Capitalism loses

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

so today the social studies department at my school was cleaning up, and they found a couple of books dealing with communism... one about Stalin and a textbook titled The Meaning of Communism, which is anti-soviet propaganda used to teach a class called Americanism vs. communism which they had from the 70s until the mid 80s. They thought I might be interested in the books, so I took them.

The Meaning of Communism was published in 1976 and in one part it talks about how capitalism will triumph over communism...

[...]in the long run the real showdown with communism may lie in peaceful competition. So, as individuals, each of us has the duty to do everything in his power to defeat the Communist threat by making our own democracy stronger in every possible way.

This nuclear reactor electric power plant in Michigan [pictured] is one of many such plants now operating in this country and in Western Europe. The day will come when vast amounts of cheap electricity, produced by atomic energy, will be available to all mankind. This will be a most powerful weapon in the struggle to abolish poverty.

:lol:
owned!

[RebelDog]

What a load of pap they used to teach kids and still do.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by stupid textbook
This will be a most powerful weapon in the struggle to abolish poverty.

How about we just abolish capitalism instead ay? :P

[TomRK1089]

Interesting how they neglect to mention that capitalsim is what causes poverty for the most part.

[Dreckt]

Interesting how they neglect to mention that capitalsim is what causes poverty for the most part.

Yes, why do they do that? :D

No, really. I wouldn't quite blame the people who wrote the book. The situation was clear: "communism" was what the Soviets had done, and that was bad, it could never happen, it must never happen. And I agree. I don't want a system like the Soviet Union's - I want a democratic society where your voice has just as much value as mine, despite you or me being "in the party".

So to an extent the Soviet Union is also to blame for how "normal" people percieved "communism" during the Cold War. Then, of course, the books could have written about true communism, which they never did, because then again we have the Soviet Union as "proof".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, we can aboslutely blame the writters for this.
It was blatant propaganda for the United States and it made no effort to show both sides and give a fair and unbiased equal critique of the US and other capitalist nations.

[Hiero]

No, really. I wouldn't quite blame the people who wrote the book. The situation was clear: "communism" was what the Soviets had done, and that was bad, it could never happen, it must never happen. And I agree. I don't want a system like the Soviet Union's - I want a democratic society where your voice has just as much value as mine, despite you or me being "in the party".

Your basically defending the book. The text book was writen to aid imperialism, it had no intention to correctly analyse the Soviet system.


So to an extent the Soviet Union is also to blame for how "normal" people percieved "communism" during the Cold War. Then, of course, the books could have written about true communism, which they never did, because then again we have the Soviet Union as "proof".

The type of information "normal" people (im guessing your talking about anglo people from the 1st world,) were getting on the USSR were biased pro imperialist text books like the one RedZeppelin has come across.

It is quite evident that the "collapse" of the USSR has shown how wrong and ill intended the anti Soviet propanganda system was. It promoted imperialism regardless of the lives it would effect.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:01 AM
It is quite evident that the "collapse" of the USSR has shown how wrong and ill intended the anti Soviet propanganda system was. It promoted imperialism regardless of the lives it would effect.
Why the fuck do people bother defending the USSR - it was a terrible place and basically destroyed any hopes of Communism being taken seriously by the working class in other countries

And how about Soviet imperialism? Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc

[Dreckt]

Your basically defending the book. The text book was writen to aid imperialism, it had no intention to correctly analyse the Soviet system.

Yes, which is why I said that they could have written about true communism, but that they later in the book would have written how all and any attempts to form a "communist state" (which is impossible) would always, no matter what, become just like the Soviet system.


Why the fuck do people bother defending the USSR - it was a terrible place and basically destroyed any hopes of Communism being taken seriously by the working class in other countries

This is a good question. Why defend modern states such as North Korea?

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 2 2006, 06:11 PM
Why the fuck do people bother defending the USSR - it was a terrible place and basically destroyed any hopes of Communism being taken seriously by the working class in other countries

And how about Soviet imperialism? Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc
Why do you mix up defending the USSR and attacking imperialism or capitalist propaganda?

The thing is, most schoolbooks displays the USSR as a despotic, antidemocratic nation where conditions were bad. This is mostly true. However, the problem is that they also call it communist, even though anyone with a tiny knowledge of marxism knows it to be more like the opposite.

Most schoolbooks also does not display any research for as to why the USSR was so poor. And had it gotten any better, for the people, after the revolution?

All it does is compare it to the US' situation, which is not fair at all.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Capitalism loses

Capitalism is "winning" quite well in Western Europe. As well as in India.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We're not defending the Soviet Union. We're defending communism. The name of the book is "The Meaning of Communism" not "The Soviet Union Sucks". Even if it had been... it wouldn't be appropriate material for teaching in high school. Education is unbiased and informative. This was indoctrination and propaganda. So it's wrong either way.

And what I'm pointing out is that capitalist governments, such as in the US, have invested billions in things like nuclear energy claiming that it would be some kind of social panacea. It turned to be a bunch of lies and a giant failure.
So I'm just pointing and laughing.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine+Apr 2 2006, 11:11 PM--> (Rage Against The Machine @ Apr 2 2006, 11:11 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 05:01 AM
It is quite evident that the "collapse" of the USSR has shown how wrong and ill intended the anti Soviet propanganda system was. It promoted imperialism regardless of the lives it would effect.
Why the fuck do people bother defending the USSR - it was a terrible place and basically destroyed any hopes of Communism being taken seriously by the working class in other countries

And how about Soviet imperialism? Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc [/b]
I'm in a no win situation here. Since you claim the book is bullshit, but you totally agree with what it has to say about the USSR. So your basically agreeing with the imperialists.

I am pro USSR till the death of Stalin. So i am critical of the USSR after 1953, or at least to the defeat of the anti-party group.

However i will defend sovereign nations from US imperialism. I am not going to agree or support vile attacks against nations by the imperialists, and i will always assume before research that the imperialists are lying.

This is provern by the fact that when the USSR "collapsed" living standards droped and social/cultural standards dropped as well. The book is full of lies, imperialism has not replaced the USSR system with something better. And as RedZeppelin pointed out they lied about the advances of nuclear technology.


Yes, which is why I said that they could have written about true communism, but that they later in the book would have written how all and any attempts to form a "communist state" (which is impossible) would always, no matter what, become just like the Soviet system.

Why would imperialist want to write anything remotley near the truth about communism?

In some books meant for academics around this era you may find it was more to the truth about how the soviet system worked and about what Marx and Lenin were on about.

But books entitled "The truth about Communism" were writen for the masses to turn them away from researching Communism or looking for unbaised research on the Soviet sysetm.

[RedRevolution]

Interesting how they neglect to mention that capitalsim is what causes poverty for the most part.

Capitalism does not cause poverty, capitalism is an inevitable stage in the historic process. As such capitalism is progress on feudalism, to which we can attach some worth. Poverty is a matter of fact, there's no god 'to give us our daily bread' we must make it ourselves. Socialism is the next and inevitable stage in the process but maybe with modern technology we can skip it.

This is what Marx predicted except that he claimed there'd be a revolution, but he could never have considered technology like the internet. We want the workers to own the means of production, which is exactly what 'blogs' are, for example. Capitalism isn't so much losing (it won once) but inevitably changing into communism and the capitalists on internet blogs don't realise they are the first wave of communism.

[Syndicalista]

[QUOTE]
I am pro USSR till the death of Stalin. So i am critical of the USSR after 1953, or at least to the defeat of the anti-party group.

So you supported the death camps in gulag?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:53 AM
Why would imperialist want to write anything remotley near the truth about communism?
In order to undermine a rival imperialist power. During WW2 the US was allied with the USSR, and during that time a portion of corporate media ran stories which were more favorable towards our ally. You would probably consider many of them "remotely true". Stalin was even Time's Man of the Year.

[cccpcommie]

i loved the ussr..why? how about because it was my birthplace.. :lol:

[Syndicalista]

Stalin was also a brutal psychotic murdurer. How can you like a man like him? He is responsibel for more deaths during his time at power then most other dictatures. There was a 0 tollerance for other types of socialism other then communism, so that would be that if a was living back then i wouldnt be able to imply that anything was wrong with the system and that i think it should have been build on a anachro-syndicalist model. What kind of freedom is that?

I believe in communism but not in the USSR.
That was a faliure built on oppression.

[Syndicalista]

"One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state. To refer to the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak."
Noam Chomsky

[Syndicalista]

[/QUOTE] I believe in communism but not in the USSR.
That was a faliure built on oppression.

That is the final stage of communism. No lords, No masters.

[redsoldier32]

i believe the ussr was imperilastic and gave communism is "evil" cold war look, in the ussr it wasnt great, but it was communism "sort of", also im part russian

[norwegian commie]

i believe the ussr was imperilastic and gave communism is "evil" cold war look, in the ussr it wasnt great, but it was communism "sort of", also im part russian

the evil cold war look was created by USA. They used loads of propaganda, communism would have gotten an evil rep regardless of the sovjet.
USA used the fear of the russians (that existed before 1917) to spread fear around communism. They managed to do that. Stalin did not exacty help erase that view but in my oppinion USA have done worse tings than the USSR ever could have.

[Syndicalista]

the evil cold war look was created by USA. They used loads of propaganda, communism would have gotten an evil rep regardless of the sovjet.
USA used the fear of the russians (that existed before 1917) to spread fear around communism. They managed to do that. Stalin did not exacty help erase that view but in my oppinion USA have done worse tings than the USSR ever could have.

I dont know how you can say this. Have you taken the Gulag camps into consideration?
I would say that they are equal when it comes to wrongdoings. Only that with the fall of the USSR, The US are now able to "rule" without a counterpart. And this has now lead to the enormous wave of imperialism that we have experianced.

Without a socialist counterpart, The US will reign supreme with the "support" of their "Allies" in the battle of the so called "Terrorism".

But then one can question the term "terrorist", Isn&#39;t a terrorist a person who by his deeds injure civilians? Couse then we have the biggest Terrorist behind a desk in the white house. <_<

[norwegian commie]

Only that with the fall of the USSR, The US are now able to "rule" without a counterpart. And this has now lead to the enormous wave of imperialism that we have experianced.


That is my point. a lone capitalit superpower is some scary shit&#33; beats the gulags any time since they can occupy any counry they want to.



Without a socialist counterpart, The US will reign supreme with the "support" of their "Allies" in the battle of the so called "Terrorism".

they can call anyone a terrorist, bomb the hell out of them and shazam threat eliminated. they alsoe torture and execute people in foren bases.

[Dreckt]

The thing is, most schoolbooks displays the USSR as a despotic, antidemocratic nation where conditions were bad. This is mostly true. However, the problem is that they also call it communist, even though anyone with a tiny knowledge of marxism knows it to be more like the opposite.

Yes, I am aware of that. But did Soviet schools teach children marxist thoughts? Did they teach the children that it is necessary to go through capitalism before socialism, and then communism?, for example.

But I still think there are problems. The party in the Soviet Union called itself "The Communist Party", so therefore people assumed that the party controlled everything (which it did), thus it would be a so-called "Communist State". Just like Germany was a Nazi-State during their administration.

I do agree with you that the West skipped to explain what communism really was, and how to "ideally" achieve it - thus explaining why the Soviet Union failed.


Most schoolbooks also does not display any research for as to why the USSR was so poor. And had it gotten any better, for the people, after the revolution?

Of course. They were their enemy.


I dont know how you can say this. Have you taken the Gulag camps into consideration?

I think one must look past the bad and good sides of these superpowers and take a look at the ideology. Stalinism, or Marxism-Leninism, caused direct suffering by, for example, gulags, through the use of the state. But so have capitalism - but indirect. It uses poverty and fear, killing people each day, making people think of money and power.

The interesting question is if one would like to live in a country where no criticizm is tolerated against the state, while you have guaranteed work, schooling, housing and medical care - or a society where you are "free" to say and write everything, but restricted to do anything...


But then one can question the term "terrorist", Isn&#39;t a terrorist a person who by his deeds injure civilians? Couse then we have the biggest Terrorist behind a desk in the white house.

Or even better: The US constitution gives people the power to organize against a corrupted state. But the patriot act will make anyone who organizes against the US government a terrorist. Thus anyone not liking the US government, in any movement, could be a "potential terrorist".

[Scars]

As it so happens, I actually have that book. It&#39;s actually worse than has been described so far, however it does have a lot of good quality pictures that I haven&#39;t seen elsewhere. &#39;Every cloud as a silver lining&#39; and so on.

[norwegian commie]

Or even better: The US constitution gives people the power to organize against a corrupted state. But the patriot act will make anyone who organizes against the US government a terrorist. Thus anyone not liking the US government, in any movement, could be a "potential terrorist".

that sounds like my bush alright.
I belive what we are seeing is the capitalistic crisis, the USA can not maintain its economy legally so by crimial acts an by stealing from other countries through imperialism they manage to avoid a collapse. And to prevent people working against theyr control they restrict peoples freedom greatly. The little freedom in capitalism dissapers and becuse of the politically population on earth they simply deal with it saying "well ive gor nothing to worry about, im not a terrorist"

land of the free indeed




The interesting question is if one would like to live in a country where no criticizm is tolerated against the state, while you have guaranteed work, schooling, housing and medical care - or a society where you are "free" to say and write everything, but restricted to do anything...

yes interesting... i do belive the common man would go after the "nest with he most materialistic goods but not a safe eniroment.

[вор в законе]

But I still think there are problems. The party in the Soviet Union called itself "The Communist Party", so therefore people assumed that the party controlled everything (which it did), thus it would be a so-called "Communist State". Just like Germany was a Nazi-State during their administration.

You must be insane if you believe that Soviet Union was the same as Nazi Germany.


Yes, I am aware of that. But did Soviet schools teach children Marxist thoughts? Did they teach the children that it is necessary to go through capitalism before socialism, and then communism?, for example.



A society must become industrialized in order to go through socialism. This was Marx&#39;s point when he stated that the ideal would be feudalism--&#62;Capitalism--&#62;Socialism.

There are nations that have never been under feudal society during the past. Should we make them go under the stage of Feudalism ? :blink:

Having said that, Capitalism would be indeed the ideal process before Socialism, not because it industrializes the country (this can be achieved without the stage of capitalism) but because it eradicates the cultural problems that Feudalism has created.

The reason that Soviet Union needed a strong leadership and a papa Stalin(the same as North Korea) during CCCP was the result of Feudalism. The Russian workers back then were in no position to manage themselves. Anyone who is aware of the existing material condition of the 20&#39;s would agree with me.




Yes, I am aware of that. But did Soviet schools teach children marxist thoughts?


YES &#33; Systematically.



Why the fuck do people bother defending the USSR - it was a terrible place and basically destroyed any hopes of Communism being taken seriously by the working class in other countries

I don&#39;t want a USSR style socialism and no sane communist would want such thing either, but the standards of living were by far better in the USSR than today&#39;s Eastern Europe, while the average Soviet citizen had it better than the average American worker. They had an ensured future. I can bring you statistics from very serious mainstream researchers to prove my thesis.

Don&#39;t talk about things that you know nothing about.



i believe the ussr was imperilastic and gave communism is "evil" cold war look, in the ussr it wasnt great, but it was communism "sort of", also im part russian


Even if they achieved Socialism through democratic means, they would still be considered &#39;&#39;evil&#39;&#39;, as any communist, by the bourgeois states and their lackeys. We do not disagree with the CCCP because of the insignificant opinion of the bourgeois States, but because the system was rotten. For if it wasn&#39;t, it wouldn&#39;t have been collapsed.

Sometimes you people give me the impression that you disagree with the very concept of the Soviet Union, not because of their real mistakes, but because the Capitalists tell you so.

Don&#39;t stone an already dead corpse.

[Dreckt]

You must be insane if you believe that Soviet Union was the same as Nazi Germany.

If I think both were authoritan states, then yes. But they were not the same. What I meant to say is that they used the name of the ruling class, the Communist Party, to picture communism as a whole. If the party was named "the Utopian Party", then they would say that Russia was a Utopian state. Same with Germany - if Hitler had renamed his party to Hitlerian Party, then we would fight hitlerians, not nazis.


The reason that Soviet Union needed a strong leadership and a papa Stalin(the same as North Korea) during CCCP was the result of Feudalism. The Russian workers back then were in no position to manage themselves. Anyone who is aware of the existing material condition of the 20&#39;s would agree with me.

I agree. People had no experience in living under a "democratic, multi-party state" with capitalism as national economics.


Don&#39;t talk about things that you know nothing about.

But it is not about how things got by and how people lived. This is about the entire exitance of the USSR. The USSR set back the true revolution by decades, and only now do people "recover" and "regroup" from the flaw of the Soviet Union.

[red team]

(stupid textbook)
This will be a most powerful weapon in the struggle to abolish poverty.


Now, it wouldn&#39;t do much good if someone like Mr. Burns owns the nuclear power plant does it? :lol: