Communism Keeps On Failing. Hint! Hint?

[R_P_A_S]

I have to admit. before reading articles and posting here my views of communism were ignortant ones because, well is what school taught us here in the states and the media potraits it as a harsh, cold blooded regime that has no respect for it's people and what have you.

I'm glad that reading and posting here has educated me and it continues to do so. to the point that I've embraced some of its leaders, revolutionaries and beliefs. I also learned that is not the idea of communism that's hunted by the bad reputation. but it's past leaders that have damaged the name and the idea. So i wonder, what goes wrong..everytime? is there a flaw in there that we just don't see? why is it that every leader that wants to implement communism seems to just contradict the idea and turn into a complete jerk. what's the problem. why can't we just make it work? Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

How can we keep believing that communism is supposed to be so much better and what not if "it's leaders have fail"

I'm just confused. and I cant help to wonder if there's a big big piece we're missing.

[R_P_A_S]

I have to admit. before reading articles and posting here my views of communism were ignortant ones because, well is what school taught us here in the states and the media potraits it as a harsh, cold blooded regime that has no respect for it's people and what have you.

I'm glad that reading and posting here has educated me and it continues to do so. to the point that I've embraced some of its leaders, revolutionaries and beliefs. I also learned that is not the idea of communism that's hunted by the bad reputation. but it's past leaders that have damaged the name and the idea. So i wonder, what goes wrong..everytime? is there a flaw in there that we just don't see? why is it that every leader that wants to implement communism seems to just contradict the idea and turn into a complete jerk. what's the problem. why can't we just make it work? Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

How can we keep believing that communism is supposed to be so much better and what not if "it's leaders have fail"

I'm just confused. and I cant help to wonder if there's a big big piece we're missing.

[R_P_A_S]

I have to admit. before reading articles and posting here my views of communism were ignortant ones because, well is what school taught us here in the states and the media potraits it as a harsh, cold blooded regime that has no respect for it's people and what have you.

I'm glad that reading and posting here has educated me and it continues to do so. to the point that I've embraced some of its leaders, revolutionaries and beliefs. I also learned that is not the idea of communism that's hunted by the bad reputation. but it's past leaders that have damaged the name and the idea. So i wonder, what goes wrong..everytime? is there a flaw in there that we just don't see? why is it that every leader that wants to implement communism seems to just contradict the idea and turn into a complete jerk. what's the problem. why can't we just make it work? Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

How can we keep believing that communism is supposed to be so much better and what not if "it's leaders have fail"

I'm just confused. and I cant help to wonder if there's a big big piece we're missing.

[which doctor]

Trial and error.

[which doctor]

Trial and error.

[which doctor]

Trial and error.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 22 2006, 05:56 PM
Trial and error.
what about capitalism. not saying is better. but i mean its working, in a fucked way. but you dont hear about it not working out. yes it fucks people over but it just doesn't have that bad rep' as communism. (well yes it does lol but you know what i mean)

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 22 2006, 05:56 PM
Trial and error.
what about capitalism. not saying is better. but i mean its working, in a fucked way. but you dont hear about it not working out. yes it fucks people over but it just doesn't have that bad rep' as communism. (well yes it does lol but you know what i mean)

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 22 2006, 05:56 PM
Trial and error.
what about capitalism. not saying is better. but i mean its working, in a fucked way. but you dont hear about it not working out. yes it fucks people over but it just doesn't have that bad rep' as communism. (well yes it does lol but you know what i mean)

[Avtomatov]

Capitalism has had thousands of years to develop.

When the world was full of monarchies people said how come democracy is so much better if it doesnt work. Monarchy has always worked okay for us. Its because democracy was new, and monarchy had lots of time to work out its issues.

[Avtomatov]

Capitalism has had thousands of years to develop.

When the world was full of monarchies people said how come democracy is so much better if it doesnt work. Monarchy has always worked okay for us. Its because democracy was new, and monarchy had lots of time to work out its issues.

[Avtomatov]

Capitalism has had thousands of years to develop.

When the world was full of monarchies people said how come democracy is so much better if it doesnt work. Monarchy has always worked okay for us. Its because democracy was new, and monarchy had lots of time to work out its issues.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

The countries that these leaders are from were all third world. Marx proposed that communist revolution would first take place in the advanced capitalist countries such as Western European nations. The advanced capitalist countries have the material conditions (infrastructure, social/production realtions) that gives grounds for the success of a communist revolution. The third world has not yet developed these conditions so any chance at communism will not work.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

The countries that these leaders are from were all third world. Marx proposed that communist revolution would first take place in the advanced capitalist countries such as Western European nations. The advanced capitalist countries have the material conditions (infrastructure, social/production realtions) that gives grounds for the success of a communist revolution. The third world has not yet developed these conditions so any chance at communism will not work.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

The countries that these leaders are from were all third world. Marx proposed that communist revolution would first take place in the advanced capitalist countries such as Western European nations. The advanced capitalist countries have the material conditions (infrastructure, social/production realtions) that gives grounds for the success of a communist revolution. The third world has not yet developed these conditions so any chance at communism will not work.

[R_P_A_S]

great points made by you guys there. about capitalism having more time to deveopt. you know it's strange but for some reason western society gives you this impression that communism has been around for centuries. i guess its only been around for less than 200 years.

and also i never though about the 3rd world country issues. what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism

[R_P_A_S]

great points made by you guys there. about capitalism having more time to deveopt. you know it's strange but for some reason western society gives you this impression that communism has been around for centuries. i guess its only been around for less than 200 years.

and also i never though about the 3rd world country issues. what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism

[R_P_A_S]

great points made by you guys there. about capitalism having more time to deveopt. you know it's strange but for some reason western society gives you this impression that communism has been around for centuries. i guess its only been around for less than 200 years.

and also i never though about the 3rd world country issues. what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism

[Forward Union]

Authoritarian Communism Keeps On Failing. Hint! Hint?

Corrected

[Forward Union]

Authoritarian Communism Keeps On Failing. Hint! Hint?

Corrected

[Forward Union]

Authoritarian Communism Keeps On Failing. Hint! Hint?

Corrected

[nickdlc]

Authoritarian Communism Keeps On Failing. Hint! Hint?

Not quite. The CNT did become reactionary and go against all anarchist theory by joining the government. A no no for anarchists of course.

You may want to read this thread from libcom
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9371

A taste of what you can expect

Now, there are two ways that we can look at this. Either we can say that everything was ok, and that the revolution was only defeated by fascist military power, and Stalinist counter revolution, in which case you can go off to bed now, and sleep soundly, or we can think about what happened in Spain, what went wrong, and what can be learnt from it.

[nickdlc]

Authoritarian Communism Keeps On Failing. Hint! Hint?

Not quite. The CNT did become reactionary and go against all anarchist theory by joining the government. A no no for anarchists of course.

You may want to read this thread from libcom
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9371

A taste of what you can expect

Now, there are two ways that we can look at this. Either we can say that everything was ok, and that the revolution was only defeated by fascist military power, and Stalinist counter revolution, in which case you can go off to bed now, and sleep soundly, or we can think about what happened in Spain, what went wrong, and what can be learnt from it.

[nickdlc]

Authoritarian Communism Keeps On Failing. Hint! Hint?

Not quite. The CNT did become reactionary and go against all anarchist theory by joining the government. A no no for anarchists of course.

You may want to read this thread from libcom
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9371

A taste of what you can expect

Now, there are two ways that we can look at this. Either we can say that everything was ok, and that the revolution was only defeated by fascist military power, and Stalinist counter revolution, in which case you can go off to bed now, and sleep soundly, or we can think about what happened in Spain, what went wrong, and what can be learnt from it.

[RedJacobin]

The truth is that socialism IS so much better than capitalism.

Look at conditions in Cuba before and after the Cuban Revolution.

Look at conditions in China before and after the Chinese Revolution.

For the broad masses of people, living conditions improved in an amazing and liberating way. You can look at any social indictator, including life expectancy, infant mortality, women's emancipation, literacy and education, health care, food security.

The process of building towards communism--towards a classless, stateless society--is complex, difficult, and filled with struggle. Not everything will go right and no theory, no matter how good, is going to prevent that.

Dismissing the experience of the entire 20th century as "not real communism" is a bad approach. Not only is it unconvincing, but it seems to be driven more by political opportunism than anything else.

[RedJacobin]

The truth is that socialism IS so much better than capitalism.

Look at conditions in Cuba before and after the Cuban Revolution.

Look at conditions in China before and after the Chinese Revolution.

For the broad masses of people, living conditions improved in an amazing and liberating way. You can look at any social indictator, including life expectancy, infant mortality, women's emancipation, literacy and education, health care, food security.

The process of building towards communism--towards a classless, stateless society--is complex, difficult, and filled with struggle. Not everything will go right and no theory, no matter how good, is going to prevent that.

Dismissing the experience of the entire 20th century as "not real communism" is a bad approach. Not only is it unconvincing, but it seems to be driven more by political opportunism than anything else.

[RedJacobin]

The truth is that socialism IS so much better than capitalism.

Look at conditions in Cuba before and after the Cuban Revolution.

Look at conditions in China before and after the Chinese Revolution.

For the broad masses of people, living conditions improved in an amazing and liberating way. You can look at any social indictator, including life expectancy, infant mortality, women's emancipation, literacy and education, health care, food security.

The process of building towards communism--towards a classless, stateless society--is complex, difficult, and filled with struggle. Not everything will go right and no theory, no matter how good, is going to prevent that.

Dismissing the experience of the entire 20th century as "not real communism" is a bad approach. Not only is it unconvincing, but it seems to be driven more by political opportunism than anything else.

[KC]

The communist movement hasn't failed. It just hasn't succeeded.

[KC]

The communist movement hasn't failed. It just hasn't succeeded.

[KC]

The communist movement hasn't failed. It just hasn't succeeded.

[Janus]

what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism
First of all, convert is not the best word to use as it's usually associated with religion. The main requirement would be the collapse of capitalism and a fully conscious work force. Unfortunately, that's not happening right now.

[Janus]

what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism
First of all, convert is not the best word to use as it's usually associated with religion. The main requirement would be the collapse of capitalism and a fully conscious work force. Unfortunately, that's not happening right now.

[Janus]

what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism
First of all, convert is not the best word to use as it's usually associated with religion. The main requirement would be the collapse of capitalism and a fully conscious work force. Unfortunately, that's not happening right now.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:43 AM

what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism
First of all, convert is not the best word to use as it's usually associated with religion.
:lol: how do you get that? :P

sorry, off-topic.

anyways

while i don't think that 'trial and error' is the best way to describe it really, it is undeniably important to learn from past mistakes - i agree with nickdlc, it's easy to just say "well that wasn't communism", but what we should really be saying is, "well they strived for communism (at least in the beginning), and then things fucked up - why? and when? and what can we do to make sure something similar doesn't happen?"

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:43 AM

what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism
First of all, convert is not the best word to use as it's usually associated with religion.
:lol: how do you get that? :P

sorry, off-topic.

anyways

while i don't think that 'trial and error' is the best way to describe it really, it is undeniably important to learn from past mistakes - i agree with nickdlc, it's easy to just say "well that wasn't communism", but what we should really be saying is, "well they strived for communism (at least in the beginning), and then things fucked up - why? and when? and what can we do to make sure something similar doesn't happen?"

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:43 AM

what country thats not a 3rd world country has the better odds of converting into communism
First of all, convert is not the best word to use as it's usually associated with religion.
:lol: how do you get that? :P

sorry, off-topic.

anyways

while i don't think that 'trial and error' is the best way to describe it really, it is undeniably important to learn from past mistakes - i agree with nickdlc, it's easy to just say "well that wasn't communism", but what we should really be saying is, "well they strived for communism (at least in the beginning), and then things fucked up - why? and when? and what can we do to make sure something similar doesn't happen?"

[Entrails Konfetti]

My though on this is that the revolution has to spread far and fast otherwize it turns into a military dictatorship, or it gets totally crushed by the counter-revolution.

[Entrails Konfetti]

My though on this is that the revolution has to spread far and fast otherwize it turns into a military dictatorship, or it gets totally crushed by the counter-revolution.

[Entrails Konfetti]

My though on this is that the revolution has to spread far and fast otherwize it turns into a military dictatorship, or it gets totally crushed by the counter-revolution.

[guerillablack]

If you are waiting for a communist or socialist revolution in Western Countries(european) dont hold your breath. They will more likely happen in 3rd countries, South America/Africa/Asia. These are the people who the ones being exploited by the European country. We need to start redeveloping our ideas and theories. This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:

[guerillablack]

If you are waiting for a communist or socialist revolution in Western Countries(european) dont hold your breath. They will more likely happen in 3rd countries, South America/Africa/Asia. These are the people who the ones being exploited by the European country. We need to start redeveloping our ideas and theories. This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:

[guerillablack]

If you are waiting for a communist or socialist revolution in Western Countries(european) dont hold your breath. They will more likely happen in 3rd countries, South America/Africa/Asia. These are the people who the ones being exploited by the European country. We need to start redeveloping our ideas and theories. This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:

[Rawthentic]

Revolutions have not succeeded becuase, let us not forget, communist revolutions must occur in advanced capitalist nations, where there is a strong social conscious and a very developed proletariat. Its not because there is some "flaw" in its nature, but because revolutions socialist in nature were attempted to be imposed on semi-feudal or feudal nations.

[Rawthentic]

Revolutions have not succeeded becuase, let us not forget, communist revolutions must occur in advanced capitalist nations, where there is a strong social conscious and a very developed proletariat. Its not because there is some "flaw" in its nature, but because revolutions socialist in nature were attempted to be imposed on semi-feudal or feudal nations.

[Rawthentic]

Revolutions have not succeeded becuase, let us not forget, communist revolutions must occur in advanced capitalist nations, where there is a strong social conscious and a very developed proletariat. Its not because there is some "flaw" in its nature, but because revolutions socialist in nature were attempted to be imposed on semi-feudal or feudal nations.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:27 AM
This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:
I don't mean to derail this thread but the problem with third world revolutions is that when they happen Americans and others of the first world are kept so fat and happy because most of the wealth comes here, so when they happen we're easily persuaded to back our ruling class in taking out the revolutionaries. Our consciousness does not feel the same level exploitation-- we don't know what the peasents and workers are going through in say South America. The average North American thinks the reason why the third world is so backward is because they're stupid, but at the same they don't wonder where all this wealth comes from.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:27 AM
This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:
I don't mean to derail this thread but the problem with third world revolutions is that when they happen Americans and others of the first world are kept so fat and happy because most of the wealth comes here, so when they happen we're easily persuaded to back our ruling class in taking out the revolutionaries. Our consciousness does not feel the same level exploitation-- we don't know what the peasents and workers are going through in say South America. The average North American thinks the reason why the third world is so backward is because they're stupid, but at the same they don't wonder where all this wealth comes from.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:27 AM
This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:
I don't mean to derail this thread but the problem with third world revolutions is that when they happen Americans and others of the first world are kept so fat and happy because most of the wealth comes here, so when they happen we're easily persuaded to back our ruling class in taking out the revolutionaries. Our consciousness does not feel the same level exploitation-- we don't know what the peasents and workers are going through in say South America. The average North American thinks the reason why the third world is so backward is because they're stupid, but at the same they don't wonder where all this wealth comes from.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It's near impossible to have a revolution in the 1st world current day. Why? Because of all the people living in the cities. They can't produce there own food. Sure it can be shipped but it would need massive orgainzation. Also alot of the food in say, the US comes from abroad and the countries abroad most likely won't trade with us because we reject commodities.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? What could be done?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It's near impossible to have a revolution in the 1st world current day. Why? Because of all the people living in the cities. They can't produce there own food. Sure it can be shipped but it would need massive orgainzation. Also alot of the food in say, the US comes from abroad and the countries abroad most likely won't trade with us because we reject commodities.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? What could be done?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It's near impossible to have a revolution in the 1st world current day. Why? Because of all the people living in the cities. They can't produce there own food. Sure it can be shipped but it would need massive orgainzation. Also alot of the food in say, the US comes from abroad and the countries abroad most likely won't trade with us because we reject commodities.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? What could be done?

[Rawthentic]

In an advanced capitalist society, almost all the people would be urban. It is the urban proletariat, I doubt there will be another, such as in the US, that would be the one to fight the revolution. Yes, today it is nearly impossible, but that is because of the wealth some enjoy, which is thought to be part of all of America, an obvious lie. There need be a revolutionary conscious in the people, even if the ruling class in the US is wealthy due to 3rd world exploitation, the US proletariat is also exploited.

Another problem with this is the outsourcing going on in the US, where major corporations are sending their jobs over seas or to Latin America in search of cheaper labor. This creates a hostile mentality in the US proletariat against the workers in India or Mexico for example, when in reality they should be hostile against the capitalist system that created their misery and be in solidarity for the new workers, since they now will be exploited.

[Rawthentic]

In an advanced capitalist society, almost all the people would be urban. It is the urban proletariat, I doubt there will be another, such as in the US, that would be the one to fight the revolution. Yes, today it is nearly impossible, but that is because of the wealth some enjoy, which is thought to be part of all of America, an obvious lie. There need be a revolutionary conscious in the people, even if the ruling class in the US is wealthy due to 3rd world exploitation, the US proletariat is also exploited.

Another problem with this is the outsourcing going on in the US, where major corporations are sending their jobs over seas or to Latin America in search of cheaper labor. This creates a hostile mentality in the US proletariat against the workers in India or Mexico for example, when in reality they should be hostile against the capitalist system that created their misery and be in solidarity for the new workers, since they now will be exploited.

[Rawthentic]

In an advanced capitalist society, almost all the people would be urban. It is the urban proletariat, I doubt there will be another, such as in the US, that would be the one to fight the revolution. Yes, today it is nearly impossible, but that is because of the wealth some enjoy, which is thought to be part of all of America, an obvious lie. There need be a revolutionary conscious in the people, even if the ruling class in the US is wealthy due to 3rd world exploitation, the US proletariat is also exploited.

Another problem with this is the outsourcing going on in the US, where major corporations are sending their jobs over seas or to Latin America in search of cheaper labor. This creates a hostile mentality in the US proletariat against the workers in India or Mexico for example, when in reality they should be hostile against the capitalist system that created their misery and be in solidarity for the new workers, since they now will be exploited.

[violencia.Proletariat]

They will more likely happen in 3rd countries, South America/Africa/Asia. These are the people who the ones being exploited by the European country.

The only thing that can be happen in these countries is anti imperialist movements which develope these countries into capitalist nations with their own economies. Russia, China, all examples of this. The reason they can't create communism is because communism is a movement based on proletarian revolution, these countries are/were made up of peasants.


America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse.

Yes, thats why communist revolution should happen in the advanced capitalist countries first.


It's near impossible to have a revolution in the 1st world current day. Why? Because of all the people living in the cities. They can't produce there own food.

I'm sorry but thats about the DUMBEST thing I've heard on this board. Food production in the US is in not short supply. Agro-business takes care of most all of our basic food needs. This industry can be collectivized like every other industry.

Not to mention collective gardening that can/will take place prior and during revolution to support communes in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie.


Also alot of the food in say, the US comes from abroad and the countries abroad most likely won't trade with us because we reject commodities.

We can still trade by trading other commodities. Most of the food that we import is fruits/etc which don't grow here year round. America is very fertile and has many climates to support lots of different crops.

[violencia.Proletariat]

They will more likely happen in 3rd countries, South America/Africa/Asia. These are the people who the ones being exploited by the European country.

The only thing that can be happen in these countries is anti imperialist movements which develope these countries into capitalist nations with their own economies. Russia, China, all examples of this. The reason they can't create communism is because communism is a movement based on proletarian revolution, these countries are/were made up of peasants.


America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse.

Yes, thats why communist revolution should happen in the advanced capitalist countries first.


It's near impossible to have a revolution in the 1st world current day. Why? Because of all the people living in the cities. They can't produce there own food.

I'm sorry but thats about the DUMBEST thing I've heard on this board. Food production in the US is in not short supply. Agro-business takes care of most all of our basic food needs. This industry can be collectivized like every other industry.

Not to mention collective gardening that can/will take place prior and during revolution to support communes in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie.


Also alot of the food in say, the US comes from abroad and the countries abroad most likely won't trade with us because we reject commodities.

We can still trade by trading other commodities. Most of the food that we import is fruits/etc which don't grow here year round. America is very fertile and has many climates to support lots of different crops.

[violencia.Proletariat]

They will more likely happen in 3rd countries, South America/Africa/Asia. These are the people who the ones being exploited by the European country.

The only thing that can be happen in these countries is anti imperialist movements which develope these countries into capitalist nations with their own economies. Russia, China, all examples of this. The reason they can't create communism is because communism is a movement based on proletarian revolution, these countries are/were made up of peasants.


America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse.

Yes, thats why communist revolution should happen in the advanced capitalist countries first.


It's near impossible to have a revolution in the 1st world current day. Why? Because of all the people living in the cities. They can't produce there own food.

I'm sorry but thats about the DUMBEST thing I've heard on this board. Food production in the US is in not short supply. Agro-business takes care of most all of our basic food needs. This industry can be collectivized like every other industry.

Not to mention collective gardening that can/will take place prior and during revolution to support communes in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie.


Also alot of the food in say, the US comes from abroad and the countries abroad most likely won't trade with us because we reject commodities.

We can still trade by trading other commodities. Most of the food that we import is fruits/etc which don't grow here year round. America is very fertile and has many climates to support lots of different crops.

[KC]

Revolutions have not succeeded becuase, let us not forget, communist revolutions must occur in advanced capitalist nations, where there is a strong social conscious and a very developed proletariat.

Yeah, you know how revolutionary those American proletarians are! :rolleyes:


Its not because there is some "flaw" in its nature, but because revolutions socialist in nature were attempted to be imposed on semi-feudal or feudal nations.

3rd world countries aren't feudal.

[KC]

Revolutions have not succeeded becuase, let us not forget, communist revolutions must occur in advanced capitalist nations, where there is a strong social conscious and a very developed proletariat.

Yeah, you know how revolutionary those American proletarians are! :rolleyes:


Its not because there is some "flaw" in its nature, but because revolutions socialist in nature were attempted to be imposed on semi-feudal or feudal nations.

3rd world countries aren't feudal.

[KC]

Revolutions have not succeeded becuase, let us not forget, communist revolutions must occur in advanced capitalist nations, where there is a strong social conscious and a very developed proletariat.

Yeah, you know how revolutionary those American proletarians are! :rolleyes:


Its not because there is some "flaw" in its nature, but because revolutions socialist in nature were attempted to be imposed on semi-feudal or feudal nations.

3rd world countries aren't feudal.

[rebelworker]

I cant beleive that ore people havnt mentioned the fact that "communism" hasnt really been tried, just socialism or some other form of state controll, masses have been bought over in the millions to "communism" but when it never materialises, ie the party takes over and tries to run an elaborate welfare state dictatorship in the workers name, people eventually get turned off. ot

The fact thyat communism for most people is senonomus with the communist party and authoritarian bolshevism should give you a good idea why "communism" hasnt worked.

as for capitalism "working", one thing you have to keep in mind is that it was built up over generations by the domination and supression of the labouring mases, and even then it had major colapses. The great depression was a good example of total economic collapse in some of the most advanced capitalist nations.

Facism was needed to "save" capitalism. Without Hitler, moussilini and Franco, the ERuropean working class would have most certainly dumped capitalism.

Unfortunately Communist Party dictatorships have done just as much as capitalist propoganda to turn workers off of communism.

Bolshevik Ideologs ignore the fact that for most workers, life under a party dictatorship is harder than living in an advanced capitalist nation, so why shouldnt they strive for more?

Untill real communism can be acheived(ie workers controll and real democracy /equality /freedom) western workers wll probably stick with what they have.

In the third word, liberatory worers movements ae again on the rise, and the debate about how to implement communism is again becoming relevant their. My hope is that anti authoritarian ideas win out in at least some major social movements and we can see another experiment in real popular control like Spain 36. This, not another Soviet Union or red china, will give workers in developed contries the confidence again to try for something better.

[rebelworker]

I cant beleive that ore people havnt mentioned the fact that "communism" hasnt really been tried, just socialism or some other form of state controll, masses have been bought over in the millions to "communism" but when it never materialises, ie the party takes over and tries to run an elaborate welfare state dictatorship in the workers name, people eventually get turned off. ot

The fact thyat communism for most people is senonomus with the communist party and authoritarian bolshevism should give you a good idea why "communism" hasnt worked.

as for capitalism "working", one thing you have to keep in mind is that it was built up over generations by the domination and supression of the labouring mases, and even then it had major colapses. The great depression was a good example of total economic collapse in some of the most advanced capitalist nations.

Facism was needed to "save" capitalism. Without Hitler, moussilini and Franco, the ERuropean working class would have most certainly dumped capitalism.

Unfortunately Communist Party dictatorships have done just as much as capitalist propoganda to turn workers off of communism.

Bolshevik Ideologs ignore the fact that for most workers, life under a party dictatorship is harder than living in an advanced capitalist nation, so why shouldnt they strive for more?

Untill real communism can be acheived(ie workers controll and real democracy /equality /freedom) western workers wll probably stick with what they have.

In the third word, liberatory worers movements ae again on the rise, and the debate about how to implement communism is again becoming relevant their. My hope is that anti authoritarian ideas win out in at least some major social movements and we can see another experiment in real popular control like Spain 36. This, not another Soviet Union or red china, will give workers in developed contries the confidence again to try for something better.

[rebelworker]

I cant beleive that ore people havnt mentioned the fact that "communism" hasnt really been tried, just socialism or some other form of state controll, masses have been bought over in the millions to "communism" but when it never materialises, ie the party takes over and tries to run an elaborate welfare state dictatorship in the workers name, people eventually get turned off. ot

The fact thyat communism for most people is senonomus with the communist party and authoritarian bolshevism should give you a good idea why "communism" hasnt worked.

as for capitalism "working", one thing you have to keep in mind is that it was built up over generations by the domination and supression of the labouring mases, and even then it had major colapses. The great depression was a good example of total economic collapse in some of the most advanced capitalist nations.

Facism was needed to "save" capitalism. Without Hitler, moussilini and Franco, the ERuropean working class would have most certainly dumped capitalism.

Unfortunately Communist Party dictatorships have done just as much as capitalist propoganda to turn workers off of communism.

Bolshevik Ideologs ignore the fact that for most workers, life under a party dictatorship is harder than living in an advanced capitalist nation, so why shouldnt they strive for more?

Untill real communism can be acheived(ie workers controll and real democracy /equality /freedom) western workers wll probably stick with what they have.

In the third word, liberatory worers movements ae again on the rise, and the debate about how to implement communism is again becoming relevant their. My hope is that anti authoritarian ideas win out in at least some major social movements and we can see another experiment in real popular control like Spain 36. This, not another Soviet Union or red china, will give workers in developed contries the confidence again to try for something better.

[Janus]

I cant beleive that ore people havnt mentioned the fact that "communism" hasnt really been tried, just socialism or some other form of state controll, masses have been bought over in the millions to "communism" but when it never materialises, ie the party takes over and tries to run an elaborate welfare state dictatorship in the workers name, people eventually get turned off.
Good point, rebelwroker but this is exactly what RPAS was talking about. That the whole "communist" movement has failed quite a lot and that these supposedly "communist" tendencies have harmed the movement quite a bit.

[Janus]

I cant beleive that ore people havnt mentioned the fact that "communism" hasnt really been tried, just socialism or some other form of state controll, masses have been bought over in the millions to "communism" but when it never materialises, ie the party takes over and tries to run an elaborate welfare state dictatorship in the workers name, people eventually get turned off.
Good point, rebelwroker but this is exactly what RPAS was talking about. That the whole "communist" movement has failed quite a lot and that these supposedly "communist" tendencies have harmed the movement quite a bit.

[Janus]

I cant beleive that ore people havnt mentioned the fact that "communism" hasnt really been tried, just socialism or some other form of state controll, masses have been bought over in the millions to "communism" but when it never materialises, ie the party takes over and tries to run an elaborate welfare state dictatorship in the workers name, people eventually get turned off.
Good point, rebelwroker but this is exactly what RPAS was talking about. That the whole "communist" movement has failed quite a lot and that these supposedly "communist" tendencies have harmed the movement quite a bit.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Jun 23 2006, 03:24 AM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Jun 23 2006, 03:24 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 02:27 AM
This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:
I don't mean to derail this thread but the problem with third world revolutions is that when they happen Americans and others of the first world are kept so fat and happy because most of the wealth comes here, so when they happen we're easily persuaded to back our ruling class in taking out the revolutionaries. Our consciousness does not feel the same level exploitation-- we don't know what the peasents and workers are going through in say South America. The average North American thinks the reason why the third world is so backward is because they're stupid, but at the same they don't wonder where all this wealth comes from. [/b]
if you completely overlook the difference in our standards and third world standards and what both consider "unbearable" then yes the revolution has to happen in the third world.

but since us europeans and americans have different standards then poeple from third world country's and seeing how our standard of living is being threatened more then the standard of living in the third world we will end up getting the revolution.

the poeple in the third world live in shacks and largely take care of their own food their living standard wont fall as they cant get much lower.
and they dont have the means to revolt as they are to busy trying to scrape a living.
here our money is dropping in value while our rents and expenses are rising and our wages are virtually frozen and seeing how us westerners are very unlikely to accept living in third world conditions we are more likely to revolt.
and because we have the means of revolting longer then a day or 2 (fridge is full otherwise we can raid a supermarket) we can actually succeed.

[rouchambeau]

Castro, Stalin, Mao, etc. were not communists.

Communism failed in the early 20th century because working class revolutionaries put their trust in the state. The state then used that power to undermine revolutionary activity.

[LoneRed]

before you listen to people's petty biases, i would say to dig deep into capitalism, and how things are actually going now a days. Before one can answer your question they have to know the processes and structure of capitalism

[Mesijs]

The main problem is, that most revolutions have had one leader, and that leader becomes head of the state after the revolution, whether because of pure self-interest or because he thinks to know what's best for the people. That isn't the base for a truly democratic socialist society. And when the base is wrong, the reality will only go wronger. So if there will be a communist revolution anywhere in the future, the best leader of it would be the one, that doesn't want to make himself important after the revolution.

[Rawthentic]

The best revolution would be one without any so-called "leaders", we dont want dictatorships anymore. As benevolent as some leader may be, he will allocate himself in power, and carry on with the Leninist garbage. This has been shown throughout history. The working class needs to take matters into their own hands and stop depending on leaders.

[Iranon]

Unfortunately Communist Party dictatorships have done just as much as capitalist propoganda to turn workers off of communism.

...and yet there never seems to be a shortage of ultra-sectarian groups from 1st world nations who disparage whatever type of Socialism 3rd Worlders manage to get because it doesn't hold up to their ideals. I'm sure that has done nothing to damage the image of Communism in the minds of the working class.

[Rawthentic]

Right, if only we just let go of that Leninist garbage, communism would move along just fine. But hopefully the same mistakes that it created are learned from and funneled into a meaningful communist movment. Im not sure, its like letting go of religion I guess.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:51 PM
I have to admit. before reading articles and posting here my views of communism were ignortant ones because, well is what school taught us here in the states and the media potraits it as a harsh, cold blooded regime that has no respect for it's people and what have you.

I'm glad that reading and posting here has educated me and it continues to do so. to the point that I've embraced some of its leaders, revolutionaries and beliefs. I also learned that is not the idea of communism that's hunted by the bad reputation. but it's past leaders that have damaged the name and the idea. So i wonder, what goes wrong..everytime? is there a flaw in there that we just don't see? why is it that every leader that wants to implement communism seems to just contradict the idea and turn into a complete jerk. what's the problem. why can't we just make it work? Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

How can we keep believing that communism is supposed to be so much better and what not if "it's leaders have fail"

I'm just confused. and I cant help to wonder if there's a big big piece we're missing.
You still are incredibly ignorant, as anyone would be who paid attention to the things said on this forum. This place is a hotbed of anti-communist nonsense, written by mostly ignorant anarchist teens.

[Janus]

You still are incredibly ignorant, as anyone would be who paid attention to the things said on this forum.
What's with the condescension and why are you so aggressive? The only anti-communist nonsense here is in OI.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+Jul 11 2006, 11:09 PM--> (Intelligitimate @ Jul 11 2006, 11:09 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 05:51 PM
I have to admit. before reading articles and posting here my views of communism were ignortant ones because, well is what school taught us here in the states and the media potraits it as a harsh, cold blooded regime that has no respect for it's people and what have you.

I'm glad that reading and posting here has educated me and it continues to do so. to the point that I've embraced some of its leaders, revolutionaries and beliefs. I also learned that is not the idea of communism that's hunted by the bad reputation. but it's past leaders that have damaged the name and the idea. So i wonder, what goes wrong..everytime? is there a flaw in there that we just don't see? why is it that every leader that wants to implement communism seems to just contradict the idea and turn into a complete jerk. what's the problem. why can't we just make it work? Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

How can we keep believing that communism is supposed to be so much better and what not if "it's leaders have fail"

I'm just confused. and I cant help to wonder if there's a big big piece we're missing.
You still are incredibly ignorant, as anyone would be who paid attention to the things said on this forum. This place is a hotbed of anti-communist nonsense, written by mostly ignorant anarchist teens. [/b]
I'm not ignorant. but if makes you feel warm and fuzzy to diss me, knock your self out! anyways back to more important things and people.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:27 PM

You still are incredibly ignorant, as anyone would be who paid attention to the things said on this forum.
What's with the condescension and why are you so aggressive? The only anti-communist nonsense here is in OI.
Please. This thread is itself full of anti-communist crap. The vast majority of people on this forum absolutely hate everything about actually-existing socialism, and spew the most slanderous bourgeois lies they can find about any country that has ever succeeded in throwing out the bourgeoisie and capitalism.

This forum should be called Reactionary Right, not Revolutionary Left.

[Janus]

This thread is itself full of anti-communist crap.
Anti-authoritarian "Communism" perhaps.


This forum should be called Reactionary Right, not Revolutionary Left.
So you are satisfied with the massive failures in the USSR and China?

[Intelligitimate]

Anti-authoritarian "Communism" perhaps.

Bullshit. Men like Mesijs openly praise people who restored capitalism. The anarchists here make excuses for their anarchist heroes like Makhno, who executed men on the spot for disobedience. Anarchism doesn't have a god damn thing to do with anti-authoritarianism, and never did.


So you are satisfied with the massive failures in the USSR and China?

The USSR and China were not massive failures. They were the single greatest revolutionary achievements in history. That you piss on them shows your true allegiances, and they are not to socialism, but to some stupid non-existent idealistic utopia.

[RebelDog]

I'm just confused. and I cant help to wonder if there's a big big piece we're missing.

I believe there is something that people miss and that is the global nature of both capitalism and communism. Capitalism is globalising at a rapid rate. The search for profit takes the exploiters all over the globe. The reason capitalism can do this at an increasing pace, is technology and the fact that globalisation is smashing regulation. It can move production easily. Capital can move easily. Goods can be moved easily. Surely such a global system will have a global collapse when the time comes?

If this is to be then the proletarian revolution will be 'compelled' to take place at this time and globally. In the first, second and third worlds all at once. This is the time when communism can show its potential because communism is a system that requires it to be applied globally to work. Islands of 'communism' like Cuba do not work as models of communism because they can never let the state wither away in a world of capitalism. Cuba is a great example of what is possible when one applies priority to need and not greed. Cuba is a small island constantly bullied by its super-power neighbor, existing in a hostile world. Cuba's crime is to dedicate its resources to its people. What if Cuba was able to do this in a friendly world where solidarity, co-operation, need, people, the environment were all priorities. What if its big powerful neighbor gave it help instead of trying to destroy it?

Communism is modern, dynamic and a great exiting part of human history that is still to be written. The proletariat will act when it becomes a case of action or extinction.

[Janus]

Men like Mesijs openly praise people who restored capitalism.
Is he restricted?


The anarchists here make excuses for their anarchist heroes like Makhno, who executed men on the spot for disobedience
And Stalin and Mao treated their opponents just fine. :rolleyes:


The USSR and China were not massive failures. They were the single greatest revolutionary achievements in history.
Yeah, that's why the USSR is still around and why the PRC is not capitalist. :rolleyes:


That you piss on them shows your true allegiances, and they are not to socialism, but to some stupid non-existent idealistic utopia.
I would rather work for this "utopia" than live under some repressive police state.

[Intelligitimate]

Is he restricted?

He posted in this thread...


And Stalin and Mao treated their opponents just fine.

They were both far too soft, but to know this, that would require some actual knowledge of the subject, which you obviously do not have.


Yeah, that's why the USSR is still around and why the PRC is not capitalist.

The USSR is not around because of a capitalist counter-revolution, and the PRC doesn't allow un-restricted capitalism. Do you know what joint-enterprize is? Do you realize China didn't have much choice in modernizing their economy after the Sino-Soviet split? Were the Bolsheviks capitalists during the NEP?


I would rather work for this "utopia" than live under some repressive police state.

Thank you for proving my point: that you hate actually-existing socialism. That is something you have in common with the bourgeoisie and the worst sorts of fascist trash.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Russia didn't have a large working class and neither did China.

The people were mostly peasants. Russia had little industry and what was left was ravaged by invading armies and the Nazi's. Combine this with participation in two world wars and its not hard to see why the Soviet Union was messed up.


Intelligitimate wrote:

"The USSR and China were not massive failures. They were the single greatest revolutionary achievements in history. That you piss on them shows your true allegiances, and they are not to socialism, but to some stupid non-existent idealistic utopia."

No, people criticize the USSR and PRC because they were unable to provide substantial evidence internationally that they were successful socialist states.

What modern day communists did see, was the total lack of workers supporting the USSR and trying to stop it breaking up. The workers should really defend a state in which they have all power.

YOU simply cannot see past rhetoric and red flags.

WHY DIDNT THE WORKERS DEFEND A SO CALLED WORKERS STATE?

other classes defend the state they control when their power is being challenged.

[Intelligitimate]

Russia didn't have a large working class and neither did China.

The people were mostly peasants. Russia had little industry and what was left was ravaged by invading armies and the Nazi's. Combine this with participation in two world wars and its not hard to see why the Soviet Union was messed up.

Retarded nonsense. There were millions of workers in China and Russia.


No, people criticize the USSR and PRC because they were unable to provide substantial evidence internationally that they were successful socialist states.

Ignorant pseudo-Leftist trash on this forum criticize the USSR because they parrot bourgeois lies, and no other reason. Who the fuck do you think owns the media and controls the government, where the working class would learn about communism?


What modern day communists did see, was the total lack of workers supporting the USSR and trying to stop it breaking up. The workers should really defend a state in which they have all power.

More bullshit lies. The workers in the USSR did not want to get rid of socialism. Polls from the time clearly show this. I suggest you read Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds for the relevant information on the people of the Soviet Union’s feelings toward this before and after.


YOU simply cannot see past rhetoric and red flags.

You simply parrot bourgeois lies like a right-winger.


WHY DIDNT THE WORKERS DEFEND A SO CALLED WORKERS STATE?

They didn’t realize what they had, and had been subjected to so much propaganda from CIA sources like Radio Free Europe that they had an idealized, false view of capitalism, much like many Cuban youth do today. They were told that capitalism would bring them riches, but what it brought about was the worst economic collapse in the history of the world not due to losing a devastating war. Capitalism has ravaged the former Soviet Union to an unbelievable degree. The people there are experiencing the nightmare of capitalism, and you don’t give a fuck.

People like you don’t give a fucking shit about stopping imperialism and helping the poor. To you socialism is some personal moral system, a fad. It isn’t a struggle for survival, like it is for most of the people in the world. And the USSR, Cuba, China, etc, represent real gains for the proletariat of the world, despite the reactionary trash you spew. You disgust me. How dare you call yourself a socialist.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

ahahahahahahaha.

Are you even a Marxist?



More bullshit lies. The workers in the USSR did not want to get rid of socialism. Polls from the time clearly show this. I suggest you read Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds for the relevant information on the people of the Soviet Union’s feelings toward this before and after.

You suggest polls taken, in a capitalist Russia, are of interest at all? and you favor looking at these polls over looking at the workers lack of defending the USSR?

you are a joke.



They didn’t realize what they had, and had been subjected to so much propaganda from CIA sources like Radio Free Europe that they had an idealized, false view of capitalism, much like many Cuban youth do today. They were told that capitalism would bring them riches, but what it brought about was the worst economic collapse in the history of the world not due to losing a devastating war.

Ummm, so you think that the soviet people, liked the 'idea' of capitalism? hah you are the opposite of a materialist if you think that, an idealist in fact.

You really think that people act upon ideas, and not on material interest?

You do know Marxists, well materialists in general are hugely critical of idealist positions....like the one you hold.


Capitalism has ravaged the former Soviet Union to an unbelievable degree. The people there are experiencing the nightmare of capitalism, and you don’t give a fuck.

i do give a fuck, i just don't see why lying about the Soviet Union will help the working class.



People like you don’t give a fucking shit about stopping imperialism and helping the poor. To you socialism is some personal moral system, a fad. It isn’t a struggle for survival, like it is for most of the people in the world.

How would you know anything about me? Or why i want socialism?

You seem to enjoy empty-headed accusations and being all self righteous.


And the USSR, Cuba, China, etc, represent real gains for the proletariat of the world, despite the reactionary trash you spew. You disgust me. How dare you call yourself a socialist.

Well you can talk all the shit you like. You are probably the kinda 'socialist' who doesn't support human rights, likes the old cult of personality and would enjoy running a gulag.

[Intelligitimate]

Are you even a Marxist?

Of course.


You suggest polls taken, in a capitalist Russia, are of interest at all?

When discussing how the people felt about their system, which you brought up, they are.


and you favor looking at these polls over looking at the workers lack of defending the USSR?

What the fuck do you expect them to do? Throw bombs around?


Ummm, so you think that the soviet people, liked the 'idea' of capitalism? hah you are the opposite of a materialist if you think that, an idealist in fact.

That isn’t what I said at all. I said they were lied to about what capitalism was gonna be like.


You really think that people act upon ideas, and not on material interest?

Not everyone in the world is fully capable of realizing what is in their interests, or the whole fucking world would be socialist right now, wouldn’t it?


i do give a fuck, i just don't see why lying about the Soviet Union will help the working class.

Keep spewing bourgeois lies, worthless pseudo-socialist.


How would you know anything about me? Or why i want socialism?

You seem to enjoy empty-headed accusations and being all self righteous.

It’s quite obvious just by a cursory reading of this forum what type of pseudo-socialists like you inhabit it.


Well you can talk all the shit you like. You are probably the kinda 'socialist' who doesn't support human rights, likes the old cult of personality and would enjoy running a gulag.

More anti-communist stupidity.

[IronColumn]

The people will not like it any more if the stick they are being beaten with is called the people's stick.

-Bakunin

Leninism doesn't work, and has shown itself to be a failure repeatedly. Real democracy, whether espoused by anarchists or radical marxists, still has revolutionary potential. The society of the future does not need a secret police or a dictator.

[Janus]

They were both far too soft, but to know this, that would require some actual knowledge of the subject, which you obviously do not have.
I do not? Yet you claim that the CIA led all of the people away from socialism in those countries when you ignore the material conditions that led to their decay?


The USSR is not around because of a capitalist counter-revolution, and the PRC doesn't allow un-restricted capitalism. Do you know what joint-enterprize is? Do you realize China didn't have much choice in modernizing their economy after the Sino-Soviet split? Were the Bolsheviks capitalists during the NEP?
The NEP was quite capitalistic. China had always been modernizing so why did they need to turn to capitalism to do it? You may not have been to China but there aren't many limits on capitalism particularly in the developed areas.


Thank you for proving my point: that you hate actually-existing socialism. That is something you have in common with the bourgeoisie and the worst sorts of fascist trash.
And you have just shown that you are nothing more than an authoritarian Communist.

[LoneRed]

forget the point,

by just looking at any posts in theory, people keep arguing on the surface, people are too scared to dig a bit deeper into history, or in formulating a theory(anarchists are good at this). Its more and more of the anti-leninists bs, which shows their true nature. Why over and over again droll on about anti-leninism? unless it was a threat of some sort, or they were intimidated by it. If it were so dead... as you like to say why are you talking about it. It makes no sense to go again about anti-reagan doctrine nowadays, unless its from a historical approach. This forum is like an Idiots guide to socialism in a nutshell.

Rick

[matiasm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:46 PM
Capitalism has had thousands of years to develop.

When the world was full of monarchies people said how come democracy is so much better if it doesnt work. Monarchy has always worked okay for us. Its because democracy was new, and monarchy had lots of time to work out its issues.
I'm abit skeptic to think that capitlaism has been around for thousands of years for its development. Past centuries we saw the economic schools of slavery rule the majority of the world, then we went onto the era of Feudalism which then finally laid ground for its overthrow and which led capitalism to be the major economic school of the taught to rule, in the 17 hundreds i think this took place (please correct me if i`m wrong).

I think taking into account that these socialist revolutions that have occurred have been preciosely in under developed to developing countries plays a major part in the rise of communism. But then again we must not forget the Soviet Union a well developed super power of the world with a great economy back in those days, comparing to other nations that is. But that failed to, if we look at the soviets failed attempt i think it was purely at the method it approached the transition towards socialism then communism, Lenin lead the revolution well to an extent, and Stalin bastardized it with his dictatorship and murderous approach. Personally i think this was one the elements which gave communism that "bad" reputation and contributed to the fall of communism in the long run for the soviets, also taking acount the economical issues, US foreign policies, propaganda etc, which held its fall.

Cuba on the other hand is a third world country and unfortuntely for the revolution its geopolitical postion is not in its favour either was its economy. Castro to protect the revolution against foreign agression whether its physcial, verbal, propaganda, through false accusations etc has had to develop certain methods and adjust the economy and society as a whole in Cuba in order for those blood sucking US diplomats not to lay a hand on Cuba. I think the oppturnities in Cuba are enourmous and of great value, if only other nations around Cuba join the struggle and unite with Cuba, but as this also hasnt happened it is hard to judge Castro in the aspect of he has potrayed communism and its theoretical value. (It is worthwhile to point out that Venezuela and Bolivia, at the moment, are on a decent path towards this solidarity and unity with Cuba)

[matiasm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:13 PM
The best revolution would be one without any so-called "leaders", we dont want dictatorships anymore. As benevolent as some leader may be, he will allocate himself in power, and carry on with the Leninist garbage. This has been shown throughout history. The working class needs to take matters into their own hands and stop depending on leaders.
Yes, that is what communism is based on its mainroot is Proletariat Democracy.

But is the conscious of the people and there idelogical views ready or furthermore will it be ready before they pass away or before they get there heads brained washed. A vanguard can initiate the revolution then it is up to the people to learn, consciously, theorically and morally so they can then conserve and protect the revolution and build towards a proletariat democratic society.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:52 AM
Keep spewing bourgeois lies, worthless pseudo-socialist.


Firstly, if you hate this forum so much why post here?

If we are all worthless bourgeois pseudo-socialists then set up your own hardline Stalinist/Maoist site.

And we'll see how much support you get.

You guys just can't get it into your heads, your holding back the spread of the leftist movement by hanging on to your outdated dogmas.

You are alienating people who may well support us, because they have seen what stalinism/maoism had to offer and (not suprisingly) rejected it as a viable alternative to capitalism.

You say that the soviet revolution and chinese revolution were the greatest in history.

Maybe they were, but they failed didn't they? The world is not communist so they failed.

Hanging on to that failure in the forlorn hope that 'we'll get it right this time honest' isn't going to sell well to the masses.

Neither is dismissing everything derogatory written about the USSR and China as bourgeois lies.

To be honest your tone on this thread seems to suggest you think yourself above us.

Not very Marxist is it :rolleyes: .

[Intelligitimate]

Firstly, if you hate this forum so much why post here?

To educate young radicals about the USSR and Stalin.


You guys just can't get it into your heads, your holding back the spread of the leftist movement by hanging on to your outdated dogmas.

This is bullshit. First off, no one pays a bit of attention to Trotskyism or anarchism outside of the US, where real revolutions take place. It is only in the US that these ideas have any hold on young radicals, and the class struggle is pathetic here. It is Trotskyism and anarchism that hold everything back. It is the anti-communism of Trotskyites and anarchists that hold socialism back.


You are alienating people who may well support us, because they have seen what stalinism/maoism had to offer and (not suprisingly) rejected it as a viable alternative to capitalism.

I get messages from young radicals all the time regarding what I say about the USSR and Stalin, very interested in learning something besides the anti-communist propaganda of the bourgeoisie, fascists, Trots and anarchists. People are very interested in what I have to say, because it is different from the anti-communist shit you and the Right spew.

Beating the anti-communists here in debate in easy. People like Mesijs run away when it comes to debating real history, as the Stalin threads show. And every time they fail to do anything besides crying "Holocaust Denier," we win. We will continue making fools of anti-communists like yourself, and exposing your sympathies to reactionary trash. There are those that have been misguided by anti-communism, and that can be won over to socialism, and then there are those that are anti-communist trash who really need to be on some democrat-liberal forum. I hope you are the former and not the latter.


Maybe they were, but they failed didn't they? The world is not communist so they failed.

Assuming the PRC is a failure for a moment, what does that matter? Did not Marx study the Paris Commune, even though it was a failure? We can learn from failures, Janus. It is our duty as revolutionaries to do just that. Anti-communist history is full of lies meant to prevent us from learning about these events, which is why it is vitally important to counter their lies to truly understand where they went wrong.

[Clarksist]

This is bullshit. First off, no one pays a bit of attention to Trotskyism or anarchism outside of the US, where real revolutions take place.

Well, that's not really true at all... but if you've never left the US, I can see where you'd get that impression. Spain had/has an anarchist presence which is stronger than the US. The UK has a growing number of anarchists as well.

Not to mention the growth of left wing communism in South America which you would probably see as "bourgeois anarchist fascist white collar pro-US pro-Imperialist anti-communist anti-worker anti-freedom dogma", but you've yet to provide any theory behind it.


It is the anti-communism of Trotskyites and anarchists that hold socialism back.

How? By saying that the USSR and China weren't glistening utopias? Well guess what: they weren't. It's utterly ridiculous to deny that the USSR and China were major blows to a true worker's revolution. Why? Because at no point did they surpass developed capitalist nations. And now, whether you like it or not, the PRC is capitalistic!!!


People are very interested in what I have to say, because it is different from the anti-communist shit you and the Right spew.

I'm sure they are lining up to hear what you have to say about the vanguard and the wonderful workers utopia Stalin created. Despite your utter lack of facts to base any of what you say on.


Beating the anti-communists here in debate in easy.

Wait, beating? What your trying to do here is win? That is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard of on this forum! Instead of trying to win, why not try to learn and develop your ideas and give in your two cents? Since when was this about winning?

How marxist...


We will continue making fools of anti-communists like yourself, and exposing your sympathies to reactionary trash.

First off, right now you are seriously looking like the fool.

Second off, rhetoric is no way to make fools of other people. "Reactionary trash" is exactly the kind of wording your hero Stalin might have used, but then... he might have thought you were too much like him. In which case you may have been killed for it.

Hooray for the people's revolution!


Assuming the PRC is a failure for a moment, what does that matter? Did not Marx study the Paris Commune, even though it was a failure? We can learn from failures, Janus. It is our duty as revolutionaries to do just that.

The problem is, you will never learn from them because you can't admit that the USSR, the PRC, etc., were failures.

[Dreckt]

Back to the topic - if communism will fail or not will be for the future to decide, but as well as the actions of the revolution. At some point, hopefully, people will react on how society is going - new restrictions and new laws that make an entire generation criminals. One day, people is bound to have enough, and crush the state.

But of course, it also depend on how things will work out. History has showed us that old regimes and old thinking collapsed once a new system of thought emerged. Then why did these revolutions happen? That is because, or so I think, those revolutions was fought hand by hand - by people in an environment that already included war and slughter.

The world today is a very different place. Technology may help us in our revolution, but the state can use that very technology to battle us - I mean tanks, advanced weapon systems, robotic aircraft, and so on. Propaganda spread by paper, TV, radio and internet. I think that the next revolution will not only be hard, but important as well.

How big is the chance of revolution when the state can have robots instead of cops, under their control? Of course, this is just science-fiction at this point - but think about it. Compare a robot that is stronger and faster than a human. A robot can not be corrupted, it won't complain for unreasonable or unjust orders by it's masters. It needs no money, no sleep and no entertainment. It can kill without having to go trough trauma and later become insane or hospitalized for the rest of it's life. Why would the upper class neglect such an idea?

It is the perfect weapon not only to combat crime, but to keep the population under the control of the state indifinetely. So the revolution is not only important, like I said, but a necessity to be achieved within the coming 100 years.

[Viva Fidel!!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:49 PM

Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

The countries that these leaders are from were all third world. Marx proposed that communist revolution would first take place in the advanced capitalist countries such as Western European nations. The advanced capitalist countries have the material conditions (infrastructure, social/production realtions) that gives grounds for the success of a communist revolution. The third world has not yet developed these conditions so any chance at communism will not work.
I'm one that believes communisim in Cuba would have worked if it wasn't for the Embargo. The country was the richest in the third world and the most beautiful. The embargo was made to destroy the Cuban revolution and Castro's image. Before the embargo, there was enough food supply to feed all of Cuba. After the embargo, Fidel had no choice but to raise food prices in order to maintain a decent economy. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba went into the "special period" which led them into the worst conditions they have ever faced. Fidel Castro doesn't make communisim look bad, The United States has made Fidel Castro look bad.

The embargo along with the false propaganda might have ruined Castro's image, but it has not destroyed the Cuban Revolution because it still lives on.

[Comrade-Z]

The embargo definitely screwed Cuba. But you think communism would have resulted in Cuba if the embargo hadn't existed? Think of what communism entails--the self-activity of millions of proletarians in the workplace, communties, and country-wide running society. Materialism and atheism. Sexual liberation (and the end of homophobia, misogyny, etc.). An end to racism and nationalism--internationalism, in short. And not to mention the production of goods and services for use rather than exchange and the free appropriation of products from society according to reasonable need. With all of this in mind, do you think the Cuban people really wanted communism? Do you think they were ready for communism? Why, then, did they settle for the type of social-democracy that they got under Castro? Of course, the U.S. imperialist presence was a huge factor, but that's how the cards fell, unfortunately. Could Cuba have survived as a truly communist society while being surrounded by U.S. imperialism and other hostile capitalist powers, even without the embargo?

[Intelligitimate]

Well, that's not really true at all... but if you've never left the US, I can see where you'd get that impression. Spain had/has an anarchist presence which is stronger than the US. The UK has a growing number of anarchists as well.

Both countries also have considerable Marxist-Leninist influence, probably larger than anarchist, though I can’t really say for sure. I don’t follow anarchist movements, because they do nothing.


Not to mention the growth of left wing communism in South America which you would probably see as "bourgeois anarchist fascist white collar pro-US pro-Imperialist anti-communist anti-worker anti-freedom dogma", but you've yet to provide any theory behind it.

Such as? I assure you, I am not anti-Chavez. In fact, the people who are anti-Chavez on this forum are the anarchists, specifically the RAAN thugs here.


How? By saying that the USSR and China weren't glistening utopias?

No one in this thread has said that, have they? So you can burn that strawman.


It's utterly ridiculous to deny that the USSR and China were major blows to a true worker's revolution.

What is utterly ridiculous is anti-communist people like yourself claiming to be socialists, because you actually hate socialism with a passion.


Why? Because at no point did they surpass developed capitalist nations.

More complete bullshit. So the USSR is a failure because it didn’t match the standards of the imperialist capitalist countries? Why not compare it with the vast majority of capitalist hell holes, which is far, far out did? Why not look at how socialism dramatically improved the lives of millions of people? The USSR went from just another backwards shithole to a super-power in a matter of years because of socialism, while capitalism caused Russia and the rest of the former USSR economic disaster.


And now, whether you like it or not, the PRC is capitalistic!!!

Again, do you know what a joint-enterprise is? China didn’t have a lot of choice in the matter after the Sino-Soviet split. Perhaps you should read this article for an alternative perspective:

http://www.ptb.be/scripts/article.phtml?se...BOBB&obid=29091 (http://www.ptb.be/scripts/article.phtml?section=A3AAABBOBB&obid=29091)


I'm sure they are lining up to hear what you have to say about the vanguard and the wonderful workers utopia Stalin created. Despite your utter lack of facts to base any of what you say on.

Come down to the history forum, and I’ll gladly hand you your ass.


Wait, beating? What your trying to do here is win?

Yes, winning radicals to communism and turning them against anti-communist lies is what I’m trying to do here.


Instead of trying to win, why not try to learn and develop your ideas and give in your two cents?

There is nothing to learn here from most people. The people here are incredibly ignorant. The only thing I have learned here is just how reactionary anarchists can be.


First off, right now you are seriously looking like the fool.

I don’t care what anti-communists like yourself think of defending socialism. I will continue defending socialism against people who hate it, like yourself.


Second off, rhetoric is no way to make fools of other people. "Reactionary trash" is exactly the kind of wording your hero Stalin might have used, but then... he might have thought you were too much like him. In which case you may have been killed for it.

It is obvious you have never read a single thing Stalin ever wrote. Try reading his debate with the famous author HG Wells for starters:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/...ry/cc835_44.htm (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm)


The problem is, you will never learn from them because you can't admit that the USSR, the PRC, etc., were failures.

I can admit they were failures in certain ways. Allow me to quote something at length on the subject:




Originally posted by Grover Furr
Drieux on this list, and some others in private email, have
stated that I'm trying to "rescue Stalin" or even "Stalinism". Since
I've never said anything of the kind, I'd like to clarify.

1. My initial posts were in response to the kind of unthinking
anti-communism which, despite the questioning of authority that began
to take place in the 60s, is still far too widely shared "on the left"
and indeed by thoughtful people generally. The "gleichschaltung"
("co-ordination" -- Hitler's term for bringing all aspects of culture
in line with Nazi philosophy) of American culture during the Cold War
produced a mentality something like this: if you question "the faith",
the "party line," you are a heretic and guilty of all the sins of all
heretics. This mentality is still very much alive.


I "question," in fact reject, the Cold War lies about Stalin, the
USSR, and the communist movement because they have been proven time
and again to be false. My "loyalty" here is not to Stalin, but to the
truth, as demonstrated by the best contemporary research.


I think it is quite an astounding demonstration of the extent to
which so many of us have internalized the norms of this Cold War
culture that close to 20 years of research by over a dozen major
scholars in the field of Soviet studies, published in major journals
of "bourgeois scholarship" and in books by major academic publishing
houses, should be virtually COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to the members of this
list of literate, often even of academic people, many of whom have
strong views on the subjects of this research and some of whom
actually claim to know something about the history of the USSR.


ANYONE who did as I did 20 years ago -- that is, read the Cold
War trash about the USSR (I didn't know it was "trash" at the time, of
course), and then set out to read what non-communist academics in the
West were writing about the USSR from 1917 to WWII would have found
and, I dare say, been fascinated by, this research.


That very, very few people have bothered says a lot about the
extent of our collective indoctrination in anti-communism, in my
opinion.


It would be very interesting to have a discussion on these
questions with persons who were familiar with this research. After
all, it's not univocal -- it doesn't all "say the same thing."
Furthermore, virtually none of the researchers are "pro-communist" in
any sense. In my experience most have taken "liberal" anti-communist
positions. So any number of different positions could be argued well
on the basis of this research.


In fact, however, practically nobody has ever even heard of this
stuff. This is the culture we live in! Anti-communist to the core, and
in ways we don't even recognize. Yes, I do blame us! We ought to know
better by now! The same liars and murderers who fed us Jim Crow and
the Vietnam War feed us the history we learn. It's no good to blame
them -- WE ARE THE FOOLS if we continue to accept the "American Party
Line" which is also the "Business Party Line" or, more accurately, the
"Capitalist Party Line."


We are so, so cautious about being misled by the "Communist Party
Line!" But, realistically, what is likely to mislead us more -- that,
or the "line" we are all taught in THIS country? I think the answer is
obvious.


One analogy comes to mind: that of the mass media. Many literate
people are at least somewhat familiar with the
Chomsky-Bagdikian-Parenti kind of media criticism: the mass media act
as a propaganda system, under tight ideological control, and in
foreign affairs act virtually as a State propaganda organ. However, we
don't ACT as though we "know" this. We don't take it very seriously.
Therefore, we are constantly finding out over and over again that "the
media lie", and just as constantly being disillusioned -- "deja vu all
over again."


[A parenthesis here -- modern mass media criticism certainly
comes out of the anti-authoritarian ferment of the 60s. It wasn't only
the Czechs, Poles and Russians who were learning that the press
coudn't be trusted -- it was those of us who were in the Civil Rights
and anti-war movements here, too! Critics such as Chomsky and Ed
Herman cut their teeth on Vietnam War reporting -- both wrote books,
now collector's items, on US atrocities in the Vietnam War (I have
them). Other who did so were Robert Cirino, Ben Bagdikian, Gay
Tuchman, Michael Parenti (who mainly summed up the work of others).


This is all a product of the 60s as well, and I'd be VERY
interested in discussing it with interested parties on this list!]


2. Second, I'm not ONLY interested in pointing out crude Cold-War
lies when they appear, as they do very, very often.


I think I'm like many other people whom I met and knew in the 60s
and since then -- people who recognize that capitalism is inherently
exploitative and rotten, and who would support the struggle for a
system based upon egalitarianism and production for use IF they had a
clear vision of what it was, and how to bring it about, and IF they
thought it were possible.


It's the work of anti-communism -- mainly in its form of
anti-Stalinism (i.e. lies about the Stalin period) -- to convince US
that this is all impossible. "Stalin was worse than Hitler" is a
lesson being spread abroad to justify capitalism, imperialism, racism,
and mass poverty, suffering and death! Does anyone think that Robert
Conquest and his ilk grind out the crap they do for the love of
"disinterested truth"? Give me a break!


The point here is that the work, the purpose, of anti-communism
is to so "demonize" the history of the USSR and the Comintern, as well
as so distort it with lies, that nobody will study it seriously to
learn what the Bolsheviks et al. did that was WRONG, and therefore
what they did that was RIGHT. And this is absolutely ESSENTIAL if we
are to learn from the past.


IF you are interested in building a better system, one not based
upon exploitation -- in other words, if you have serious reservations
about capitalism and everthing that goes along with it -- it is vital
that you recognize that the millions of people in the communist
movement in this century are YOUR ANCESTORS! They are the Spartacuses,
the Gabriel Prossers, the Tom Paines, the John Browns, the Eugene
Debses FOR US. The Communist movement has been the largest attempt in
world history to build a classless society based upon the common
people.


If we are going to advance in the future, we have to learn what
the strengths and weaknesses, the triumphs and the errors, of this
movement were. It's that simple. And, anti-communism would prevent --
DOES prevent -- us from doing this. Because the anti-communists do not
WANT us, or anyone, ever, to do this.


3. I have said this before during these discussions, but some do
not hear it so I'll say it again: I take a back seat to no one in
being critical of Stalin (as well as of the other titanic figures of
the communist movement: Mao, Lenin, Marx, and of course the lesser but
significant figures like Ho or even Castro). The old communist
movement has been dead as a force for positive, anti-capitalist change
for decades! Once again, this was convincingly demonstrated for the
first time NOT by anti-communist liars, but by the Chinese CP in the
documents of the Sino-Soviet dispute, which are seldom read now,
perhaps, but which I and many, many others studied critically and with
great interest in the mid-sixties.


Many or most of the failures of the communist movement are
traceable to Stalin, and even further back, to Lenin and Marx. Clearly
there is nothing to be gained by "rescuing" Stalin or anybody if the
price of doing so is to be uncritical. This heroic movement FAILED.


It's of great interest WHY it failed, and also what its SUCCESSES
were. I can't think of a more important question facing the majority
of the human race today, frankly.


The work of anti-communism -- and, since that is the specific
topic, of anti-Stalinism -- is to _prevent this serious process of
study and learning from the past in order to advance to a better
future_. In other words, if the history of the past is poisoned, we
are condemned to an endless future of exploitation.


That is the importance of fighting anti-communism, in my view.


One final remark: Hiding the horrors of capitalism is an
essential component of anti-communism. And many writers of the 60s
first began to open this up to my consciousness. It was during the 60s
and in conjunction with the Vietnam War that I and many, many others
first began learning about the incredibly brutal history of Western,
capitalist imperialism. I would like to hear discussions about 60s
anti-imperialist consciousness on this list, too.


In fact, it was seeing the similarities between classic Communist
anti-imperialism and the anti-imperialism of the anti-Vietnam War
protest that began my own process of thinking about these questions. I
know this was true for many others as well, no doubt many on this
list.


Sincerely,


Grover Furr

[Clarksist]

I don’t follow anarchist movements, because they do nothing.

Yeah, I mean anarchist never fought in the Spanish Civil War did they? And fuck, anarchists couldn't be seen at the mass riots in Seattle and Washington D.C.

Oh wait...


Such as? I assure you, I am not anti-Chavez. In fact, the people who are anti-Chavez on this forum are the anarchists, specifically the RAAN thugs here.

I was talking more about the people, not so much the bourgeois political figures who are only seeking re-election and power.


No one in this thread has said that, have they? So you can burn that strawman.

Well, I think quite highly of socialism. And if you are claiming USSR and the PRC were socialist countries... then I'd say its about as close to a utopia as you can get.


So the USSR is a failure because it didn’t match the standards of the imperialist capitalist countries? Why not compare it with the vast majority of capitalist hell holes, which is far, far out did? Why not look at how socialism dramatically improved the lives of millions of people? The USSR went from just another backwards shithole to a super-power in a matter of years because of socialism, while capitalism caused Russia and the rest of the former USSR economic disaster.

I'm saying it was a failure because the USSR is no longer around. And while I'll gladly agree that the completely open capitalist economic system crushed the former Soviet Union... the Soviet Union was also a state-capitalist economy.

I'd like to give special attention to the part where you say: "The USSR went from just another backwards shithole to a super-power in a matter of years because of socialism". First off, I'm going to bite my tongue on the part where you say socialism because that will be discussed later. Now Russia was a fuedalist state before hand. So comparing the two systems and what they brought isn't saying much.


Again, do you know what a joint-enterprise is?

Go to the developed parts of China.

Then we'll talk about how "restricted" capitalism is there.


Come down to the history forum, and I’ll gladly hand you your ass.

MATURITY.


There is nothing to learn here from most people. The people here are incredibly ignorant. The only thing I have learned here is just how reactionary anarchists can be.

Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. Take down the defensive shell and just look and listen. There is much to be learned. The is much to be learned everywhere you go.

And how are anarchist reactionary? Being a reactionary means that you are trying to hold back progress. I would say anyone who supports personality cults is more reactionary than someone who sees the state as the main source of proletarian oppression.


I don’t care what anti-communists like yourself think of defending socialism. I will continue defending socialism against people who hate it, like yourself.

I don't hate socialism. I'm not anti-communist. You are espousing the same dogmatic cultish rhetoric that could be heard behind the walls of the Kremlin... up to the minute that the Berlin Wall came down.


It is obvious you have never read a single thing Stalin ever wrote. Try reading his debate with the famous author HG Wells for starters:

In that interview (which is actually, ironically, one of the few things of Stalin I have read before) Stalin from his own mouth speaks of socialism and a planned economy in "top-down" terms.

He had it all wrong. Stalin didn't realize that socialism's planned economy is to put the workers in control, instead of the bourgeois. Stalin (as with Lenin and Mao) sought to put the economy under their control. That's isn't a dictatorship of the proletariat. Its a dictatorship over the proletariat.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Now, you make mention of "socialism" in the USSR and the PRC a lot. However, Leninist and Maoist doctrine is very different from much of communist theory. It seeks to create revolution in the third world. Because of their belief in historical materialism... that leaves their theory with a big gap. How do you go from undeveloped semi-fuedalistic society to socialism without the capitalist development?

Tah-da! State capitalism. Or as the maoists call it now: new democracy. The government talks like a socialist. And it looks socialist. The problem is... it isn't socialist. There is a state-capitalist economy until socialism can take hold. Stalin even spoke of making "socialism in one country", where the USSR would develop socialism for itself and not worry about the global revolution Trotsky talked about. But did you catch that... even he said it was "developing" socialism. It wasn't socialism, but it was "working on it".

[Ol' Dirty]

How can something fail if it hasn't even been initiated? There hasn't been one true communist society on Earth, as of yet, and one damn sure isn't going to just pop up out of thin air. Communism is a theory, an egg in the womb of the mind (we need some sperm, stat!). To expect it to be a fully mature, adult ecnomic system in a few decades is damn foolish, to say the least. As has been said before, capitalism has had many centuries to develop. Communism has only been around for, what, one-hundred and fifty years? Grow up, people. Communism isn't dead (unless it's a stillborn baby :( ): It hasn't been born yet.

We need to keep trying, keep struggling, and keep waiting for people to realize their potential. Rome wasn't built (or conquered) in a day. We need to keep proggressing towards our goals. We need to agitate the masses, and create a solid base on which to, how do you say, build a new Rome.

Go.

[Ferg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:49 PM

Look at people like Castro, Mao, Stalin and anyone else out there who claimed to be part of a communist party. who faught in revolution. what have they done for communism besides hurt the name.

The countries that these leaders are from were all third world. Marx proposed that communist revolution would first take place in the advanced capitalist countries such as Western European nations. The advanced capitalist countries have the material conditions (infrastructure, social/production realtions) that gives grounds for the success of a communist revolution. The third world has not yet developed these conditions so any chance at communism will not work.
Communism is about redistribution of the wealth. It doesn't work in 3rd world countries because there is no wealth the redistribute. You see, these people in poverty are looking for a quick fix. I believe that an initial gain to all those who are poor, would give them drive to continue. Communism would work best in Ireland, they're the most productive and it would greatly benefit the country. If you think about it, Communism is collective capitalism in it's purest sence. Harder people work, the more they earn and that's what capitialism is in it's purest form however western capitalism revolves around the individual and not the collective. But in a communist utopia, there would be no money, nor a barter system.

[Intelligitimate]

Yeah, I mean anarchist never fought in the Spanish Civil War did they?

They did nothing but complete but betray the Republic and do retarded shit like murdering priests.


And fuck, anarchists couldn't be seen at the mass riots in Seattle and Washington D.C.

That is nothing. Anarchists don’t start revolutions anywhere. The only reason why Makhno and the Spanish traitors could do anything was because the USSR was giving them weapons, because they falsely believed they could trust them.


I was talking more about the people, not so much the bourgeois political figures who are only seeking re-election and power.

God damn, another fucking worthless anti-Chavez reactionary pseudo-socialist.


Well, I think quite highly of socialism.

You hate socialism like any other anti-communist. Your opinions are no different than fascists regarding socialism.

Really, there is no point in responding to any more of your anti-communist bullshit. It is just filled with more half-assed reasoning and meaningless buzz-words like “state capitalism,” borrowed from Trotskyite factions you know nothing about. You’re living proof of just how reactionary and ignorant anarchism is.

[red team]

The scientific alternative: Technocracy (http://www.technocracy.ca)

[Janus]

They did nothing but complete but betray the Republic
By establishing their own collectives and autonomy? It was the Stalinists betrayed the anarchists though.


God damn, another fucking worthless anti-Chavez reactionary pseudo-socialist.
Chavez is allowing foreign corporations to invest and take over Venezuelan resources. Why should we support that?


You hate socialism like any other anti-communist.
You do know what communism is, right?

[Si Pinto]

They did nothing but complete but betray the Republic and do retarded shit like murdering priests.


Whereas the Stalinists did useful things like shoot the non-communists :rolleyes:

It was the USSR's mishandling of the situation in Spain that helped the Fascists gain the victory.

There is already a thread on this if you want some info.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51521


That is nothing. Anarchists don’t start revolutions anywhere. The only reason why Makhno and the Spanish traitors could do anything was because the USSR was giving them weapons, because they falsely believed they could trust them.

No it was because the USSR thought it could turn a civil war into a communist revolution, even though the vast majority of people on the republican side had no interest in Spain becoming communist.

Stalin's answer to this was to shoot and divide people who were fighting trying to prevent another fascist state being set up in Europe.

Some 'help' that! :rolleyes:

The USSR's actions completely broke up the republican effort. You only have to look at what happened from 1938 until Franco's victory parade.

As I said on the other thread. If the USSR can take any credit for it's arming of the republicans, then it must take much of the blame for it's defeat as well.


God damn, another fucking worthless anti-Chavez reactionary pseudo-socialist.


How the hell can you call someone anti-chavez? The guy hasn't done anything yet to make any kind of judgement on him, sure he's talked about doing a lot, but so does every politician.

Just because he drapes a socialist flag around himself means nothing, when he puts into action the things he's been talking about, then we can make a proper judgement on him.

If he's as socialist as he says he is then it should be a very interesting time ahead.

Unfortunately, most politicians draped in socialist colours are anything but.

Blair?


You hate socialism like any other anti-communist. Your opinions are no different than fascists regarding socialism.

Really, there is no point in responding to any more of your anti-communist bullshit. It is just filled with more half-assed reasoning and meaningless buzz-words like “state capitalism,” borrowed from Trotskyite factions you know nothing about. You’re living proof of just how reactionary and ignorant anarchism is.

Why are you being so fucking aggressive? Your picking fights with people who want the same things you do, but have different ways of getting there.

If you want to flame people then get yourself onto the OI forum and you can do it all you like.

Communism and Anarchism are amazingly similar in many respects, there are some fundemental differences as well I'm not denying it, but the ultimate aims are alike, and certainly our enemies remain the same and it's not the socialists.

The problem most communists and anarchists have with socialism is when people see it as an 'end' as opposed to a 'means to an end'.

[Intelligitimate]

The anarchist narrative of Spain is pure and utter fantasy. The Republic would have been doomed from the start without the USSR. The USSR and Mexico were the only countries selling them weapons. The USSR organized the international brigade to defend the Republic. They did things like evacuating children to the USSR, so they wouldn’t get hurt in the conflict. I highly recommend Daniel Kowalsky’s Stalin and the Spanish Civil War. To quote him:

“Was Stalin the malicious meddler, saboteur, opportunist, and murderer that detractors from both Spanish camps have long maintained? The evidence presented in this study allows for an emphatic if qualified refutation of the long-held demonization of Stalin's role in the Spain.”

Kowalsky is not a Marxist, but just another conventional historian. You can access this work for free via a trial membership to some ebook thing Columbia University Press is doing, or I can send you a copy of the pdf files of the chapters. The online version contains tons of video from the USSR showing their incredible support of Spain.


How the hell can you call someone anti-chavez? The guy hasn't done anything yet to make any kind of judgement on him, sure he's talked about doing a lot, but so does every politician.

Only infantile anarchist morons oppose Chavez.


Why are you being so fucking aggressive? Your picking fights with people who want the same things you do, but have different ways of getting there.

Anarchists do not want the same thing I do. I want socialism. Anarchists want a fantasy society that corresponds to some utopia they dreamed up in their head. Modern anarchism is pure anti-communism with a Leftist phraseology, and I want nothing at all to do with anti-communists.


Communism and Anarchism are amazingly similar in many respects, there are some fundemental differences as well I'm not denying it, but the ultimate aims are alike, and certainly our enemies remain the same and it's not the socialists.

Anarchists have proven time and time again to be enemies of socialism and allies of reaction.

[Clarksist]

The anarchist narrative of Spain is pure and utter fantasy. The Republic would have been doomed from the start without the USSR. The USSR and Mexico were the only countries selling them weapons.

That is a non-point. Because your original point (which you've scurried away from) was that anarchists "don't do anything", in fact I'll give you your exact quote:


I don’t follow anarchist movements, because they do nothing.

And that is that.


Only infantile anarchist morons oppose Chavez.

How is it infantile or moronic to oppose bourgeois democracy? If you support bourgeois democracy, you are really going against a lot of even Stalin's ideology, not to mention actual marxist ideology.


Anarchists do not want the same thing I do. I want socialism.

Well you said you were a marxist, and a marxist wants communism. Anarchism and communism are (prepare yourself) same thing. The only difference is that anarchism jumps into communism right after the revolution, while marxism wants the socialist government to "wither away" first.


Anarchists have proven time and time again to be enemies of socialism and allies of reaction.

Again you call anarchists reactionaries without having any grasp of the meaning of either of the words.

[Janus]

Modern anarchism is pure anti-communism with a Leftist phraseology, and I want nothing at all to do with anti-communists.
I'm beginning to question whether you know what communism is.

Look, if you wanna debate Stalin or Chavez, take it to History or Politics. This is forum is for Theory.

[Intelligitimate]

That is a non-point. Because your original point (which you've scurried away from) was that anarchists "don't do anything", in fact I'll give you your exact quote:

Allow me to correct myself. When anarchists actually are doing something, it is fucking up real revolutions, like Makhno and the Spanish anarchists.


How is it infantile or moronic to oppose bourgeois democracy?

What is moronic is your understanding of the situation in Venezuela. Marxists do not blindly oppose anyone involved in bourgeois democracy.


Well you said you were a marxist, and a marxist wants communism. Anarchism and communism are (prepare yourself) same thing.

I don't give a fuck what anarchists say they want. It is completely meaningless. They are enemies of socialism. Anarchism is anti-communism.


Again you call anarchists reactionaries without having any grasp of the meaning of either of the words.

Anarchists make common-cause with the most reactionary movements like Solidarity, Hungarian uprising, etc. They draw their history from the same sources as the bourgeoisie and fascists. They murder real revolutionaries in cooperations with fascists. Anarchists are reactionary trash.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:02 PM
Anarchists make common-cause with the most reactionary movements like Solidarity, Hungarian uprising, etc. They draw their history from the same sources as the bourgeoisie and fascists. They murder real revolutionaries in cooperations with fascists. Anarchists are reactionary trash.
Wait, wait, I'm no Anarchist, but are you a Stalinist or a revisionist?

It sounds like you support Stalin AND the revisionist Soviet Bloc after 1956. :huh:

[Janus]

Well, he obviously supports Stalin and the repressive actions of the USSR. I suppose that he wouldn't mind living in a repressive, police state.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:02 PM
Anarchists make common-cause with the most reactionary movements like Solidarity, Hungarian uprising, etc. They draw their history from the same sources as the bourgeoisie and fascists. They murder real revolutionaries in cooperations with fascists. Anarchists are reactionary trash.
Wait a minute here.

Your saying that every Hungarian on those streets was an anarchist, fascist or had been duped by anarchists/fascist sympathisers?

Come on, be realistic for gods sake.

There were oppressed workers all over the place!

Was everyone in Tienaman Square the same?

Oppression is just that....oppression...whether the oppressors sing the 'red flag' or the 'horst wessel'.

Don't waste your socialist time thinking otherwise.

[ack]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Jun 22 2006, 11:24 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Jun 22 2006, 11:24 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 02:27 AM
This is international capitalism. America isnt just exploiting Americans but other countries as well. When the peoples of these countries being exploited have their revolution, the european powers and capitalism will collapse. :redstar2000:
I don't mean to derail this thread but the problem with third world revolutions is that when they happen Americans and others of the first world are kept so fat and happy because most of the wealth comes here, so when they happen we're easily persuaded to back our ruling class in taking out the revolutionaries. Our consciousness does not feel the same level exploitation-- we don't know what the peasents and workers are going through in say South America. The average North American thinks the reason why the third world is so backward is because they're stupid, but at the same they don't wonder where all this wealth comes from. [/b]
Also, when America sees a country turn communist, they say, "EVIL!", and possibly interfere and attempt to restore the overthrown to power.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:40 PM
Wait, wait, I'm no Anarchist, but are you a Stalinist or a revisionist?

It sounds like you support Stalin AND the revisionist Soviet Bloc after 1956. :huh:
I don't accept the Maoist line of "Soviet social imperialism" on the USSR after the Sino-Soviet split, if that is what you're asking. My opinion is that very little good analysis of the USSR came out of China during the Sino-Soviet split. I suggest reading Ludo Martens' essay www.wpb.be/icm/2005/selected_reading_list/Dir95_India_Seminary_LudoM_1995_EN.doc+%22on+certa in+aspects+of+the+struggle+against+revisionism%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1]On (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:YZMjFAzSad4J:[url) certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism.[/url]

[Clarksist]

What is moronic is your understanding of the situation in Venezuela. Marxists do not blindly oppose anyone involved in bourgeois democracy.

Wait a second, who said it was blind? Hugo Chavez cannot change the social and economic foundations of a nation through bourgeois democracy. Marx and Lenin both stated that... are you the enemy of socialism? :huh:


I don't give a fuck what anarchists say they want. It is completely meaningless.

It isn't meaningless. What is meaningless are words being spouted from an idealogue when they can't take in other world views and try to figure them out or accept them.

Have some fucking humility.


They draw their history from the same sources as the bourgeoisie and fascists. They murder real revolutionaries in cooperations with fascists. Anarchists are reactionary trash.

I recommend knowing what anarchism is. Wikipedia has a nice article on it, and InfoShops can help you out there too. ;)


Well, he obviously supports Stalin and the repressive actions of the USSR. I suppose that he wouldn't mind living in a repressive, police state.

I guess that's why he loves it in the US. :P

[Intelligitimate]

Wait a second, who said it was blind? Hugo Chavez cannot change the social and economic foundations of a nation through bourgeois democracy. Marx and Lenin both stated that... are you the enemy of socialism? :huh:

That does not mean Chavez is not preparing the way for revolution by means other than bourgeois democracy. Do you not know of his close relationship with Castro, or do you also hate Cuban socialism?


What is meaningless are words being spouted from an idealogue when they can't take in other world views and try to figure them out or accept them.

Have some fucking humility.

Strange, I would advise you of the same.


I recommend knowing what anarchism is. Wikipedia has a nice article on it, and InfoShops can help you out there too. ;)

I'm quite familiar with theoretical nonsense of anarchism, thank you. I'm also quite aware of its extreme anti-communism. It is quite clear anarchists hate actually-existing socialism far, far more than they hate capitalism, judging from their history of violence against socialism, their theoretical crap, and their support for any and all fascist uprisings against socialism. Anarchism defines itself in extreme opposition to socialism. Anarchism is the left-wing of anti-communism, along with various forms of Trotskyism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well, he obviously supports Stalin and the repressive actions of the USSR. I suppose that he wouldn't mind living in a repressive, police state.

Well dont most stalinist think that the repressive police state is actually a "higher form of democracy" ?

Some stalinists on REVLEFT say that north Korea is one of the most Democratic Countries in the World.

It confuses me so much

[Axel1917]

A good deal of things need to be studied in order to get a grasp of these problems:

The isolation of the revolution in backward Russia, and its degeneration into Stalinism due to it.

Stalin's policies of turning communist parites into pawns in foreign policy,.

Bankruptness of the Stalinist-Menshevik two-stage "theory" causing many revolutions to fail.

The postwar boom that had planted the illusion that capitalism was "delivering the goods."

Sections of the Fourth International being unable to adapt to changing circumstances. They merely repeated Trotsky's words without understanding his method.

Witch hunts in the USA and abroad.

Stalinist bureaucrats eventually selling out to capitalism.

Today's problem of mass sectarianism.

[Clarksist]

That does not mean Chavez is not preparing the way for revolution by means other than bourgeois democracy. Do you not know of his close relationship with Castro, or do you also hate Cuban socialism?

Being buddy-buddy with a guy who led a revolution doesn't mean you lead a revolution.

And why would Chavez want revolution? He has it made. He may be a true socialist, but he isn't going about socialism in a way that will work.

Now if it does, I will be happy for a generally bloodless win for socialism. But history has taught us that bloodless revolutions rarely happen.


I'm also quite aware of its extreme anti-communism.

Hmm... seeing as anarchism is the same economic and political structure of communism, I have a sneaking suspicion you may want to learn more about anarchism.


Some stalinists on REVLEFT say that north Korea is one of the most Democratic Countries in the World.

It confuses me so much

You and me both.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:44 PM

I'm also quite aware of its extreme anti-communism.

Hmm... seeing as anarchism is the same economic and political structure of communism, I have a sneaking suspicion you may want to learn more about anarchism.
Again, I don't give a fuck what anarchists say they want. I've read plenty of anarchist bullshit, probably far more than you ever have. Anarchism is reactionary and extremely anti-communist.

[Avtomatov]

Agreed.

And when marx talks about the state disappearing in communism he means nation-states doesnt he? Not government.

[Clarksist]

Again, I don't give a fuck what anarchists say they want. I've read plenty of anarchist bullshit, probably far more than you ever have. Anarchism is reactionary and extremely anti-communist.

When you say, "what they say they want", what the fuck else do you have to go on?

Anarchism as an ideology is only comprised of this ideology... in other words, marxism is its own ideology and isn't altered because of what people who claim to be marxists do.

Also, how could you ever know if you've read more anarchist writing than I "ever" have? Moreover, that has nothing to do with the argument. Even if I haven't read as much anarchist writing as you have... that doesn't mean the point is wrong.

And by not backing up the "reactionary" and "anti-communist" statements (other then some references to Mahkno, which you also didn't back up) you just sound like a talking head. Its better to explain than just spout out rhetoric.


And when marx talks about the state disappearing in communism he means nation-states doesnt he? Not government.

Marx said that the state would "wither away". Meaning that the people become completely equal economically so that the government isn't needed because the bourgeois has been defeated.

That is the point behind the dictatorship of the proletariat. The only need for the DoP is to put the proletarian in power over the bourgeois, like in our society now where the bourgeois rules over the proletariat (true democracy... majority rules). When the bourgeois no longer exists because everyone has been turned into part of the proletariat, the DoP is no longer needed.

Anarchists don't agree that anybody has the right to rule over anyone else, and so they disagree with the idea of socialism before communism, because it supports an authority. In that way anarchists "jump to the point" while marxists "work their way".

[Iranon]

Anarchists don't agree that anybody has the right to rule over anyone else, and so they disagree with the idea of socialism before communism, because it supports an authority. In that way anarchists "jump to the point" while marxists "work their way".

So, the Anarchists decided to "jump to the point" because they "don't agree that anybody has the right to rule over anyone else" yet they decided to that joining the Spanish Government would be prudent to reaching their ends? That sounds like beliving in "transition" to me. As far as being anti-authoritarian; what's more authoritarian than killing those of opposing ideologies?

Anarchism, as an ideal, has never - ever - even come close to being a reality. The only thing "Anarchists" have produced is something akin to a riot that lasts a few years.

HOWEVER - I don't think this means Anarchism should be defamed by Communist movements; however, it is obvious that Anarchist's currently spend a vast more amount of time and resources defaming Communism than Communists do Anarchists - and, if you ever want to get past the Right's tired old anti-revolutionary rhetoric, it HAS to stop.

[Intelligitimate]

Asking for proof must be some kind of joke to you, because it is obvious from even a cursory reading of this forum that anarchists have nothing but distain for every socialist revolution ever. It is ironically funny, considering how Che himself was a "Stalinist." I suppose that is why this site is further distancing itself from Che.

Tell me, you obviously don't care what "Stalinists" say they want, right? I mean, you will never, ever be able to read a statement from Stalin regarding not wanting socialism and communism, but I'm sure that doesn't stop you from believing Stalin was some sort of counter-revolutionary fascist equal to Hitler, right?

Anarchists might say "We want communism" out of one side of their mouths, but out the other they spew the most slanderous bourgeois lies about socialist revolutions, and support fascist anti-Semitic groups like Solidarity. Hell, many Trotskyists said they wanted communism, while supporting US imperialism in Korea and Vietnam.

The disease of anti-communism has turned many radicals into pawns of imperialism and bourgeois reaction. Modern anarchism is but a manifestation of this disease. Anarchism is not just saying "We want communism now." Even the "Stalinists" of the PLP say that with the anarchists. No, anarchism comes with an entire interpretation of 20th century socialism, and this interpretation is bourgeois to the core. It is this element of anarchism that is reactionary and anti-communist, and it is this element we struggle against.

[Clarksist]

As far as being anti-authoritarian; what's more authoritarian than killing those of opposing ideologies?

Defending your right to freedom isn't authoritarian. Trying to destroy authoritarian systems when its the will of the people isn't authoritarian.

I've thought alot about that "if I kill someone, that's pretty commanding", but I guess it has more to do with the things I noted above that make it worth the while.


Anarchism, as an ideal, has never - ever - even come close to being a reality.

So? That doesn't make it any less of a good theory. Just because a true anarchist society has never been created doesn't mean its bad. (Note: if you interchange "anarchist" with "communist" in that sentence it makes just as much sense.)


HOWEVER - I don't think this means Anarchism should be defamed by Communist movements; however, it is obvious that Anarchist's currently spend a vast more amount of time and resources defaming Communism than Communists do Anarchists - and, if you ever want to get past the Right's tired old anti-revolutionary rhetoric, it HAS to stop.

I agree!


Asking for proof must be some kind of joke to you, because it is obvious from even a cursory reading of this forum that anarchists have nothing but distain for every socialist revolution ever.

I've met anarchists who sympathize for socialist revolutions, but don't support their ideology. Just as many communists sympathize for anarchist revolutions (or at least would), but not the ideology.

A freed proletariat is a freed proletariat, I don't care if its a red or black flag they wave.


It is ironically funny, considering how Che himself was a "Stalinist." I suppose that is why this site is further distancing itself from Che.

That's a good way of putting it (in quotations) because Che was not really a Stalinist in that he supported Stalin's ideology. I think he was a "Stalinist" in that as far as he was concerned, Stalin was better than Ike, and Che was more focused on South American liberation from yanqui imperialism than anything happening way up north.


I mean, you will never, ever be able to read a statement from Stalin regarding not wanting socialism and communism, but I'm sure that doesn't stop you from believing Stalin was some sort of counter-revolutionary fascist equal to Hitler, right?

Wrong.

I think Stalin believed he was doing what was needed.

I disagree.

Therefore I disagree with Stalinist tactics.


Anarchists might say "We want communism" out of one side of their mouths, but out the other they spew the most slanderous bourgeois lies about socialist revolutions, and support fascist anti-Semitic groups like Solidarity.

So you think anarchists are fascists and anti-Semitic? Listen to yourself. That is the LAST thing that anarchists would want. Except maybe Bakunin. But fuck Bakunin. :P


It is this element of anarchism that is reactionary and anti-communist, and it is this element we struggle against.

I've met anarchists so fucken petit-bourgeois it makes me wince. But I've also met anarchists so fucken revolutionary its an inspiration. Why not take every anarchist as an individual?

[TheProfessor]

Communism can never succeed in this day and age because we have yet to create "the new man". We as human beings are still led by our selfish desires and our egos, which is the root reason why Communism can never work...It is true however, Communism gets a bad reputation, much worse than Capitalism, but that's only because to make Communism work the leaders had to first create "a new man" and in trying to do so they oppressed their own people. How can you honestly force someone to be something, if they themselves don't want to be it? (i.e: You can't force someone to stop smoking, they have to realize the health hazards and stop smoking for themselves)...Stalin is a bad example of a Communist Leader because he was a purely power-hungry person. Even Lenin before he died, warned everyone of Stalin, yet no one believed the evil he could do. When they realized, it was too late and he was too powerful.

Another reason why Communism can never work is because it is always in competition with Capitalism. Unlike Capitalism, Communism can never thrive in that type of atmosphere. Communism fails in that atmosphere because to make more weapons and extract more money from its economy, it has to make its own citizens work harder and longer, exploiting them. This in itself, is the antithesis of the ideology that Communism is centered around and built upon. More money spent on a wars, means less money spent on the needs of its own the people and there has never been a time where Communism has been the dominant social system. There has never been a time, where Communism has had time to build its system into place and see it working without worrying about Capitalists spreading their views into their country and eroding the work that has been set in place. It has always been in a constant struggle with Capitalism and until we create a new man, Capitalism will always triumph.

Unless we create "a new man" and a new way of thinking, every revolution that will ever happen or take place, will always have a cyclical effect on its population. Evil tyrants get replaced by evil tyrants and the poorer people will always be oppressed by their leaders!

[KC]

Communism can never succeed in this day and age because we have yet to create "the new man". We as human beings are still led by our selfish desires and our egos, which is the root reason why Communism can never work...

Being "led by our selfish desires and our egos" is a cause of the society that we live in and isn't hardwired in humans. It is a result of social conditioning and nothing more.

Also, read up on communism because you know nothing about it.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 09:25 PM

Communism can never succeed in this day and age because we have yet to create "the new man". We as human beings are still led by our selfish desires and our egos, which is the root reason why Communism can never work...

Being "led by our selfish desires and our egos" is a cause of the society that we live in and isn't hardwired in humans. It is a result of social conditioning and nothing more.

Also, read up on communism because you know nothing about it.
Agreed.

This guy sounds like some sort of leftist Billy Graham.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:43 PM
Communism can never succeed in this day and age because we have yet to create "the new man". We as human beings are still led by our selfish desires and our egos, which is the root reason why Communism can never work...It is true however, Communism gets a bad reputation, much worse than Capitalism, but that's only because to make Communism work the leaders had to first create "a new man" and in trying to do so they oppressed their own people. How can you honestly force someone to be something, if they themselves don't want to be it? (i.e: You can't force someone to stop smoking, they have to realize the health hazards and stop smoking for themselves)...Stalin is a bad example of a Communist Leader because he was a purely power-hungry person. Even Lenin before he died, warned everyone of Stalin, yet no one believed the evil he could do. When they realized, it was too late and he was too powerful.

Another reason why Communism can never work is because it is always in competition with Capitalism. Unlike Capitalism, Communism can never thrive in that type of atmosphere. Communism fails in that atmosphere because to make more weapons and extract more money from its economy, it has to make its own citizens work harder and longer, exploiting them. This in itself, is the antithesis of the ideology that Communism is centered around and built upon. More money spent on a wars, means less money spent on the needs of its own the people and there has never been a time where Communism has been the dominant social system. There has never been a time, where Communism has had time to build its system into place and see it working without worrying about Capitalists spreading their views into their country and eroding the work that has been set in place. It has always been in a constant struggle with Capitalism and until we create a new man, Capitalism will always triumph.

Unless we create "a new man" and a new way of thinking, every revolution that will ever happen or take place, will always have a cyclical effect on its population. Evil tyrants get replaced by evil tyrants and the poorer people will always be oppressed by their leaders!
I would imagine you will be restricted. When you have a proper look at human history, biology and culture maybe you could come back with views that at least have some relationship with reality.

[Iranon]

Defending your right to freedom isn't authoritarian. Trying to destroy authoritarian systems when its the will of the people isn't authoritarian.

I've thought alot about that "if I kill someone, that's pretty commanding", but I guess it has more to do with the things I noted above that make it worth the while.

I agree that defending your freedom isn't authoritarian; but going down to a church and killing all the Clergy because you think they're likely to be agents of Franco is far more Authoritarian than Stalin's mass deportations of populations who, overwhelmingly, supported the NAZIs. (EDIT) Both Communists and Anarchists had some members who weren't educated properly, or were simply misled - we should learn from it, not use it as propaganda against each other.


So? That doesn't make it any less of a good theory. Just because a true anarchist society has never been created doesn't mean its bad. (Note: if you interchange "anarchist" with "communist" in that sentence it makes just as much sense.)


Hence why pointing out the failures of Leninism is just pointing in a mirror and why it should stop (and why the creator of this thread is counter-revolutionary, in my opinion); and the fact you agree with me on this inter-bickering makes me feel much, much better. Thank you.

"TheProfessor", firstly, I must state your "know it all" attitude will not help this conversation (also, why do I get the distinct feeling you are not a revolutionary?)


Communism can never succeed in this day and age because we have yet to create "the new man". We as human beings are still led by our selfish desires and our egos, which is the root reason why Communism can never work...It is true however, Communism gets a bad reputation, much worse than Capitalism, but that's only because to make Communism work the leaders had to first create "a new man" and in trying to do so they oppressed their own people.
and
Communism can never thrive in that type of atmosphere. Communism fails in that atmosphere because to make more weapons and extract more money from its economy, it has to make its own citizens work harder and longer, exploiting them. This in itself, is the antithesis of the ideology that Communism is centered around and built upon.


You're taking the minority and supposing it's the majority; Communist regimes, despite having a lower GDP per Capita, have long life spans for their citizens. Yes, some people were charged with crimes they didn't commit, but many did commit those crimes; the same thing happens in Capitalism. This is still true for those regimes like Vietnam which have integrated aspects of the free market into their economies.

Also, I suggest you read up on the differences between SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM.


How can you honestly force someone to be something, if they themselves don't want to be it? (i.e: You can't force someone to stop smoking, they have to realize the health hazards and stop smoking for themselves)...Stalin is a bad example of a Communist Leader because he was a purely power-hungry person. Even Lenin before he died, warned everyone of Stalin, yet no one believed the evil he could do. When they realized, it was too late and he was too powerful.

The same way you form a childs mind; not all force is physical and you're a fool if you think so. You suggest, you use propaganda, cultural pressure, etc. Sometimes force is necessary, as the NAZIs proved.

Stalin certainly wasn't kind, but calling him "purely power hungry" is nothing less than a regurgitation of misinformation.


Unless we create "a new man" and a new way of thinking, every revolution that will ever happen or take place, will always have a cyclical effect on its population. Evil tyrants get replaced by evil tyrants and the poorer people will always be oppressed by their leaders!

I recommend you read up on the Maoist position on Culture; which involves the dreaded "C" word - Censorship, and mind you this involves enforcing it much more tightly than Stalin.

Also - pray tell - what alternative to you propose? A person who points out faults and has no suggestion for improvements is doing nothing but harm.

[Clarksist]

I agree that defending your freedom isn't authoritarian; but going down to a church and killing all the Clergy because you think they're likely to be agents of Franco is far more Authoritarian than Stalin's mass deportations of populations who, overwhelmingly, supported the NAZIs.

Okay, killing agents of the enemy in a revolution is more of the "destroying authoritative systems" thing. And I question the differentiation of clergymen and nazis. :lol:


Hence why pointing out the failures of Leninism is just pointing in a mirror and why it should stop (and why the creator of this thread is counter-revolutionary, in my opinion);

I don't quite understand what you trying to say. I'll let you elaborate so I safeguard from misunderstanding.


and the fact you agree with me on this inter-bickering makes me feel much, much better. Thank you.

Yay for more agreement.


Communism can never succeed in this day and age because we have yet to create "the new man". We as human beings are still led by our selfish desires and our egos, which is the root reason why Communism can never work...

Completely unsubstantiated, back it up with proof of the human mind, and we'll talk. Otherwise, its just more of the bourgeois framework molding society.


How can you honestly force someone to be something, if they themselves don't want to be it?

Popular revolution would denote people do want to be free and get whatever they need for less work.


Stalin is a bad example of a Communist Leader because he was a purely power-hungry person.

He was a bad example of a Communist Leader, because you can't lead a non-existent government!


Communism fails in that atmosphere because to make more weapons and extract more money from its economy, it has to make its own citizens work harder and longer, exploiting them. This in itself, is the antithesis of the ideology that Communism is centered around and built upon.

You say that without a petri dish example. Come back with facts.

To The Professor: www.Marxists.org its a good website to learn about marxism.

[Janus]

It is ironically funny, considering how Che himself was a "Stalinist." I suppose that is why this site is further distancing itself from Che.
When was Che a Stalinist? He quickly became disillusioned with Stalinism and there was a high schance that he would've moved further left had he lived.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The only thing that continues to fail is the wet dream of an undemocratic state ruled by a single man that many leninists and stalinists posess.

[thebeautyofrevolution]

The truest reason Communism has fallen many times is that the communist regimes dont truly follow communism throughout. They end up going into dictatorships and are corrupt with power. I miss Che Guevara, who not only was a great leader, but did factory work and did his part while he was so great, putting him on the same level as everyone in Cuba.

[Intelligitimate]

That's a good way of putting it (in quotations) because Che was not really a Stalinist in that he supported Stalin's ideology.

Stalin’s ideology was Marxism-Leninism, which is what Che’s was.


Wrong.

I think Stalin believed he was doing what was needed.

I disagree.

Therefore I disagree with Stalinist tactics.

Would you care to give some examples?


So you think anarchists are fascists and anti-Semitic? Listen to yourself. That is the LAST thing that anarchists would want. Except maybe Bakunin. But fuck Bakunin.

No, I said they support these groups, like Solidarity and the Hungarian Uprising. This is a result of the anti-communism of anarchism, that sees the USSR as more evil than capitalism. It is the same extreme anti-communism that caused most of the Trots to commit the same error, and even worse, in regards to Korea and Vietnam.


I've met anarchists so fucken petit-bourgeois it makes me wince. But I've also met anarchists so fucken revolutionary its an inspiration. Why not take every anarchist as an individual?

Most anarchists I know are just radicals who haven’t learned enough history yet to throw off their anti-communism. It any case, it is possible to speak about ideologies without regard to individual adherents. Anarchism is anti-communist, again, not because they say they want communism “right now.” Again, even the PLP, one of the most pro-Stalin groups in America, says that with the anarchists. That is a petty difference that is unimportant to me (at this time). What is important is struggling against the anarchist interpretation of history, especially in regards to the nature of the USSR, Spain, Makhno, etc. It is the anarchist interpretation of 20th century socialism that is reactionary and bourgeois.

[chimx]

"Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day – but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!" -KM

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:19 AM
Again, I don't give a fuck what anarchists say they want. I've read plenty of anarchist bullshit, probably far more than you ever have. Anarchism is reactionary and extremely anti-communist.
I doubt you've read as much as me, so I'm interested to see you justify your opinions.

Please explain how anarchism is reactionary and how anarchism is "anti-communist".

[chimx]

anarchism is reactionary because it isn't pro-soviet. lolz.

[Clarksist]

Stalin’s ideology was Marxism-Leninism, which is what Che’s was.

Ahh, but there is where, I think, a mistake has been made.

Che's ideology had Leninism mixed in there, but was more of a nationalist liberation ideology. Stalin had a more imperialistic view.


Would you care to give some examples?

Some examples that Stalin thought he was doing the right thing? Any of his writings ever.


This is a result of the anti-communism of anarchism, that sees the USSR as more evil than capitalism.

Disliking the USSR's state capitalism more than capitalism isn't a "big deal". You are simply a broken record, "anti-communism" is anything that doesn't fit in to your program. Frankly, anarchists see something you don't: the USSR wasn't a communist society, it wasn't even a socialist state.

At least, if we are going by what Marx said. You aren't anti-marxist are you? :lol:


What is important is struggling against the anarchist interpretation of history, especially in regards to the nature of the USSR, Spain, Makhno, etc. It is the anarchist interpretation of 20th century socialism that is reactionary and bourgeois.

The anarchist interpretation of history (specifically the past 200 years or so that anarchists find "more relevant") is anti-authoritarian across the board. There is no smiley face being painted on Ronald Reagan. It is all an anti-authoritarian interpretation of history. Not anti-communist.


anarchism is reactionary because it isn't pro-soviet. lolz.

Count it. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Iranon]

Okay, killing agents of the enemy in a revolution is more of the "destroying authoritative systems" thing. And I question the differentiation of clergymen and nazis.

Well, the point of the matter is that the massacre of clergymen resulted in more supporters for Franco. And, as far as the difference between Clergymen and NAZIs - you can persuade people that NAZIs are full of shit much, much easier than you can strip them from their beliefs that have been hammered into them since childhood. Persecuting Christians and Christian authorities - history has shown - only results in them feeling like Martyrs and gaining popular support... against the "persecutors" of the Christians. :(


I don't quite understand what you trying to say. I'll let you elaborate so I safeguard from misunderstanding.

I'm saying that Leninism and Anarchism have both failed, so pointing out the historical failures of the others in propaganda wars is fucking stupid as, with minimal researching effort, you can point out attrocites commited by the other side.


The only thing that continues to fail is the wet dream of an undemocratic state ruled by a single man that many leninists and stalinists posess.

That's an excellent argument you have there.


Disliking the USSR's state capitalism more than capitalism isn't a "big deal".

Yes, it is - the #1 enemy is Imperialism, and, consequently, all those anti-USSR campaigns should've been concentrated at America instead. However, it's interesting to note many Communist groups are doing retarded things like supporting the coaltion in Iraq (the ICP, CPUSA, etc.), calling for invasions of Iran because of "womens rights" issues, etc. - basically getting in bed with teh conservatives - instead of spending time pointing out why this racial inequaltiy exists, how Imperialism still exists, etc.

EDIT:

This ties back into that statement where you and I agreed: Communists/Anarchists should spend less time fighting and more time fighting the common enemy - and your little statement there goes against the agreement I thought we reached.


Frankly, anarchists see something you don't: the USSR wasn't a communist society, it wasn't even a socialist state.

So? Iraq was further from being a socialist state than the USSR during Stalin's years, yet does that mean we should've been out on the streets calling for an invasion of Iraq, wasting valuable funds defaming Suddam Hussein? No, that'd be getting in bed with the Neo-Cons and is fucking retarded.

Also, his point also brings up the issue of Vietnam, wherein some "Social Democrats", and other "radicals" on the left, supported America's imperialist campaign in Vietnam - and that is a lesson we must learn from and, in the future, it must be made clear that people do similar actions are as "leftist" as the fucking NAZIs.



The anarchist interpretation of history (specifically the past 200 years or so that anarchists find "more relevant") is anti-authoritarian across the board. There is no smiley face being painted on Ronald Reagan. It is all an anti-authoritarian interpretation of history. Not anti-communist.

Do you mean to say that you'd lump Ho Chi Minh in with "bad guys" of History because he was Authoritarian? Also, do you mean to say Anarchists have no "gradation" of bad; i.e., Lenin was just as bad as Stalin who was just as bad as Hitler?

[chimx]

who uses terms like "good" or "bad" when speaking of history?