A Capitalist history lesson on Communism

[ComradeR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6213732.stm


"The indestructible Union of the free republics" is how the Soviet anthem described the USSR.


The fall of the Dzerzhinsky statue symbolised the fall of the USSR

In the summer of 1991, it became clear that it was anything but indestructible.

One by one, the "free republics" showed what they had really thought of the Soviet Union. They left.

The shock for many people is difficult to overstate. This was a superpower whose people knew little of life outside its borders. To discover that they didn't actually live in the best country in the world made them question almost everything.

Now a new generation has grown up. They're free of the Communist ideology which dominated the lives of their parents and grandparents.

Fuck shit like this piss's me off beyond hell. It's not so much that they're attacking the Soviet Union as much as as they are communism as a whole. And what's more they're attacking modern Communists in Russia by linking them with the National Bolsheviks for fucks sake!!!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42396000/jpg/_42396862_skin_ap_ok.jpg"Youth skinhead movements can be found in many cities"

[Whitten]

idiots cant tell nazi's from communists.

The BBC seem to be a bit of an enigma. At times they seem more objective and even slightly left wing when compared to the corporate media, but then they come out with some crap like this. I get the impression there's a left-right division between their political journalists.

[chimx]

the bbc didn't call the racist skinheads communists. they called them part of the "post-communist generation", which they obviously are. if you read the article, the BBC interviews a soviet sympathizer who cherishes her father's anti-nazi stance.

on the whole, i don't see what the problem with it is. can you specify what it is that you don't like about it exactly?

[Ander]

What was wrong with the article? What exactly did they say that was false? If you noticed, they criticised post-Soviet Russia and mentioned its uncertainties as compared to the certainties of the USSR.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 07:28 pm
the bbc didn't call the racist skinheads communists. they called them part of the "post-communist generation", which they obviously are. if you read the article, the BBC interviews a soviet sympathizer who cherishes her father's anti-nazi stance.

on the whole, i don't see what the problem with it is. can you specify what it is that you don't like about it exactly?
The fact that they posted a pic of a skinhead in front of a hammer and sickle with this under it "Youth skinhead movements can be found in many cities" This implies that the racist skinheads are communist/leftists.

"Now a new generation has grown up. They're free of the Communist ideology which dominated the lives of their parents and grandparents."

Now tell me how stuff like that isn't an attack on communism?

[chimx]

How could Communist ideology not dominate the lives of people living under such a political and economic structure?

Would you say that capitalism didn't dominate a great deal of your parents and grandparents lives?

They used the image because the point of the article is that the socio-economic transition Russia has been facing following the collapse of communism has left large sectors of Russia in chaos. They attribute the rise of Nazism to this political vacuum left in the absence of communist institutions.

You know, a lot of people could, and probably did, read this article as being more apologetic to the authoritarian communist regime than hostile to it. I think you are fishing here...

[Red Heretic]

Well it's not like the Soviet Union hadn't restored capitalism 40 years before the fall of the Soviet Union, when Khrushchev came to power.

[chimx]

Are you sure you don't mean 1918, which the establishment of war communism and the installment of capitalist bureaucrats to run soviet industry? Or at the very least, 1921 with the NEP which sought to increase free trade with capitalist nations, allowed for private ownership, resulting in some higher peasants hiring labor to work the land.

In Lenin's words, "We are not civilized enough for socialism," so he created a capitalist system which continued to undermine soviet power. (though of course soviet power had already been destroyed)

[marxist troglodytes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:43 pm
Are you sure you don't mean 1918, which the establishment of war communism and the installment of capitalist bureaucrats to run soviet industry? Or at the very least, 1921 with the NEP which sought to increase free trade with capitalist nations, allowed for private ownership, resulting in some higher peasants hiring labor to work the land.

In Lenin's words, "We are not civilized enough for socialism," so he created a capitalist system which continued to undermine soviet power. (though of course soviet power had already been destroyed)
This is classic.
Not only do leftists deny that their socialist disasters were ever actually socialist, but they also now claim that their failed communist heroes were actually "capitalists".
If the Soviet Union's economy was "capitalist" as this leftist claims, then why didn't leftist cadres operating within the West ever denounce this imaginary Soviet ''capitalism" while the Soviet Union was still in its full operational existence?
The answer is simple.
Leftists were enthusiastically and feverishly shilling for the Soviet Union and its communist economy while the Soviets seemed like a viable force. But now after the Left's Soviet horse lost the race, leftists abandon their deafening failure of a brutal gulag state to save some semblance of "face".
Leftists denying that marxist failures were ever marxist at all would be like a capitalist denying the capitalist countries are capitalist at all.
This example is ludicrous though, as the only ones that need to lie, rewrite history, and spin volumes of excuses are socialists who's marxist countries are an embarassment to them.
Capitalists don't need to make excuses, as capitalism has provided the most massive bounty of material abundance the world has ever seen. Not to mention that capitalist democracies of the West are the most tolerant, free, and open societies in history.

[Ol' Dirty]

I found the article biased, and found it sort of offensive. Not that I care, but come on; couldn't they think of something a little less nuetral.

Of course, I can only imagine what FOX would've done with this. :rolleyes:

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by marxist troglodytes+December 10, 2006 12:28 am--> (marxist troglodytes @ December 10, 2006 12:28 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 06:43 pm
Are you sure you don't mean 1918, which the establishment of war communism and the installment of capitalist bureaucrats to run soviet industry? Or at the very least, 1921 with the NEP which sought to increase free trade with capitalist nations, allowed for private ownership, resulting in some higher peasants hiring labor to work the land.

In Lenin's words, "We are not civilized enough for socialism," so he created a capitalist system which continued to undermine soviet power. (though of course soviet power had already been destroyed)
This is classic.
Not only do leftists deny that their socialist disasters were ever actually socialist, but they also now claim that their failed communist heroes were actually "capitalists".
If the Soviet Union's economy was "capitalist" as this leftist claims, then why didn't leftist cadres operating within the West ever denounce this imaginary Soviet ''capitalism" while the Soviet Union was still in its full operational existence?
The answer is simple.
Leftists were enthusiastically and feverishly shilling for the Soviet Union and its communist economy while the Soviets seemed like a viable force. But now after the Left's Soviet horse lost the race, leftists abandon their deafening failure of a brutal gulag state to save some semblance of "face".
Leftists denying that marxist failures were ever marxist at all would be like a capitalist denying the capitalist countries are capitalist at all.
This example is ludicrous though, as the only ones that need to lie, rewrite history, and spin volumes of excuses are socialists who's marxist countries are an embarassment to them.
Capitalists don't need to make excuses, as capitalism has provided the most massive bounty of material abundance the world has ever seen. Not to mention that capitalist democracies of the West are the most tolerant, free, and open societies in history. [/b]
Thank god your Restricted. I can not speak for the socialist of the soviet times but I know for a fact that the USSR was not even close to a real communist state. But it was a degenerate workers state. Your whole premises is wrong, you go into the argument with the mindset that the USSR and other countries that claimed to be communist were in fact communist. But this premises is completely wrong as defined by the definition of communism; stateless, classless society. Look at the USSR was it ever a stateless society? Absolute not. It was pretty much state-run capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t need excuses? Have you looked at any high school text books? They are littered with blatant biased against socialism and communism. My book is covered with lies about Marxism and Communism. Capitalism has created this abundance off the backs of workers and the abundance is being used for the rich only. And please tell me how in the fucking world do 3rd world workers have any abundance at all in any way?



Not to mention that capitalist democracies of the West are the most tolerant, free, and open societies in history.

You really are quite the dumbass. Go back to your mansion and read some fucking books you degenerate idiot. Western democracy is run by the rich and is completely corrupt. Politicians are merely puppets for the ruling class.