pot comes to mind. However, it should be noted that these so-called "socialist" countries were nothing like the society that will come after an actual working class revolution.

So really, these so-called atrocites (most of which are overtly fictional) are really a mute point.


3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?
I'm not really interested in defending an emerging capitalist nation. However, it would not suprise me if these facts were true, as Cuba is very poor in relation to say, France. Not to mention that I've seen some pretty disgusting hospitals in the "first-world" (Canada).


4) Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?
No! Don't kid yourself.


5) Could someone give me a basic outline of what trotskyism is/represents? (just a real brief thing, I don't want to make anyone pump out an extensive thing :-P)
A variation of leninism. Supposedly more "true" to leninism than say, stalinism.


6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?
If by socialist country you mean something resembling the USSR or Cuba, then it won't really matter what I have to say. "Dear Leader" can handle that for us :rolleyes:

If you mean a communist commune, such an act would be deemed as extremely reactionary. I don't suspect it would gain much attention however, no one wants to go back into the shit! Such an idea would probably be treated with as much scorn/pity as would be expected of someone wanting to restore feudalism in modern capitalism.


7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?
I think your leninism has clouded your judgement my friend. I pose a counter-question: How can the rule of the vast majority be corrupted, if it is truely in the hands of that vast majority, and not a vanguard?


8) Is there anything else in how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is run that any of you feel should be adjusted or changed?
In Paris, 1871 there was a proto-proletarian uprising, which resulted in artisan/worker control in Paris. Engels remarked that that was the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is in stark contrast with Russia or Cuba.


9) I've heard Lenin is reponsible for millions of deaths. True (if so, justified?)? False?
Possibly if these "sources" attributed the entire Russian civil war death toll to Lenin. It's a pretty bold-faced lie, and I've never even heard of such a ridiculous statement.


10) Many people I debate with claim that socialism failed because everybody ended up "piss poor," had to wait in very long lines for food, shotty living conditions ect. Any response to that?
Well, first off, this sort of "socialism" was simply the emergence of capitalism. All these nations that attempted a "socialist" government rose out of feudalistic societies. The important thing to note is that however "shotty" the living conditions were in these countries, the living conditions rose sharply after these revolutions.

If anything, the emergence of capitalism in nations such as China, USSR, Vietnam vindicates Marxism and Historical Materialism. I see such developments as suggesting that we "go back to Marx" so to say. No need for superflous additions (leninism) to a theory that already correctly analyzes history and class society.

[Storming Heaven]

The PPP in the 70's under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto claimed to be following the path of socialism. of course the slogan 'roti,kapra,makaan' was forgotten as soon as he came to power. Siding with the feudal elements within the PPP he attempted to sideline the leftists and communists within the PPP. A sa result they left the party in droves and the PPP lost it's main base:the workers...

... Even if this is 'entryism', it is a pathetic effor, since Musharraf came to power, he has not taken ONE dissenting decision or opinion! Tabqati Jedojuhd is currently stuck between a rock and a hard place, with their own workers leaving in droves!


Thanks for filling me in, but I'm still a little confused. You haven't (explicitly) mentioned how the Tabqati Jedojuhd fits into the whole government/Musharraf equation? Why are the TJ's supporters leaving? What is their relationship with the PPP?

[viva le revolution]

Put simply, The leader of the Tabqati Jedojuhd, Manzoor Ahmed, is a member of the PPP, the faction that claims to oppose Musharraf, but one of the leaders f that PPP faction is the Interior minister! I know it's a little confusing!
Through this realtionship the PPP and the TJ are interlinked not only in this way, but the 'leftists' who reconciled with the feudal leadership of the PPP are basically in TJ. The workers have been disgruntled due to the fact that TJ is all words and absolutely no action! They have no practical nor dedicated workers! Just a couple of armchair PPP guys getting funding from abroad!

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:21 PM
In Paris, 1871 there was a proto-proletarian uprising, which resulted in artisan/worker control in Paris. Engels remarked that that was the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is in stark contrast with Russia or Cuba.
Well yes, it would have been rather difficult for Engels to comment on either Russia or Cuba :lol:

[Storming Heaven]

Put simply, The leader of the Tabqati Jedojuhd, Manzoor Ahmed, is a member of the PPP, the faction that claims to oppose Musharraf, but one of the leaders f that PPP faction is the Interior minister! ... The workers have been disgruntled due to the fact that TJ is all words and absolutely no action! They have no practical nor dedicated workers! Just a couple of armchair PPP guys getting funding from abroad!

The TJ does sound rather like it has it's priorities upside down. No wonder they are loosing membership ... whislt calling for a critical vote for a social democratic party is one thing, actually engaging in Parlimentary politics is another! no wonder they are loosing membership!

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy)1) On the communist FAQ, it states; These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class. As a democratic socialist, what is unclear to me?
[/b]

As a democratic socialist you are unclear about the class struggle, i.e., you're not class-conscious.

If you were class-conscious, you would have realized the class position you are in, and therefore also have realized that you are being exploited, and that the only way to change this is not to reform the current system, but to smash it completely and replace it with a socialist system.


2) Would any of you (whom are communists) argue that there have been any atrocities ever commited by socialist governments (or governments that have been deemed "socialist")?


Yes, of course, but it also depends on the historical context of the so-called 'atrocities'.

For example; anarchists claim that Kronstadt was an 'atrocity', when you look at it from a bourgeois point of view it was, but from a Marxist point of view, it was not an atrocious, but a revolutionary act.

It works a little like this: the USSR is a worker-state, therefore it is essential to defend it for the development of the proletarian struggle. So, when Kronstadt happened, it was a revolutionary act because the development of the proletarian struggle was defended.

Of course anarchists then argue that the USSR was not a workers-state, and therefore did not advance the proletarian struggle, but I have no time to discuss that nonsense now.

Historical context is key to understanding these events.


3) Someone once argued to me that, although Cuba has free health care, their hospitals are disgusting and rat-infested (they showed me pictures as well). How would you respond to their criticism? Were these "facts" of Cubas health care system nothing but fabrications?


I don't really care about Cuba, since I do not consider it to be a socialist state, in fact, I consider it a revisionist Kruschevite state.

But, I am also a Marxist, and therefore have the ability to respond to your question honestly without any prejudice against the current Cuban regime.

The fact of the matter is, Cuba is a poor welfare state, in other words, it is just like any western-European welfare state, but they just don't have the same amount of funds, they are economically backward in comparison to advanced capitalist welfare states.

You can't expect such a state to have the same level of health care as the advanced capitalist nations, only reactionaries would compare the two, and then come to the conclusion that Cuba is not a socialist state or is not 'good'.

Instead of comparing it to advanced capitalist nations, compare it to other nations which are capitalist, but economically as backward as them, then you will see how the Cuban system is far better than the anarchic capitalist systems.


4) Castro/Lenin/etc were all recallable by the workers party in that country, correct?

Yes, Lenin was.


5) Could someone give me a basic outline of what trotskyism is/represents? (just a real brief thing, I don't want to make anyone pump out an extensive thing :-P)


Trotskyism is a form of western-Marxism, I consider it 'the western form of Leninism'.

Trotsky claimed that socialist revolutions in backward capitalist nations were doomed to fail if they were not aided by socialist revolutions in advanced capitalist nations.

He was proven wrong when the USSR overtook advanced capitalist nations economically and militarily, proving that even the degenerated version of socialism was superior to capitalism.

Of course there are also a few other aspects of Trotskyist theory which are wrong, at least, in my opinion, but I'm not trying to analyze the theory as a whole, just answering your question as easily as possible.


6) In a socialist country, if someone is going all over their town and handing out flyers promoting capitalism, and organizing demonstrations against socialism, what should specifically be done in that case?


Nothing.

In a socialist nation the vast majority of the population are class-conscious, and therefore will not be affected by cheap propaganda.


7) Do you feel the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is corruptable, and if so, how could that be changed?

Yes, it certainly is corruptible (history has proven this), it can be changed in this way:


Lenin
All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.


8) Is there anything else in how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is run that any of you feel should be adjusted or changed?


Yes, the party should become less influential in state affairs as the proletariat develops, and eventually disband itself when the vast majority of the population are class-conscious proletarians.

Actually, I think the party will simply wither away, as it becomes useless over time, the party and the state will wither away almost simultaneously.


9) I've heard Lenin is reponsible for millions of deaths. True (if so, justified?)? False?

False, I don't have to disprove what has not been proven.


10) Many people I debate with claim that socialism failed because everybody ended up "piss poor," had to wait in very long lines for food, shotty living conditions ect. Any response to that?


Socialism was never attained by any nation-state, so it couldn't have failed.

But, the building of socialism by the use of socialist means did not only succeed, but succeed tremendously.

As I said, even the degenerated version of socialism was superior to capitalism.

And the USSR from 1977 onward was basically capitalist, so the 'very long lines for food' etc. arguments are crap.

Also, let's not forget the fact that about 37.0 million people in the US today live in poverty.