The 7 Wonders of Gulash Communism

[Roy Batty]

For all of you Ex Eastern and Central Blockers..... here's a little reminder of those good old pre-1989 days. :)

1. Everyone had a job
2. Although everyone had a job no one ever did anythig
3. And though no one did anything all goals were met 100%
4. And despite surpassing all projected goals, there was always a shortage
5. Though there was a shortage, everyone had everything they needed.
6. Although everyone had anything, everyone was stealing.
7. And though everyone stole, in the end, nothing ever went missing.

[Guerrilla22]

Although everyone had anything, everyone was stealing.

what the fuck?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

1. Everyone had a job
2. Although everyone had a job no one ever did anythig
3. And though no one did anything all goals were met 100%
4. And despite surpassing all projected goals, there was always a shortage
5. Though there was a shortage, everyone had everything they needed.
6. Although everyone had anything, everyone was stealing.
7. And though everyone stole, in the end, nothing ever went missing.

I hate idiots who come here just to bash communism without attempting to learn anything. All of them are just the same as well.

[Roy Batty]

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 03, 2007 10:41 pm
I think that I'm missing something here...

Were you trying to be funny?

No. This wansn't a joke. Just a littler reminder. A little nostalgia. You know.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't see how satellite nations of the USSR are real examples of communism. But could you talk in depth about where these 7 points occured?

Was it in Poland, or czechlyslovakiya or what?

Baseless assertions aren't treated kindly around here.

[EwokUtopia]

Here is a little test for the Capitalists who bash the Soviet bloc as if it were an example of a Communist state (no Soviet ever claimed the USSR was communist, it was allways making the transition into Communism, which I feel needs a new Evolution more than merely a Revolution, especially if we are talking about a revolution in a highly unindustrialized empire like pre-1917 Russia).

Ask somebody from the Russian Federation (Outside Moscow which holds most of the nations wealth) whether they would preffer to live in the USSR in the 1970's, or the Russian Federation in the 2000's. I think you'll be delightfully surprised by the answers.

The collapse of the Soviet Union wasnt the collapse of Communism, it was the collapse of a bloated Empire dating back 300 years that simply couldnt maintain itself. That said, it is still collapsing (look at Chechnya or Dagestan or Siberian seperatists).

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:23 pm

1. Everyone had a job
2. Although everyone had a job no one ever did anythig
3. And though no one did anything all goals were met 100%
4. And despite surpassing all projected goals, there was always a shortage
5. Though there was a shortage, everyone had everything they needed.
6. Although everyone had anything, everyone was stealing.
7. And though everyone stole, in the end, nothing ever went missing.

I hate idiots who come here just to bash communism without attempting to learn anything. All of them are just the same as well.
Soviet union wasn't communist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Maybe the original poster could explain why living conditions (life expectancy, employment, housing, disease rates, infant mortality, etc.) plummeted after the restoration of capitalism in the "Eastern Bloc."

[EwokUtopia]

The USSR was not a communist state. the words "communist" and "state" are incompatable. the USSR never claimed to be communist, but socialist on the path to Communism somewhere down the road. However I do not feel that the dictatorship of the proletariate is necessaryor even good. It leads to state capitalist crocks of shit like the so-called Communist Nations which were almost as bad as their market capitalist counterparts in the West.

[RGacky3]

I don't think anyone seriously considers the USSR as anything close to Communist.

But I like it :P, those 7 wonders, why not come up with 7 wonders of Walmart Capitalism?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

However I do not feel that the dictatorship of the proletariate is necessaryor even good. It leads to state capitalist crocks of shit like the so-called Communist Nations which were almost as bad as their market capitalist counterparts in the West.

The dictatorship of the proletariat means "the rule of the working class." If you don't think the working class should rule, then you're no kind of revolutionary leftist. Period.

And even if you write off the USSR and other socialist countries as "state capitalist," you should still have supported them, in the interest of supporting our working class brothers and sisters in them. Why? They made major gains. Life expectancy, employment, housing, etc. all increased greatly, while things like infant mortality, illiteracy and poverty fell.

When capitalism was restored in these countries, the working class took huge hits, in all of the areas previously mentioned.

Have you checked the Russian life expectancy lately? How about employment levels?

[EwokUtopia]

Dictatorship of the proletariate does not mean rule of the working class...it is a transitional state between capitalism and any true form of socialism. However, this transitional state brings about more peoblems than it solves, we have seen this over and over again in the failed attempts at true socialism which are the "Communist" states that have either collapsed (USSR and all of the Eastern European "Communists") or have become some of the worst Capitalists in the planet (The so-called "communist" state of China), or have become isolated crypto-monarchies (North Korea and the Juche nightmere). The rule of any true form of socialism would be the absolute opposite of dictatorship, which has allways been seen as an impermenant form of rule. However, power does corrupt, and when you establish so-called dictatorships of the proletariate, a small slice of the former proletariate will rule over everyone else with the guise of "socialism" on their lips.

I am not arguing that the current state of Russia is worse than the USSR, but the USSR wasnt any dandy adventure in egalitarian socialism either. Look at Gay Rights in the USSR for instance, or freedoms of people to decide the courses of their own lives, or disagree with the ruling party's doctrines of what they called Socialism. Need I even mention what the Bolsheviks did to the Kronstatd commune?

I said that these so-called dictatorships were almost as bad as their western capitalist counterparts. I would have supported them, reluctantly, over the greater evil in Market Capitalism, but State Capitalism is almost as bad.

Dictatorships of the Proletariate have never been able to bring about any real socialism, and if you beg to differ, name me just one state which became truly communist or anarchist after the transitional state of dictatorships of the proletariate.
Just one.

Of course, no such society has ever existed because the dictatorship inevitably minces with nationalism and becomes almost indistinguishable from any other state where a certain class rules the nation. It doesnt matter if the class is the economic elites, or if the ruling class is comprised of members of so-called Communist party, it is still a ruling class, and contributes nothing to the stateless society which will be achieved with true socialism.

Just because they wave the sickle and hammer does not mean they support the needs and interests of the workers and peasants.

Besides, the revolution Marx and Bakunin preached was not meant to take place in the agrian Russian Empire, this is just basic, it should have occured in England, France, or Germany where actual workers, not peasants, comprised the majority.

[Honggweilo]

Besides, the revolution Marx and Bakunin preached was not meant to take place in the agrian Russian Empire, this is just basic, it should have occured in England, France, or Germany where actual workers, not peasants, comprised the majority.

Is anyone who dares to take a non-biased defence of socialism in eastern europe going to speak out or are we going have to agree with this crap.. <_< . Yes because marx and bakunin, clearly clearvoients, predicted it must be in england. Hail your european bourgeois chauvinism and 1st international mentality :rolleyes:. Also kudo&#39;s on your peasant discrimination.

[La Comédie Noire]

It must also be remebered the Bolsheviks did not intend to go at it alone. Germany was also suppost to have a revolution to coincide with Russias. Germany was suppost to give Russia its Industrial base. What was that phrase? Germany would give the steel, and Russia the bread?

[Roy Batty]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 04, 2007 03:32 am
Maybe the original poster could explain why living conditions (life expectancy, employment, housing, disease rates, infant mortality, etc.) plummeted after the restoration of capitalism in the "Eastern Bloc."



By the mid to late 60&#39;s several Eastern Block, Soviet occupied socialist states underwent socio-economic reforms. Everyone knew that living standards HAD to be raised. Under the slogan of New Economic Mechanism, these countries were also made to be more competitive in world markets. For this, they needed western finances. ( Funny, at the time no one cared to question as to why life was so good) Still, for more than two decades the foreign debt was mounting, inflation rising. Then there was the CHANGE in the early 90&#39;s, contrary to what everyone expected.

Countries needing to re-finance IMF loans were told to stop issuing subsidies and cut public spending. Austerity measures introduced in the mid 90&#39;s incuded:

1. Stabilization of the astronomical deficits by adopting regulated exchange rate policy.
2. Drastic cutbacks of social programs.
3. Devaluation of monetary units creating an easily predictable (and hence exploitable) market economy for both foreign and domestic investors.
4 Reducing national debt from revenues of the new free-market policy and numerous privatized public sectors.

Putting it bluntly, with the advent of the free-market economy, nations were whored out. Privatization and what they call "wild capitalism" were key elements, but remember they were also domino pieces.

The housing sector always experienced a shortage even under the socialist administration. It wasn&#39;t until the mid 70&#39;s that nationalized banks introduced excellent finance rates to young couples starting out. This induced a quick but short housing boom.

For the infant mortality, let&#39;s see the facts. Here&#39;s a little example:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_deta...D=25&Country=CZ (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=25&Country=CZ)


Still, they were the good old days.

[RGacky3]

Life did get better under the USSR for the average worker, but it was still an oppressive state, Life got better for the average German under Hitler as well.

[EwokUtopia]

The point is the USSR failed miserably, this is just simple history. Now we can take this in either one of two ways, being that either A)they did communism right and communism does not work, or B) They fucked Communism up and replaced the Bourgeois ruling class with a communist party ruling class, and no true communism was ever approached.

I tend to side with side B on this inevitable debate. "Communism" as it has been called, failed in almost every state it was in, like the USSR, China, Eastern Europe, et cetera, and became horrible in other states, namely North Korea.

Why did this happen? because the leaders of these so-called Communist states recieved too much power for themselves, and the people recieved too little. I have yet to hear a single success story of the oxy-moronical idea of a Communist Nation.

Nations should be abolished, they do not provide a good framework for any true socialism.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:26 pm
Is anyone who dares to take a non-biased defence of socialism in eastern europe going to speak out or are we going have to agree with this crap.. <_< . Yes because marx and bakunin, clearly clearvoients, predicted it must be in england. Hail your european bourgeois chauvinism and 1st international mentality :rolleyes:. Also kudo&#39;s on your peasant discrimination.
Whats there to defend? They dont exist anymore, your too late to rush to their defence. They failed miserably because they were nothing even remotely close to real communist societies. They were full of repression, nationalism (albiet with sickles and hammers) and party-elites, not a land of the people having true power.

In the 19th-early 20th centuries, the industrialized lands were the ideal place for revolution because there was feasible capital in those lands, enough to sustain the workers. Russia simply didnt have that capital, hell, most of their nobles were almost as poor as peasants. If a communist revolution is about seizing and redistributing capital and wealth, wouldnt it follow that it should happen in a land with more capital? I will admit that the USSR brought Russia very far very fast, but was this really the point? I thought it was about redistributing wealth to all workers equally....but how do you do this without many workers? The peasants do not live under the same conditions as the workers, and a truly peasant revolution would be much different than an industrialized communist revolution. Peasant revolts demand communalization and complete autonomy of those communes.....this really wasnt achieved under the beurocratic nightmere of centralized party-governed communism. They built a shitty system, and never even claimed to be communists, because they knew their system was too flawed to bear that name. Therefore, after 70 years of mixed achievements (the 70&#39;s were pretty good in the USSR, and they did smash the fash) it flopped over and gave birth to a new fucked up russian empire.




England, or anywhere in the west for that matter, is not an ideal starting place for the revolution.

In my opinion, China is about ripe for a Communist Revolution.

[La Comédie Noire]

In my opinion, China is about ripe for a Communist Revolution.

How so? China&#39;s "communist" party is full of corrupt chinese officials who sell their fellow country men into cheap wage slavery. they are also trying to open up more markets in Africa inwhich to pettle their crap. So unless there is a workers movement in China I haven&#39;t heard about...... ;)

[Roy Batty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:37 pm


In the 19th-early 20th centuries, the industrialized lands were the ideal place for revolution because there was feasible capital in those lands, enough to sustain the workers. Russia simply didnt have that capital

The peasants do not live under the same conditions as the workers, and a truly peasant revolution would be much different than an industrialized communist revolution. Peasant revolts demand communalization and complete autonomy of those communes.....this really wasnt achieved under the beurocratic nightmere of centralized party-governed communism. .


I totally agree. From what I&#39;ve been reading in John Lee Anderson&#39;s Che Guevara, I&#39;ve come to the same conclusion. Although it needed change, Cuba wasn&#39;t the most favourable place for a socialist revolution. They had nothing. Fine, sugar came handy as a trading tool with other socialist states....but all they had to offer was sugar. point blank and period.
Pg 478. descibes how Guevara tried to get Krushchev to fund the constuction of
Cuban steel plant in order to have an "indispensable cornerstone to industrialization"
after several days of study Nikita told him : "Look Che, if you want we can build the plant, but in Cuba there is no coal, there is no iron, there isn&#39;t enough skilled labor and there&#39;s not a consumer&#39;s market for a million tons with Cuba&#39;s incipient level of industry.
Che argued this: "The revolution must be something big, imposing. We must combat the single crop economy of sugar, we must industrialize, and anyway, you here in the S.U. also began your industrialization program without a base"

Obviously he overlooked the abundance of natural resources.


With regads to the peasant revolution, you maybe right, again, taking Cuba as an example. What went wrong? Although many peasants aided the guerillas, the revolution wasn&#39;t instigated by them. Che wanted agricultural reforms, but acording to Renee Dumont (French Marxist economis trying to help Cuba in in transition to sicialism) he overlooked the most common problem: " The workers of the newly established agricultural cooperatives was that they did not feel they were owners of anything and he urged Che to consider a scheme whereby the workers who did additional labour during the off-season maintaining the cooperatives be paid, giving them a sense of co-ownership."

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 07:09 pm

In my opinion, China is about ripe for a Communist Revolution.

How so? China&#39;s "communist" party is full of corrupt chinese officials who sell their fellow country men into cheap wage slavery. they are also trying to open up more markets in Africa inwhich to pettle their crap. So unless there is a workers movement in China I haven&#39;t heard about...... ;)
I meant a truly communist revolution. The sentence was also sort of a joke, saying how these so-called communist nations are anything but. But China is a fairly well industrialized country where, unlike the US or the UK, or any other western countries for that matter, the majority of the people are not led into a complaicent state of hungry consumerism. These people will never revolt, they are too apathetic and they have it too good to risk their necks for a set of ideals. The revolution must start in an area where the majority of people are producers, not consumers. While consumers are not bosses themselves, they are a buffer class, in a sense, that seperates the workers from their slavedriving masters, as well as keeping the bosses afloat by buying their goods for incredibly high prices when compared to the cost of production. although the real disparity (that is possesion of capital and wealth) between rich and poor is immense in the Economic North, the practical disparity (standards of living) is comparitively low, and people will not risk their lives en masse for a revolution when they have pretty well the basics of life. For a revolution to succeed, you need mass support, not just 10,000 pissed of idealists. We can lubricate and aid a revolution that is already in progress, but I severely doubt anyone who has the time to post on this forum will actually have a hand in starting one.

Any lasting revolution will come from either China, India, or the Economic South, IE Africa, the Middle East or Latin America. There is enough capital and practical disparity in the Middle East and Latin America for this to happen. This will be global, as we are living in, for better or worse, a globalized world. It is globalized in capitalism, and look at the horrors this brings us. Globalized Socialism is the only form that can really manage, we have seen all too well the failures of "Communist" Nations, which either collapse, become capitalists under the guise of communism (Capcom&#39;s), or isolate themselves into totalitarian wonderlands like North Korea. Nationalism and Socialism are not compatible, but we have seen these strange bedfellows hook up enough times in the last century to know that they can easily happen. These are hinderences to us revolutionary leftists, not gains.

[La Comédie Noire]

truly communist revolution.

What do you consider that?

They have revolutionary potential, but horrid, corrupt, organization. But I get what you&#39;re saying.

Mao was quite misguided in his nationalism.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:58 am
[QUOTE=Comrade Floyd,February 04, 2007 07:09 pm]
Any lasting revolution will come from either China, India, or the Economic South, IE Africa, the Middle East or Latin America. There is enough capital and practical disparity in the Middle East and Latin America for this to happen. This will be global, as we are living in, for better or worse, a globalized world. It is globalized in capitalism, and look at the horrors this brings us.
The problem with that is Socialist revolutions in the south is that they need support from the north, meaning the people not the government, to put pressure on their own governemnts not to intervene, or support the south&#39;s governments repression. An Isolated socialistic revolution will be crushed immediately.

[EwokUtopia]

The problem with that is Socialist revolutions in the south is that they need support from the north, meaning the people not the government, to put pressure on their own governemnts not to intervene, or support the south&#39;s governments repression. An Isolated socialistic revolution will be crushed immediately.
Oh I agree totally, Im not saying we dont have a hand to play, but it is certainly not the active revolutionary hand that must be played in the south. The best we can do is attain a cultural revolution, much like the one that bursted out in face of the Vietnam War (of which we currently have another one), only we should see to it this time that this cultural revolution doesnt merely merge with a slightly changed system like it did in the late 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s (what a horrid decade that was).

We take to the streets in support of whats going on around the world. The only problem is a revolution is a hard sell to the complaicent people of the west, so we should probably support it and let it come to us, because rallying the masses of America around a revolutionary banner is a task which nobody but God could do, and since he is feeling rather non-existant lately, it looks like we will have to support the revolution in the south until it comes here.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:24 am

The problem with that is Socialist revolutions in the south is that they need support from the north, meaning the people not the government, to put pressure on their own governemnts not to intervene, or support the south&#39;s governments repression. An Isolated socialistic revolution will be crushed immediately.
Oh I agree totally, Im not saying we dont have a hand to play, but it is certainly not the active revolutionary hand that must be played in the south. The best we can do is attain a cultural revolution, much like the one that bursted out in face of the Vietnam War (of which we currently have another one), only we should see to it this time that this cultural revolution doesnt merely merge with a slightly changed system like it did in the late 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s (what a horrid decade that was).

We take to the streets in support of whats going on around the world. The only problem is a revolution is a hard sell to the complaicent people of the west, so we should probably support it and let it come to us, because rallying the masses of America around a revolutionary banner is a task which nobody but God could do, and since he is feeling rather non-existant lately, it looks like we will have to support the revolution in the south until it comes here.
I totally agree, a full fledged Revolution in the west is&#39;nt going to happen, but I think constant pressure, constant working class solidarity in the west can do a lot of good, maybe not a full fledged revolution but perhaps a small revolution here and there, a strike here a workplace occupation there, a protest here, a boycott there, all helps things change. As far as cultural revolutoin I&#39;m not sure what that means, if your saying a libralization or something, I disagree, sometimes the most ardant revolutionaries are conservative religious people, many times they are heartland types with old time values, and I don&#39;t think they should be expected to change their culture any more than I think the Indiginous people in other countries should be expected to accept western values.

The west can do a lot to help the south and change its own Society.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:58 am
Nationalism and Socialism are not compatible, but we have seen these strange bedfellows hook up enough times in the last century to know that they can easily happen. These are hinderences to us revolutionary leftists, not gains.

The reasons why the two "hook up" so frequently (the two are inseparable, in reality), is that socialism has to move beyond the realm of theory; beyond the pamphlet, or nowadays the website or blog. It has to have a concrete realization.

Well now, since socialism is forever prattling on about how a socialist community will be local and controlled by the local folks, it is difficult to see how that translates "globally." Oh sure, there can be a "global" socilaist network based upon community values (ie amongst people who share similiar languages, cultures, historsy, religions ect), but it is toughto see how that ELIMINATES nationalism. Indeed it fosters it.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:10 pm
As far as cultural revolutoin I&#39;m not sure what that means, if your saying a libralization or something, I disagree, sometimes the most ardant revolutionaries are conservative religious people, many times they are heartland types with old time values, and I don&#39;t think they should be expected to change their culture any more than I think the Indiginous people in other countries should be expected to accept western values.

The west can do a lot to help the south and change its own Society.
I think Liberalization is the wrong word, I am talking about the reformation of western society. Like, making more people in the west, not just the fringes, alligned and caring to the plights of the majority of people in the world, not just content with their new Friends DVD and SUV. The people on this forum do not represent the masses of the west, who are kept complaicent and apathetic by the omnipresent media which surrounds us, so the rehaul of media is a good starting place. Having the people of America be less reliant on CNN or FOX news for their worldviews would be an extraordinary step foreward, and this will be done naturally by the dissatisfaction of the positive portrails of the Iraq war, which more and more Americans are realizing is complete bullshit by the day. Consider the cultural revolution in America in the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s, and the changes it did bring to America, as well as its failures. One of these, if synched up by revolution in the South would proove fatal for the Capitalist systems, as long as its done right this time. Music wont change the world, but it can change the worldview of people here and there, and if done on a massive scale will provide a bloodclot in the Western Imperialist System, when minced by the stress of Southern Revolution, will likely arouse a Cardiac Arrest for Capitalism.

[kingbee]

I also liked the mantra in Poland:

"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"

[The Feral Underclass]

Well done to everyone for having the patience to answer this crap.

Roy: If you post a provocative, unthought out bullshit thread like this again, I will suspend your account.