I know this is a very shallow question, but...

[Cheung Mo]

Doesn't the fact that they've been allied with Washington at various times disqualify Stalin, Mao, and (especially) Ceaucescu from being communists?

[RedRevolution]

No, the fact that they were too early in history disqualifies them from being proper communists. A true communist doesn't need to be conscious of it, they are simply made it by the technological system they are in. Such a linux, blogs and internet radio, kazaa, emule and fairtraders.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 3 2006, 05:26 AM
Doesn't the fact that they've been allied with Washington at various times disqualify Stalin, Mao, and (especially) Ceaucescu from being communists?
I assume you're referring to WW2 with the first ones?

First of all, they just shared a common enemy - the fascists and the nazis. Even if the yanks and the commies had ideological differences, it's just the obvious thing to do - work together to stamp out the nazis.

Secondly - some wouldn't call them commies. ;)

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 3 2006, 05:26 AM
Doesn't the fact that they've been allied with Washington at various times disqualify Stalin, Mao, and (especially) Ceaucescu from being communists?
No, the fact that they did not desire a classless, stateless society is what disqualifies them as communists.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Apr 3 2006, 11:42 AM--> (sennomulo @ Apr 3 2006, 11:42 AM)
Cheung [email protected] 3 2006, 05:26 AM
Doesn't the fact that they've been allied with Washington at various times disqualify Stalin, Mao, and (especially) Ceaucescu from being communists?
No, the fact that they did not desire a classless, stateless society is what disqualifies them as communists. [/b]
I think that all of them very much wanted a classless and stateless society, but felt that the best way to achieve this was through authoritarian methods. The nations which they led were of course not communist, nor did they claim them to be.

Edit: Maybe not Stalin, who knows what his goals were. :blink:

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 3 2006, 05:26 AM
Doesn't the fact that they've been allied with Washington at various times disqualify Stalin, Mao, and (especially) Ceaucescu from being communists?
avoiding the discussion of those examples being communists i am inclined to say that any revolutionary needs to use the means available to him/her to accomplish the greater goals.
capitalism leaves us with almost unlimited access to supply's aslong as we pay for it.
and the underground trade gives us good opportunity's to gather materials and to make some money aswell.

we all live in a capitalist society use it to your advantage whenever you can and as much as you can.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Blackflag [email protected] 3 2006, 05:58 PM
I think that all of them very much wanted a classless and stateless society, but felt that the best way to achieve this was through authoritarian methods.
Classless and stateless means no hierarchy, which means no fucking dictator.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Blackflag Skirmisher+Apr 3 2006, 04:58 PM--> (Blackflag Skirmisher @ Apr 3 2006, 04:58 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:42 AM

Cheung [email protected] 3 2006, 05:26 AM
Doesn't the fact that they've been allied with Washington at various times disqualify Stalin, Mao, and (especially) Ceaucescu from being communists?
No, the fact that they did not desire a classless, stateless society is what disqualifies them as communists.
I think that all of them very much wanted a classless and stateless society, but felt that the best way to achieve this was through authoritarian methods. The nations which they led were of course not communist, nor did they claim them to be.

Edit: Maybe not Stalin, who knows what his goals were. :blink: [/b]
If they claimed that's what they wanted, I'm guessing it was just empty rhetoric to please the masses. You don't really think they were actually making plans to use their dictatorial powers to get rid of all authoritarianism, do you? They didn't seem too eager to give up their power (or their parties' power) to me.

[Dyst]

Classless and stateless means no hierarchy, which means no fucking dictator.
Well, it doesn't mean 'no hierarchy', but you are right that it means no fucking dictator.

[Delirium]

I think they thought they were doing the best they could to create communism.

That in no way means i agree or support them.

[Cheung Mo]

Ceaucescu was doing his best to repress women, slaughter dissenters, and starve his own people in order to pay off Washington.

[redsoldier32]

aint it the truth

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:07 AM
aint it the truth
I don't even think the U.S. state department or the most ardent of Stalinists denies it.

[Scars]

Mao was never 'allied' with the USA. The only time which would could claim that he was an 'ally' of the USA was when he was fighting the Japanese, but that was waging war against a common enemy- in fact Mao and the Communists had been fighting the Japanese FAR longer than the Americans had. In addition US support was lent to Chiang Kai Shek, the offical leader of China at the time- the Communists were rebels in the back ass of China, Mao was a little known figure until after the war, really.

If you're refering to his contact with Nixon, once again he was not an 'ally' of the USA. He met with Nixon in an attempt to counter Soviet 'red imperialism'- China was always frightened of a war with the USSR, a war that would have no doubt been incredibly bitter and bloody.

If dealings with teh USA automatically disqualifies you then Ho Chi Minh is definately gone. He got the most support and aid from the US, he even lived there for several years. After the defeat of the Japanese in Vietnam in a ceremony surrounding the French/Viet Minh settlement the Viet Minh band played the star spangled banner in honour of their 'American Friends'. The speech Ho made declaring a free and independent Vietnam was even based on the American declaration of independence!

Yes, it is a very shallow question. Politics is a complex thing and rarely clear cut.