Communism bad name goes beyond Stalin and Mao

[R_P_A_S]

No matter where I read and what I research I find that they focus on communism failures, crimes and chaos. because LETS FACE IT. communist or better yet "THE ATTEMPT @ communism was mediocre? or not even communist at all, when it comes to places like Hungary, Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos, and Romania. I'd like to say they are the least known of the bunch. (USSR, Cuba, Vietnam,etc)

But i was reading and they always seem to point out how horrible and hardship times were for the people of those places during "the communist party rule or the communist leader" etc. as we know most of this countries with the exception of Laos have "liberated" themselves from communist rule and oppression. and this websites point out how much better off they are. and how sectors of the economy are booming! and live is improving. YES I KNOW they fail to say the how capitalism also is fucking the country in its own way.

BUT I ASK YOU! my fellow comrades. as fellow lefties, do we stand by and defend the fail attempts at communist of Mongolia, Cambodia, Romania, Hungary, etc. and even Laos. or Vietnam at that.

WAS THIS EVEN COMMUNISM??? who were these people who paraded this ideology and instead brought hardships for the people?

KEEP IN MIND some people read this information because its available to them and RUN WITH IT.

what can be said about this countries and their time "under communism" and post?

[Clarksist]

BUT I ASK YOU! my fellow comrades. as fellow lefties, do we stand by and defend the fail attempts at communist of Mongolia, Cambodia, Romania, Hungary, etc. and even Laos. or Vietnam at that.

If you choose to. I don't find much "Marxism" in the way these countries and their revolutions turned. I do, however, think that the attempt says a lot about the failures of capitalism.


WAS THIS EVEN COMMUNISM??? who were these people who paraded this ideology and instead brought hardships for the people?

They brought hardships, they also alleviated hardships. And no, communism was not reached. Communism, no they did not reach communism.


what can be said about this countries and their time "under communism" and post?

Do this: read both articulated leftist and articulated capitalist views at both, and what the two articles had in common, may be true. :lol:

[La Comédie Noire]

I do not wish to apologize for actions which were not my own or needlessly defend them. The events you have mentioned are a matter of then, this is now. Intelligent,class concious,proletariates will see this and except it. Beyond them I don't really care what anybody else would think. Like some liberal History professor's rhetoric on the cruelties of Stalin has anyhting to do with class struggle. :P

[Tekun]

Remember bro, communism in the Marxist sense of the word, has never been reached
And countries like Laos, Cambodia, Mongolia and others have never truly reached socialism (state capitalism, though some comrades may disagree)

No we shouldn't really defend a party or vanguard that has made mistakes, especially grave ones
We should however, highlight their gains and criticize their mistakes
In addition, we should learn from the mistakes, and if confronted about these mistakes by cappie scum, we should enlighten them on the reality and goals of Marxism, and by no means equate Marxism and the different -isms that several characters have created throughout history

[JKP]

The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe never claimed to be communist; officially they were "socialist republics" with state run command economies.

That's not communism.

[Enragé]

we should carefully analyze why those revolutions turned out the way they did.
They were not communist, nor were they socialist, since both at the very least need democracy, of a directer and more free kind than that under capitalism... of which there was/is none in "communist" countries.

In my opinion, the revolutions in the past failed because the revolution was led by a small group of people. Post-revolution, they took power over the state machinery and slowly degenerated into a new ruling class, propping up their power with nationalism, militarism, and a ruthless secret service

when talking to the "average joe" about this the important thing is to emphasise that
1. "communist nations" werent communist
2. why those communist nations turned out the way they did

[1984]

One more thing - also recall that these type of articles you've mentioned are part of a new type of reactionary media whose purpose is to conform the people that "capitalism is the only way to go". Recently, with so many anti-imperialist movements, the burgueous media "strikes back" hammering down the old pseudo-socialist states. This is aimed to make the people forget about the contradictions of capitalism and resign the common folk to the mold of the ruling class.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 10:45 pm
we should carefully analyze why those revolutions turned out the way they did.
They were not communist, nor were they socialist, since both at the very least need democracy, of a directer and more free kind than that under capitalism... of which there was/is none in "communist" countries.

In my opinion, the revolutions in the past failed because the revolution was led by a small group of people. Post-revolution, they took power over the state machinery and slowly degenerated into a new ruling class, propping up their power with nationalism, militarism, and a ruthless secret service

when talking to the "average joe" about this the important thing is to emphasise that
1. "communist nations" werent communist
2. why those communist nations turned out the way they did
The vanguardist theory taken to it's logical conclusions.

[ihaterockandroll]

Exactly, Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Leninist vanguardist philosophies have been proved false. Anarchism is the logical next step.

[which doctor]

Those countries never had a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

They had a Dictatorship of the Bureaucracy.

[Prairie Fire]

R_P_A_S_:

No matter where I read and what I research I find that they focus on communism failures, crimes and chaos.

What do you expect? Of course this is the point of view that capitalism will promote.


BUT I ASK YOU! my fellow comrades. as fellow lefties, do we stand by and defend the fail attempts at communist of Mongolia, Cambodia, Romania, Hungary, etc. and even Laos. or Vietnam at that.

I do. You can be an ivory tower intellectual, and you can look down at all of the countries that built socialism if you want to, but every single one of the countries that you have just listed have become a hell of a lot worse for the people. Even Cambodia under pol pot wasn't as horrific as the wonderful mad-max paradise that is capitalist Cambodia. It is possible to critically support a nation or group. I will critically support Pol pot, only because the alternative is worse.

Comrade floyd:

I do not wish to apologize for actions which were not my own or needlessly defend them

See, this is what the capitalists want. You don't even realize it, but by rejecting certain leaders for their "crimes", you are being apologist. By rejecting the leaders that capitalism has told you to reject, you are apologist, and you are playing into their hands.

JKP:

The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe never claimed to be communist; officially they were "socialist republics" with state run command economies.

That's not communism.

You really need to re-open the books, comrade. Read up on dialectical materialism. Socialism is the stage of society that must be built BEFORE communism.

NKOS:


we should carefully analyze why those revolutions turned out the way they did.
They were not communist, nor were they socialist, since both at the very least need democracy, of a directer and more free kind than that under capitalism... of which there was/is none in "communist" countries.

In my opinion, the revolutions in the past failed because the revolution was led by a small group of people. Post-revolution, they took power over the state machinery and slowly degenerated into a new ruling class, propping up their power with nationalism, militarism, and a ruthless secret service

when talking to the "average joe" about this the important thing is to emphasise that
1. "communist nations" werent communist
2. why those communist nations turned out the way they did

Spare me your apologist, social-democratic bullshit. As I said, this is exactly what the capitlaists want. They want more Nikita Kruschevs to denounce communism from the inside. Out of curiosity, what do you propose for this new democracy, and how can you be sure it wasn't taking place? In many of these countries that are criticized as being "bearucratic, state-capitalist", it was the local cadres that where the backbone of the system.

Serpent/Ihaterockandroll:

Exactly, Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Leninist vanguardist philosophies have been proved false. Anarchism is the logical next step.


The vanguardist theory taken to it's logical conclusions.

Ugh, what a fucking anarchist parade, looking for any reason to shit on Leninism.
Stay on topic.

FOB:


Those countries never had a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

They had a Dictatorship of the Bureaucracy.

Oh lookie, I smell a Ivory-tower Trot intellectual! Care to elaborate on that accusation?


This entire thread is pretty useless. In my experience, there is nothing easier than criticizing revolutions that exist. Quit being such dogmatists.

[dogwoodlover]

Was there something that you intended on accomplishing by insulting everyone that you disagree with?

I think there should be a critical examination of the "socialist republics" in order to find out what exactly went wrong and why socialism failed in those countries. And yes, in most cases the socialist republics were better alternatives than the capitalist systems that reside there now.

You seem to be overly-eager to accept any country boasting "socialism", and want to overlook their deficiencies and emphasize only their strong points. Making critical examinations of those countries is essential to understanding their failures.

If Marx had just blindly accepted utopian socialist programs he would have never formulated his brand of scientific socialism. He only arrived at scientific socialism because he took such a critical view of other socialists. I think the same methods of critically examining Marxist-derived socialist programs should be applied today, in order to further refine theories and examine their instances of practical application.

[Prairie Fire]

You seem to be overly-eager to accept any country boasting "socialism", and want to overlook their deficiencies and emphasize only their strong points. Making critical examinations of those countries is essential to understanding their failures

I allready said that I critically supported these nations. I'm not a pol-potist, or a
Ceausescuist for refusing to spit on Romania and Cambodias attempts at building socialism.


Was there something that you intended on accomplishing by insulting everyone that you disagree with?

How much of it was actually insults, and how much of it was rebuttle?
When someone comes out of the blue and makes a serious accusation like
"These countries never had a dictatorship of the proletariat; they had a dictatorship of the bureaucracy", I think it's fair to call them on their shit.
Also, there are (as always) a bunch of anarchists looking for an oppurtunity to do a little flag waving, and proclaim the supremacy of their ideology. No other kind of socialist do this, and these little black-flag bastards can tie up entire threads with this nonsense. Of course I had to tell them to quit being so juvenile, and get back on topic.

Why, did I hurt your feelings?


If Marx had just blindly accepted utopian socialist programs he would have never formulated his brand of scientific socialism.

Marx rejected utopian socialism because it wasn't scientific. You people reject entire socialist countries on the basis of word of mouth from capitalist news sources. These two incidents are not the same.


I think the same methods of critically examining Marxist-derived socialist programs should be applied today, in order to further refine theories and examine their instances of practical application.

If practicality is your concern, why are you so uncompromisingly harsh towards the countries that have undertaken the task of actually trying to build socialism?


I think there should be a critical examination of the "socialist republics" in order to find out what exactly went wrong and why socialism failed in those countries

See, you've allready come to a conclusion without explaining how you got there. No one is bothering to ask " Did socialism fail in the former socialist countries?". I think that this question should be the focus of the thread, before we get started talking about whether or not we defend these countries. Did Socialism fail in these countries of it's own inherent contradictions, or was there something far more sinister at work? Did socialism collapse in these countries of its own accord, as we are taught in grade school, or was this deterioration/collapse the result of internal/external sabotage on the part of the enemies of socialism?

Consider Romania; One of my Comrades, a Romanian, told me that the so-called
"Romanian revolution" against Ceausecu was actually a cleverly executed putsch/ coup by traitors within the party/military. Now, I can't prove whether or not this is true, but is it really so far-fetched? When you learn that in the last couple of years, the US has been rigging elections in Haiti (among other places ;) ), hiring crowds of "protesters" to demonstrate against the communist electoral victory in Moldova, gathering crowds of Iraqis for a photo shoot to tear down the statues of Saddam in Iraq (and therefore provide a justification for his removal, and the occupation in general)... This is how the USA/captialists work. When you read about their saboteurs in Cuba who left taps running and burned out light bulbs, in addition to biological warfare and bombings, you see how there is a precedent of capitalism working form the inside to sabotage socialism.

Food for thought.


You seem to be overly-eager to accept any country boasting "socialism",

I give credit where credit is due, and I understand that building a revolution that aims to change the economic relations and social consiousness of the entire human race can be a little bit bumpy, to say the least. This is why I don't spit on Mongolia, Romania, Cambodia, Hungary, Laos, or any other country, just to prove how much of a good socialist I am. For better or worse, every single one of these countries at least tried to build socialism, which is more than I can say for most other nations.

[dogwoodlover]

Good points. I'll take to reconsidering my views.