What went wrong

[Reagan45]

It is no secret that Communism was a failed experiment. However, I see that many of you have communist sympathies. Tell me, how has every single Comunistic state in history failed if this is such a wonderful system?
Cuba is a hellhole. The people hate Chavez and he is CERTAINLY not working for them, as some of you beilieve.
China has grown economically recently for the very reason that capitalism is starting to take root, and the government is giving in. Christianity is also becoming a great force there.
North Korea lets its people starve.
Russia failed.

I implore you examine your belief system. If anyone has anything to say, please, post. I will be happy to enlighten you on reality.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:12 pm
However, I see that many of you have communist sympathies.
Well done. You can read, you're almost there - one day they may even let you take an IQ test. Just gotta learn how to hold that pencil.


Tell me, how has every single Comunistic state in history failed if this is such a wonderful system? Mainly by virtue of their not being communistic or through the stifling power of global capitalism.

Cuba is a hellhole. The people hate Chavez and he is CERTAINLY not working for them, as some of you beilieve. Proof for either comment would be great, but since you're an idiot cappie what you'll most likely give me is some stupid gusano shit like the Cuba "Truth" Project. As for Chavez, I'd take that up with the people of Venezuela.

China has grown economically recently for the very reason that capitalism is starting to take root, and the government is giving in. Christianity is also becoming a great force there. Of course it's grown, the global market is capitalist. As for christianity becoming an important delusion over there I'm afraid that's a very bad sign - look at all the other nations that take up christianity.

North Korea lets its people starve. And isn't communist anyway.

Russia failed. Would you deny that the US had role in this?


I implore you examine your belief system. If anyone has anything to say, please, post. I will be happy to enlighten you on reality. :lol: YOU will "enlighten US? How incredibly cute, you think you're intelligent - can I take you home with me?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It is no secret that Communism was a failed experiment.

well, i imagine there will be more in the future, and hopefully be much more successful! :)


However, I see that many of you have communist sympathies

yes....we're all communists.


Cuba is a hellhole.

is that what you read in the Miami herald? lol


The people hate Chavez and he is CERTAINLY not working for them

he's the most elected leader in office at the moment....so im sure they all hate him! half of Americans hate bush however :P



China has grown economically recently for the very reason that capitalism is starting to take root, and the government is giving in.

well, yes. That's because the Chinese revolution crushed feudalism not capitalism. Historical materialism would imply capitalism not communism comes after feudalism :rolleyes:


Christianity is also becoming a great force there.

So? it became a "force" in Africa, and the Europeans have ruined that whole continent.

besides Christianity is only on an inevitable decline in the advanced industrial economies.
We just gotta wait until china is fully industrialised too! still i agree its a damn shame :(



North Korea lets its people starve.

so does many capitalist countries.


Russia failed.

with an amazingly stupidly big prison population and getting more and more hated world wide, American isn't looking all that successful now is it!


I implore you examine your belief system. If anyone has anything to say, please, post. I will be happy to enlighten you on reality.

Your first post is like literally hundreds of other peoples first post, which are all clones of each other.

Is there a chance however small, that your country has influenced your thinking towards anti communism. or did you do loads of impartial research, coming from an objective and impartial position to make you decision.

Well after reading your post, seems like we need to give you a hefty dose of reality ;)

[Reagan45]

You say that the reason these societies did not survive was because they fell to pressure and were not truly communist.
Why do you pursue your revolution then?
You have had many chances to finally complete your grand vision. It failed. No society can fulfill it if these could not with all their might.
Communism is a blip on the radar. Every day, capitalism is improving the world (I know you will contradict that and I dont mind)
Sir, in regard to your attack on my faith, let me tell you something. I looked at other nations that took up Christianity. They are much improved over godless, anarchial hellholes. In fact, the reason Europe is spinning into a depression is because they gave up faith and leaned towards socialism.
You are right about Chavez. He certainly has a grip over his people, and they love him. Nazi Germany looked the same way.
I have been to Cuba. The place is unspeakable, and do not even try to defend the living conditions there.

Of course the U.S. had a role in the failure of Russia. You prove my point, and I give my thanks. It was a classic example Capitalism beating Communism despite Pacifism on the American homefront.

Sir, I have become even more convinced of the insignificance of Communism by reading your post. The way you presented yourself was extremely immature, and I do not consider you even a respectable person by the way you treated my post. I logged on and thought I had found the website of children. Please, dont insult your own ideology. Its simply foolish.

[Reagan45]

Are you all Children? bloody_capitalist_sham, you are a clone of all Communists and your opinions do not bear any fruit. All you can do is attempt to defend your failed Ideology.

[Boriznov]

Nothing went wrong because true communism was never reached.

[Reagan45]

What do you think went wrong? Was communist russia too capitalist? Tell me, friend.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:41 pm
You say that the reason these societies did not survive was because they fell to pressure and were not truly communist.
Why do you pursue your revolution then?
To create a society that won't and is.


You have had many chances to finally complete your grand vision. It failed. No society can fulfill it if these could not with all their might. Capitalism did not simply spring up out of nowhere. Nor did feudalism. Don't be so obtuse.

Communism is a blip on the radar. Every day, capitalism is improving the world (I know you will contradict that and I dont mind) If you knew I would contradict it why did you bother typing it?

Sir, Don't call me "sir" :angry:
in regard to your attack on my faith, let me tell you something. I looked at other nations that took up Christianity. They are much improved over godless, anarchial hellholes. I'm sure that's a great comfort to the "godly" people in Africa dying of AIDS because using condoms would make them "godless" and thus send their country spiralling into depression which ends with it as an "anarchial [sic] hellhole".
In fact, the reason Europe is spinning into a depression is because they gave up faith and leaned towards socialism. :lol: Mystical bullshit.

You are right about Chavez. He certainly has a grip over his people, and they love him. Nazi Germany looked the same way. What's the point in this statement, unless you wish to imply that all leaders that are popular are fascistic racists,

I have been to Cuba. The place is unspeakable, and do not even try to defend the living conditions there. I'll leave that up to the members of this board that have been to/live in Cuba.


Of course the U.S. had a role in the failure of Russia. You prove my point, and I give my thanks. It was a classic example Capitalism beating Communism despite Pacifism on the American homefront. THat's pretty much a massive argumentum ad baculum. The USA defeated Russia through force therefore the system it happened to be using is superior? Utter fallacious bollocks.


Sir, I do implore you to cease this "sir" nonsense.
I have become even more convinced of the insignificance of Communism by reading your post. The way you presented yourself was extremely immature, and I do not consider you even a respectable person by the way you treated my post. And thus you have commited a logical fallacy this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy) in fact.
I loggen on an thought I had found the website of children. Why, because we swear, because we have no time for your trollish idiocy or perhaps because you've run out of arguments to back up your own ridiculous views?
Please, dont insult your own ideology. Its simply foolish. Terribly sorry if you misread my post, darling, but I was insulting you not my ideology - it may be a bit confusing for you dear but I'm sure someone nice and patient will explain it all to you, my little cupcake.

[Boriznov]

How could the Soviet Union be communist if there was a state. Soviet Union was state capitalist and never communist.

[UndergroundConnexion]

man shut the fuck up with your capitalist shit, making me fucking puke, go to compton or queens and tell me how you think the USA is wonderful then. The USA is basically the rich stay rich , poor stay poor (yes in 99.999999% of the time that is the case). the USA enslaved blacks for 400 years !!!!!

Cuba hellhole ? What are you talking about , I went there aswell, at least everybody, no matter your color and such , have FOOD , DECENT EDUCATION and HEALTHCARE!
These guarantees do not exist in the US. And why are you trying to starve them with you barbaric embargo?

And comparing Chavez with Hitler? Are you completely insane???????/
Isnt the USA the country that invades countries to force their ideas about democracy?
As if the USA very an exemple of democracy, with the massive frauds and such in 2000.... Forcing your ideals upon others is very democratic right?

Oh ye you gues also have much choice right? repblucans , democrats, same shit differnt name.

I cant stand dumb gringo cowboys as you

[Reagan45]

Ahh well, I hoped I would speak to a more intelligent crowd. I was mistaken. But let me tell you, If you ever want to be heard, try not to refer to the person you are speaking to as a cupcake simply because he does not follow your views. It is simplistic. Take this as advice.
I am now leaving to debate the real enemy, the liberals. One day, in a history book, a child will read about Communism and realize it for the terrible and corrputed thing that it is, and instead of creating an immature website, actually think about the consequences of every single occurance of this philosophy. It has led to nothing but failure.
I have no reason to feel upset about what any of you have said. Communism failed and will never again occur in force. China, Cuba, and North Korea will all fall. There will never be the ideal communist state. If you want your efforts to be useful, perhaps you should help out socialists like Hillary, who actually have a chance of ruining the world.
Good day, Gentlemen.

[RNK]

The people hate Chavez


You are right about Chavez. He certainly has a grip over his people, and they love him.

Hm...


The people hate Chavez... ...and they love him.

Well, if that isn't an indication of your idiocy, I don't know what is.


Every day, capitalism is improving the world

Really? Then why is the rich-poor gap in the western capitalist states growing? Why are lower-class workers working more and earning less, while the upper-class is working less and earning more? Why are places like the entirety of Africa being devestated by epidemics, poverty and starvation the likes of which have never been seen in the past? Why do Africans live the most decrepit lives when hundreds of billions of dollars of resources are extracted by foreign companies who enforce their dominance with the military of imperialism?

Please. You have absolutely no grasp of what Communism is, and even less of the world around you. I suggest you go on with your life, pretend everything is alright, and then 'act surprised' when everything goes to hell. And it will. It is historical inevitability.

[Demogorgon]

Let me ask a question in turn, do you not think that with opposing ideologies here and with all the restrcted members, that somebody might just have thought to ask this question already? Do you not think we may have gone through this so many times now that most of us cannt be bothered? Were you really so deluded that you had come up with some unique new argument that you felt there was no need to use the search button? Had you used this wonderful button, you could have found a veritable treasure trove of argu,ments on this very issue. You could have read detailed analysis of the problems of the past and how they might be avoided again, but alas you felt that this question needed to be asked yet again.

[MrDoom]

There will never be the ideal communist state.
The communists will agree with you on this, seeing as that 'communist state' is an oxymoron.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:09 pm
But let me tell you, If you ever want to be heard, try not to refer to the person you are speaking to as a cupcake simply because he does not follow your views.
:lol: I just noticed this particular gem. It appears our little cappie friend was offended by cupcake which is generally agreed to be a term of endearment :lol:

[welshred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:12 pm
Christianity is also becoming a great force there.

Ha ha!!! :lol: Oh yea because god will make the world better wont he!!

[Tungsten]

UndergroundConnexion

the USA enslaved blacks for 400 years !!!!!
Yeah, you tell 'em. Only the USA has practiced slavery and no other country has ever, ever practiced it.
RNK

Why are places like the entirety of Africa being devestated by epidemics, poverty and starvation the likes of which have never been seen in the past?
I doubt that very much. Africa has never been particularly pleasant place and it's becoming overpopulated, like most of the world.

Why do Africans live the most decrepit lives when hundreds of billions of dollars of resources are extracted by foreign companies who enforce their dominance with the military of imperialism?
Then why didn't the Africans extract them first? Try and think of an answer beyond the stock.

[Comrade Phil]

I doubt that very much. Africa has never been particularly pleasant place and it's becoming overpopulated, like most of the world.

Africa has never been a particularly pleasant place to live because it has only ever known exploitation from foriegn powers. Material conditions and, as you said, overpopulation definately factor into why conditions there are so horrible, but, Africa has never really gotten a chance to develop for the better.


Then why didn't the Africans extract them first? Try and think of an answer beyond the stock.

Well, because most of the continent was under colonial oppression. When the colonial powers collapsed (leaving Africa's economy devastated), military dictatorships usually seized control. These newly formed governments appropriated most of the nation's capital, then, sold it all to multi-national corporations. Any African-based business has failed or is failing do the fact that they cannot compete with these much wealthier corporations. These multi-nationals see Africa as a source of cheap labour and resouces to exploit. Today, most Africans must work in horrible conditions to recieve wages which often do not provide a stable livelihood. Most have no way to compete on the free market due to the fact that they cannot even afford proper nutrition, let alone purchasing capital. Also, they have no way to create change because the corrupt African states grant little political freedom and persecute any working class organizaion. So long as these states recieve their cut from the the multi-nationals, they will continue to let their people live and die in desperate poverty.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:36 pm





Why do Africans live the most decrepit lives when hundreds of billions of dollars of resources are extracted by foreign companies who enforce their dominance with the military of imperialism?
Then why didn't the Africans extract them first?

Because they're poor? :huh: Hmmmmmm...

Nah.

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by patton+March 19, 2007 04:29 pm--> (patton @ March 19, 2007 04:29 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 09:09 pm
If you want your efforts to be useful, perhaps you should help out socialists like Hillary, who actually have a chance of ruining the world.

Why do all of you right wing loons think every democrat is a socialist? [/b]
Well, let's take a gander at his name. :rolleyes:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:12 pm
It is no secret that Communism was a failed experiment. However, I see that many of you have communist sympathies. Tell me, how has every single Comunistic state in history failed if this is such a wonderful system?
Cuba is a hellhole. The people hate Chavez and he is CERTAINLY not working for them, as some of you beilieve.
China has grown economically recently for the very reason that capitalism is starting to take root, and the government is giving in. Christianity is also becoming a great force there.
North Korea lets its people starve.
Russia failed.

I implore you examine your belief system. If anyone has anything to say, please, post. I will be happy to enlighten you on reality.
Reagan, your arguments have probably been raised here a million times already (and answered a million times over), which is why it is unlikely for you to get much of a response. But, seeing how I have only recently returned to the forums, I still have the patience to explain things to you.

First of all, it is meaningless to say that communism (or any other economic system) "failed". Failed at what? There is no such thing as "failure" in the abstract. If I were to tell you that "you failed", without any further explanation, your immediate reaction would be to ask me "failed at what?" And, indeed, you can only fail at a given task. So, please tell us what is the task that you believe communism failed at.

As far as "communist states" are concerned (leaving aside the fact that the term itself is an oxymoron), there have only ever been 15 stable ones: USSR, Mongolia, China, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Albania, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Cuba. Out of those, only 5 were established through their own homegrown revolutions: USSR, China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba. So, as a matter of fact, there have only been five separate attempts at "communism" (in the Marxist-Leninist) sense. And all five followed the same model - the Soviet model.

So, if anything failed, what failed was one single model of reaching communism, implemented in only five separate instances that generated ten further spin-offs. Not such an impressive "failure", is it?

And finally, I'd like to point out that in every case where a "communist state" was replaced by a capitalist government (specifically, 9 cases: USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, East Germany), the people ended up being worse off under capitalism than they were under the previous regime.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Reagan45+March 18, 2007 08:12 pm--> (Reagan45 @ March 18, 2007 08:12 pm) Tell me, how has every single Comunistic state in history failed if this is such a wonderful system? [/b]
please specify -- why the diminutive adj., "communist-ic," as if you're answering your own question ?

in short, there are two primary reasons:

1) every revolutionary model of the 20th century followed, more or less, lenin's archaelogical type: elite class of professional revolutionaries. mao merely changed the emphasis of the "for whom" the model is created. it is obvious that, given the elitism of such an organization, no party will ever give up power "to the workers," as if such a thing were possible under such circumstances. i would suggest complete democratic participation from the start.. if not, it is not a revolution, but a coup, complete with the fetishism of leadership.

2) every revolutionary model of the 20th century hoped to establish communism in some rather feudal locations. that is a recipe for disaster. south america, asia, etc. first need their bourgeois revolution: overthrow the warlords, overthrow the foreign imperialists. then, perhaps, they might establish american-esque constitutions, elections, and an economy.. years later, genuine plans for communist development might be an option.

there are other, in my opinion, lesser reasons for failures.. imperialist interventions, an inability to compete with the growth of capitalism in a predominantly capitalist world, etc. competition, in fact, is perhaps the greatest cause of propaganda; if there is, say, a moral competition, such as one between good and evil, and most of us are good, certain actions must be painted in a rather flattering light for the illusion of consent (that is, consent is given to something fabricated). similarly, economic and political competition (although i'd argue that the USSR was a political monolith, not an economic one; the only difference between the USSR and american economies is either nomenclature or negligible superficiality) fosters the same, which is why those 50s anti-communist cartoons are pretty funny.


silly doofus
I will be happy to enlighten you on reality.

you are presumptuous. kindly refrain from silly declarations before we've had ample time to judge your intellectual (in)capacities. thanks.

[t_wolves_fan]

What an awesome philosophy. Every time it fails, you're able to say, "well, that wasn't really it."

:lol:

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:38 pm
What an awesome philosophy. Every time it fails, you're able to say, "well, that wasn't really it."

:lol:
strange; that is the explanation of every economic "libertarian" on this site. poverty and suffering and economic depression exist because.. "it's not real capitalism."

regardless, your comment is irrelevant, and this is why. you have made what is called a "loaded" declaration.. specifically, you've implied that criticism of the leninist archaelogy/paradigm is made only "after" the failures become apparent. yet, if you were acquainted with the literature on the subject, you would see countless examples of anti-leninism coming from many angles. particularly, as soon as the russian revolution was underway, peter kropotkin was predicting that bolshevism in russia would turn into a state-capitalist system of political repression and economic exploitation. well, he was right, even before anyone saw bolshevism/leninism in its "mature" stage. i suspect his criticism is applicable to every 20th century leninist revolution.

if i were you, i wouldn't collapse every system into one convenient category, with one convenient movement or tendency. unfortunately, history -- especially the history of thought -- is a bit more complex than that, and requires a little work on your part. come on, lenin and kropotkin -- as different as they are -- didn't put decades of their lives into studying just to be caricatured and mis-represented by you.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 03, 2007 06:54 pm



strange; that is the explanation of every economic "libertarian" on this site. poverty and suffering and economic depression exist because.. "it's not real capitalism."

Indeed, which is why I'm glad I'm not a libertarian/laissez-faire capitalist.


regardless, your comment is irrelevant, and this is why. you have made what is called a "loaded" declaration.. specifically, you've implied that criticism of the leninist archaelogy/paradigm is made only "after" the failures become apparent. yet, if you were acquainted with the literature on the subject, you would see countless examples of anti-leninism coming from many angles. particularly, as soon as the russian revolution was underway, peter kropotkin was predicting that bolshevism in russia would turn into a state-capitalist system of political repression and economic exploitation. well, he was right, even before anyone saw bolshevism/leninism in its "mature" stage. i suspect his criticism is applicable to every 20th century leninist revolution.

He was right because attempts at communism will invariably end up this way, which is why it fails.

It's kind of like a miscarriage. The pregnancy failed because it didn't turn out the way it was "supposed" to. Only with communism, dictatorship is likely about 100% of the time because you need some band of people with power to force people to behave in a way that would make communism possible. Only, those people end up liking all that power and bam! miscarriage of communism.

From Stalin's outright repression to Chavez' laws about not "insulting" the dear leader, you get the natural progression of communism.


if i were you, i wouldn't collapse every system into one convenient category, with one convenient movement or tendency. unfortunately, history -- especially the history of thought -- is a bit more complex than that, and requires a little work on your part. come on, lenin and kropotkin -- as different as they are -- didn't put decades of their lives into studying just to be caricatured and mis-represented by you.

I tell you what. Once there's an example that lasts more than 20 years without executing and imprisoning people for the bourgeoise trait of speaking their minds, I'll buy into the idea that there's any variety to your cute little theory.

Deal?

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:08 pm
He was right because attempts at communism will invariably end up this way, which is why it fails.
ya, i see; he was right about what, exactly ?

perhaps you need to differentiate between 1) the different points and variables at play here, 2) what kropotkin said and did not say and for what reason, before you go off consenting to something (i.e, kropotkin's conslusions) for which you'll be sorry later.

in other words, read; don't assume.



It's kind of like a miscarriage. The pregnancy failed because it didn't turn out the way it was "supposed" to. Only with communism, dictatorship is likely about 100% of the time because you need some band of people with power to force people to behave in a way that would make communism possible. Only, those people end up liking all that power and bam! miscarriage of communism.

bad analogy. a pregnancy is dependent almost exclusively on the woman's biology; she has little say in the matter. a sociopolitical system, however, is only as good as the methodology, which automatically excludes your biological determinism. in other words, a pregnancy is an impersonal mechanism; politics are impersonal and leviathan-esque only if we refuse to democratically participate. "leaving things to our leaders" is the same as non-participation; in fact, using the word "leadership" except in a derogatory or purely historical context is alarming, much less non-democratic. get where i'm going with this ?

as for "forcing people to behave," it depends on what you mean. a secret police ? not necessarily. whatever coercion you're talking about, however, i suspect it's worse under capitalism; hegemony either forces people to internalize poverty and perpetual coercion with a smile or at least indifference, or shoots the hell out of them via western imperialism.. daily.

now, don't know 'bout you, but perhaps if you're given "total freedom," you'd rape and steal and murder rather liberally. don't assume, however, that the rest of us are inclined to do so; you may not believe it, but the majority of people don't need to be "told what to do" if given the chance for democratic participation and self-respect. i suspect that most of us are brave enough to be responsible for ourselves, to face the consequences of everything we do. you don't ? oh well, we don't share your particular mobsta-lobsta mentality.


From Stalin's outright repression to Chavez' laws about not "insulting" the dear leader, you get the natural progression of communism.

pardon, but stalin is representative of reactionary leninism, and chavez has nothing to do with communism (no, i don't need quotes from him; actions and reality are enough, thanks). arendt, origins of totalitarianism: totalitarianism has little to do with economic facticity, and, under totalitarianism, repression exists with or without public opposition to the policies of the "leader." if you read your history, the majority of the purges were political moves which had very little do to with genuine criticism; here today, gone tomorrow. there was no such thing as friends, despite ideological commitments or "good behavior." so, i don't see how your equation of terror with "the need to control" adds up to the aim of "making sure people behave," either historically or even theoretically.


I tell you what. Once there's an example that lasts more than 20 years without executing and imprisoning people for the bourgeoise trait of speaking their minds, I'll buy into the idea that there's any variety to your cute little theory.

so says the 13th century feudal warlord to the florentine merchant. get it ?

t wolves fan, you're not being very serious. re-read my posts in this thread, then speak to me again; i suspect i've answered your proposed scenario, directly or indirectly. it's up to you to tease out the conceptual foundations of what i wrote and apply it to your loggorheac questions, thus answering them for yourself. i think you're capable, if only you'd take the time. for god's sake, don't be lazy.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:08 pm
He was right because attempts at communism will invariably end up this way, which is why it fails.
"Inevitably end up this way"? Explain why.


It's kind of like a miscarriage. The pregnancy failed because it didn't turn out the way it was "supposed" to. Only with communism, dictatorship is likely about 100% of the time because you need some band of people with power to force people to behave in a way that would make communism possible.
The purpose of laws, as they exist in any society, is to force people to behave in a way they would not otherwise behave. Any government forces some people to behave in a way they would not otherwise behave.

Now, what makes you think that the only possible kind of government is a dictatorship...?


I tell you what. Once there's an example that lasts more than 20 years without executing and imprisoning people for the bourgeoise trait of speaking their minds, I'll buy into the idea that there's any variety to your cute little theory.

Deal?
Deal. If the bourgeoisie would kindly provide us with a country where we can establish socialism in peace, free from external pressure, then we would be very happy to show you how it's done properly.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:12 pm
It is no secret that Communism was a failed experiment. However, I see that many of you have communist sympathies. Tell me, how has every single Comunistic state in history failed if this is such a wonderful system?
Cuba is a hellhole. The people hate Chavez and he is CERTAINLY not working for them, as some of you beilieve.
China has grown economically recently for the very reason that capitalism is starting to take root, and the government is giving in. Christianity is also becoming a great force there.
North Korea lets its people starve.
Russia failed.

I implore you examine your belief system. If anyone has anything to say, please, post. I will be happy to enlighten you on reality.
Let us enlighten you on reality.

Cuba is not a hell-hole. You have been suckered in by US anti-Castro propaganda which was invented because they are still sore about being so heavily defeated by the much more competent Cuban military during the Bay of Pigs invasion. Apart from the economic problems, Cuba is perfectly stable (socially, morally etc.) It has excellent education and healthcare systems. The reason for its economic problems is down to the US sanctions. If America stopped being so immature and lifted these sanctions, Cuba's economy would rise to a level able to give its residents a better standard of living. Also, Cuba is not and has never been Communist. Castro has never even claimed to be Communist. In fact, he often admits that he isn't.

China has grown economically, but what about socially? There are still appalling human rights issues to be addressed. Just because it is economically powerful does not make it a 'great country'. I put it to you that China is the real hell-hole here.

Also, the examples of 'Communism' you refer to, i.e. Russia, North Korea, China and Cuba, are not examples of Communism at all. Communism has never existed. If you think the USSR and North Korea are perfect examples of Communism you need to read the Communist manifesto and see what a Communist society would really entail, because the countries you give as examples are a long way off what you would call 'Communism'.

I would also like to add that whilst Communism has never existed and has therefore never failed, the capitalist system does exist and is beginning to fail dramatically.

[Forward Union]

What went wrong?

http://img.timeinc.net/time/time100/images/main_lenin.jpg

[Tungsten]

I would also like to add that whilst Communism has never existed and has therefore never failed, the capitalist system does exist and is beginning to fail dramatically.
It's not real capitalism, so it can't be failing. Real Capitalism™ has never existed.

[Phalanx]

China has grown economically, but what about socially? There are still appalling human rights issues to be addressed. Just because it is economically powerful does not make it a 'great country'. I put it to you that China is the real hell-hole here.

But it was much, much worse under Mao's Great Leap Forward. And now that more and more are brought out of poverty, more and more are beginning to question their government's human rights record.


Cuba is not a hell-hole. You have been suckered in by US anti-Castro propaganda which was invented because they are still sore about being so heavily defeated by the much more competent Cuban military during the Bay of Pigs invasion. Apart from the economic problems, Cuba is perfectly stable (socially, morally etc.) It has excellent education and healthcare systems.

It's also desperately poor, with many people not getting enough food each day.


I would also like to add that whilst Communism has never existed and has therefore never failed, the capitalist system does exist and is beginning to fail dramatically.

Okay, how exactly is capitalism failing dramatically?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Okay, how exactly is capitalism failing dramatically?
Outsourcing. Globalisation that benifets only a few and is creating new antagonisms. The frustrations of an all-pervasive system that is everywhere and always trying to indoctrinate.

People say caoitalism promotes individuality, but how is that so when if you want to get by you have to submit to it? We have no choice in the matter; become a gear in the wheel of a hierarchical system, or die.

Anyways opening poster Reagan, the mistake people make is that they think that the USSR etc were communist. Communism is about universal human equality and worker control of the means of production. Dictatorships and states are not that. Therefore the USSR and its accolytes were not communist. Simple as that and it baffles me how people keep saying that Soviet perversions are communism.

[Phalanx]

Outsourcing. Globalisation that benifets only a few and is creating new antagonisms. The frustrations of an all-pervasive system that is everywhere and always trying to indoctrinate.

Globalization benefits many, having a completely globalized economy will make it harder for rogue states to go to war, and it would also alleviate poverty in the developing world by bringing new jobs to the market.


People say caoitalism promotes individuality, but how is that so when if you want to get by you have to submit to it? We have no choice in the matter; become a gear in the wheel of a hierarchical system, or die.

It definately promotes individuality within the system, but if you try hard enough you definately can make a name for yourself in capitalism. If you don't try, you do get eaten alive (in some cases, other cases you're Paris Hilton, unfortunately) which is a good thing.

[bezdomni]

Globalization benefits many, having a completely globalized economy will make it harder for rogue states to go to war, and it would also alleviate poverty in the developing world by bringing new jobs to the market.

Yeah...imperialism works wonders.

Capitalists always tell me "go live in [socialist country] if you love socialism so much!".

I want to say to you: Go work in a sweatshop if you love globalization so much.

Don't like immigrants taking your job? Fight back! Take one of theirs!

Furthermore, "globalization" simply makes it easier for imperialist countries to go to war. The biggest "rogue state" in the world is the United States of America.

[Phalanx]

Furthermore, "globalization" simply makes it easier for imperialist countries to go to war. The biggest "rogue state" in the world is the United States of America.

No it doesn't. As globalization reinforces itself, countries will find it harder to function without particular resources. If a country is lacking in an essential but obscure resource, like magnesium, it will have to be nice to countries with magnesium and their allies. An integrated world economy will make it easier and more effective to place sanctions on certain nations as well.

[bezdomni]

Yes, but imperialism is not based around trade - it is based on exploitation.

Of course trade between different geographic regions would exist under socialism. Exploitation of foreign labor and foreign resources, however, would not occur.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:49 pm
What do you think went wrong? Was communist russia too capitalist? Tell me, friend.
The reason you don't understand why we are sympathetic to communism is the same reason you think Russia was a communist state. You don't understand what communism is. The USSR was never communist. Communism is the abolition of the state, money and classes etc.... The USSR was a state and therefore can not be communist because communism is society without a state. Furthermore the USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus the USSR was supposed to be state socialism.... not communism.

[Phalanx]

Yes, but imperialism is not based around trade - it is based on exploitation.

Imperialism will gradually fade away, even under capitalism.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:05 am

Yes, but imperialism is not based around trade - it is based on exploitation.

Imperialism will gradually fade away, even under capitalism.
No, it won't.

[Capcomm]

It is no secret that Communism was a failed experiment. However, I see that many of you have communist sympathies. Tell me, how has every single Comunistic state in history failed if this is such a wonderful system?
Cuba is a hellhole. The people hate Chavez and he is CERTAINLY not working for them, as some of you beilieve.
China has grown economically recently for the very reason that capitalism is starting to take root, and the government is giving in. Christianity is also becoming a great force there.
North Korea lets its people starve.
Russia failed.

I implore you examine your belief system. If anyone has anything to say, please, post. I will be happy to enlighten you on reality.

I understand where you are coming from and i will anwser to the best of my ablities.

First of all don't mind the people here who call themselves Marxists and Communist, because they are not, they are revolutionary idiots who have distorted Marxist teaching to their own agendas.

So your question is why would anyone support communism if the USSR failed and Cuba and North Korea and so on..

First of all, none of these countries have been "communists" as Marx himself envisioned it.

Basically i will give you a short summary of what Marx said.

Marx basically said that capitalism is such a great economic system in which it creates such big surpluses and advances in technology, that there will be a time in the future in which technology is so highly developed that there will be the capability to create such a surplus to provide for everyone's needs. And in the process more and more labor jobs will be eliminated. So when all jobs are eliminated because machines have taken over , you will not need to work anymore etc....but anyways thats another discussion about communism etc..

So than this is when Marx gets complicated and when people start making false assumptions and when people get mistaken and radicalized.

Marx said, that in order to prove whether he was right about his predictions about communism or not, it must be taken into practice, or what he calls "praxis"....of course all forms of praxis in the world have failed, and these include Russia , Cuba, North Korea etc....so that is why i understand if you think that that means communism doesn't work...the only thing is that Marx said that in order for communism to work there would have to be the technology, so than you ask yourself why would Lenin try making a communist revolution in a country where there was 0 technology? And thats the great paradox...

That is the problem with many of the revolutions and revolutionary leftists, that they take into account Marx's teaching of engaging in praxis and revolution, but Marx also said that the time has to be right or correct in order to engage in these revolutions.

Lenin understood this, but he wanted to try it anyways, because he thought that the poor nations like Russia were imperialistically dependant on the rich western European nations, and by having a Marxist revolution it would not create communism at the moment, but it would create a spark that would lead other nations to have revolutions including the rich Western European ones....of course this is not what Marx said , and in fact its not what happened, and of course that is why it failed.

But in essence, USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc...are far from being communist, they were and are government states, with dictators, with no freedom , with division of classes etc.. so yeah far from being communist man

[KC]

Marx basically said that capitalism is such a great economic system in which it creates such big surpluses and advances in technology, that there will be a time in the future in which technology is so highly developed that there will be the capability to create such a surplus to provide for everyone's needs. And in the process more and more labor jobs will be eliminated. So when all jobs are eliminated because machines have taken over , you will not need to work anymore etc....but anyways thats another discussion about communism etc..

Marx never said anything like that about capitalism ever. Could you please point us to where he said such great things about capitalism?


Marx said, that in order to prove whether he was right about his predictions about communism or not, it must be taken into practice, or what he calls "praxis"....of course all forms of praxis in the world have failed, and these include Russia , Cuba, North Korea etc....so that is why i understand if you think that that means communism doesn't work...the only thing is that Marx said that in order for communism to work there would have to be the technology, so than you ask yourself why would Lenin try making a communist revolution in a country where there was 0 technology? And thats the great paradox...

Marx never said that, and didn't base his theories on increases in the means of production. His theories are based on class struggle, and it was his assertion that proletarian revolution would happen where social relations are developed enough to necessitate it. Since the rest of your post hinges on this assumption, I'll leave it at this.

[Capcomm]

Marx never said anything like that about capitalism ever. Could you please point us to where he said such great things about capitalism?

Well can you show me where he has not? He obviously understood the dire conditions that the proletariat can undergo under capitalism, yet he still understands that capitalism is the greatest ever economic system, for the first time in the human condition there is the creation of surplus that can even be destroyed , Marx was surely amazed by this. My college professor has said this in class, that Marx would never argue that capitalism is the greatest economic system ever, and please don't come back with a comment like "Ohh your professor is a reactionary capitalist with spreading propaganda" :rolleyes: , because he is not, trust me



Marx never said that, and didn't base his theories on increases in the means of production. His theories are based on class struggle, and it was his assertion that proletarian revolution would happen where social relations are developed enough to necessitate it. Since the rest of your post hinges on this assumption, I'll leave it at this.

Well i suggest you do research, because Marx talks about praxis and this is in fact one of his main points.

And YES! exactly my point, the revolution would happen where social relations are developed enough to necessitate it, which has never been the case in any of the attempts so far in praxis...i mean i have read people here who support revolutions in ZAMBIA!! :lol:

[KC]

Well can you show me where he has not?

Wow. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to show that he actually has said it. The only way I could prove it to you that he hasn't said it is by linking you to every single work Marx has ever written and having you read them all. Now, I could do that, but I think it would be much easier for you to just show me where you think he's said it. So go for it.


He obviously understood the dire conditions that the proletariat can undergo under capitalism, yet he still understands that capitalism is the greatest ever economic system, for the first time in the human condition there is the creation of surplus that can even be destroyed , Marx was surely amazed by this.

That's not nearly the same thing as saying this stuff:

"Marx basically said that capitalism is such a great economic system in which it creates such big surpluses and advances in technology, that there will be a time in the future in which technology is so highly developed that there will be the capability to create such a surplus to provide for everyone's needs. And in the process more and more labor jobs will be eliminated. So when all jobs are eliminated because machines have taken over , you will not need to work anymore etc....but anyways thats another discussion about communism etc.."

He never put forward such an evolutionary view of history so divorced from class struggle.


Well i suggest you do research, because Marx talks about praxis and this is in fact one of his main points.

How about you support your assertion by showing me where Marx says that the level of technological development in a country will determine whether or not a successful proletarian revolution can take place? If you want to debate, you don't tell someone to "do research"; you support your position yourself with direct quotes and evidence. That is what I'm asking you to do, and I certainly don't see it as unreasonable because if you have such an assertion you should be able to easily substantiate it, or you wouldn't hold that position.

[Capcomm]

well i have learned all this in class, i can't give you the sources of the notes i take lol you know what i mean...

i guess i can do research online but im too lazy to do that, you can do it if youd like....i might be wrong, but this is what i learned in my University, i don't think i would be learning distorted information in my University.

You can wait for other members to come and validate my points or ask i guess.

[KC]

well i have learned all this in class, i can't give you the sources of the notes i take lol you know what i mean...

Then I'd have to tell you that your professor has vulgarized Marxist theory and watered it down to an evolutionary theory like so many others have done since Marx wrote them down. In other words, he's wrong.


i guess i can do research online but im too lazy to do that, you can do it if youd like....i might be wrong, but this is what i learned in my University, i don't think i would be learning distorted information in my University.

Well, you are. It's actually very common with regards to Marxist theory, because intellectuals like to water Marxism down into an intellectual-analytical system rather than a theory set in the real world and created to help influence the development of society.

[Capcomm]

Then I'd have to tell you that your professor has vulgarized Marxist theory and watered it down to an evolutionary theory like so many others have done since Marx wrote them down. In other words, he's wrong.

i highly doubt my professor who has a Phd in Political Theory from the University of California is wrong buddy....lets get realistic, who should i trust a total stranger in an internet forum full of pretty wacko people or my Phd professor? :rolleyes: get real.


Well, you are. It's actually very common with regards to Marxist theory, because intellectuals like to water Marxism down into an intellectual-analytical system rather than a theory set in the real world and created to help influence the development of society.

You say that im wrong with no proof at all, the burden of proof might be on me, but now it is on you as well.

[KC]

i highly doubt my professor who has a Phd in Political Theory from the University of California is wrong buddy....lets get realistic, who should i trust a total stranger in an internet forum full of pretty wacko people or my Phd professor? rolleyes.gif get real.

I hate to tell you this, but unfortunately it happens all the time. Would it make you feel better to know that I will be going to grad school after college to work towards a PhD in history myself, or that I have a friend who is a professor that agrees with me? Do you really think that everyone that has a doctorate has the exact same viewpoint on such issues?


You say that im wrong with no proof at all, the burden of proof might be on me, but now it is on you as well.

Read any of Marx's work. Then you'll be proven wrong.

[Capcomm]

Read any of Marx's work. Then you'll be proven wrong.

ok lets have a good discussion enough of the horsing around.

How am i wrong? Marx never talked about praxis? Is that what your saying?

[KC]

How am i wrong? Marx never talked about praxis? Is that what your saying?

Marx's theories of the development of society are based on class struggle and aren't based on an evolutionary theory of technological advance. Marx realized that proletarian revolution was necessary and that any theories of evolutionism or reform are incorrect and won't bring us out of capitalist society.

[Capcomm]

Marx's theories of the development of society are based on class struggle and aren't based on an evolutionary theory of technological advance. Marx realized that proletarian revolution was necessary and that any theories of evolutionism or reform are incorrect and won't bring us out of capitalist society.

You sir are highly mistaken, in fact one of the most important themes in Marx's theory is "technology", it is probably the most essential part in his whole theory.

Class struggle is simply what has been going on since we stepped out of caves and started history and society.

In fact Marx attributes technology as the cause for all changes in our consciousness; i hope you do know of Marx's theory of life experience? Our consciousness is the product of our life experience, or are you going to tell me Marx never said this either?

Look its simple, if you think communism is possible in a country that doesn't have the technological capacity to create a surplus to meet everyone's needs, than you surely know nothing of Marx and it sure as hell won't be communism.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:25 pm
but this is what i learned in my University, i don't think i would be learning distorted information in my University.
Hahahahaha I really hope you aren't in a university. This is the level of naiveness I would expect from my 11 year old cousin not someone 18+. You know what they say "don't let schooling get in the way of your education". Just because your Professor said something does not make it true. If it makes you feel any better I had a professor once that got his degrees from Oxford and he tried to explain Marx and got it totally way off. First of all he couldn't even spell his name right. He was spelling it Marks. Then he said it was something that doesn't work because people like to be different than other people and Marxism only wants everyone to be the same. Or something like that.

It really doesn't matter what degrees your teacher has. It is always necessary to question what you are told and who is telling it to you.


Look its simple, if you think communism is possible in a country that doesn't have the technological capacity to create a surplus to meet everyone's needs, than you surely know nothing of Marx and it sure as hell won't be communism.

Communism is not dependent on surplus to meet everyone's needs. It is dependent on meeting the needs of other according to your ability. Also communism is not dependent on Marx. Whatever you think you know about Marx is not relevant in judging a society as communistic. It would be relevant in judging a society as marxist.

[Capcomm]

Hahahahaha I really hope you aren't in a university. This is the level of naiveness I would expect from my 11 year old cousin not someone 18+. You know what they say "don't let schooling get in the way of your education". Just because your Professor said something does not make it true. If it makes you feel any better I had a professor once that got his degrees from Oxford and he tried to explain Marx and got it totally way off. First of all he couldn't even spell his name right. He was spelling it Marks. Then he said it was something that doesn't work because people like to be different than other people and Marxism only wants everyone to be the same. Or something like that.

It really doesn't matter what degrees your teacher has. It is always necessary to question what you are told and who is telling it to you

well that teacher is obviously off....the fact is my teacher uses Kemenka's "The Portable Marx" as his guide, he also has a german assistant from a university who is like his "teacher's aid" or what not at his side and im pretty sure he would correct him if something was wrong etc...and the fact that my teacher doesn't critique Marx at all, in fact he is the one who has changed me into actually believing communism can be possible and he has changed my outlook on communism as a whole 100%.


Communism is not dependent on surplus to meet everyone's needs. It is dependent on meeting the needs of other according to your ability. Also communism is not dependent on Marx. Whatever you think you know about Marx is not relevant in judging a society as communistic. It would be relevant in judging a society as marxist

Ahh well, if your going to talk about revisionists etc... like Mendel or what not, and people who have revisioned the Marxist theory than thats another thing, because im not totally aware of them, but im basing my comments on classical Marxism, on what Marx actually said...

[Chicano Shamrock]

Ahh well, if your going to talk about revisionists etc... like Mendel or what not, and people who have revisioned the Marxist theory than thats another thing, because im not totally aware of them, but im basing my comments on classical Marxism, on what Marx actually said...
No I am not talking about revisionist-marxism or marxism. I am talking about communism which is independent of Marx.

[Capcomm]

am talking about communism which is independent of Marx.

:huh: umm ok?

[Raúl Duke]

some strains of anarchism advocate a communist society, yet are not directly related to Marx.

The concept of communism isn't just a Marxian one; its the goal of both anarchists and communist (of the Marxist types)


Hahahahaha I really hope you aren't in a university. This is the level of naiveness I would expect from my 11 year old cousin not someone 18+. You know what they say "don't let schooling get in the way of your education". Just because your Professor said something does not make it true. If it makes you feel any better I had a professor once that got his degrees from Oxford and he tried to explain Marx and got it totally way off. First of all he couldn't even spell his name right. He was spelling it Marks. Then he said it was something that doesn't work because people like to be different than other people and Marxism only wants everyone to be the same. Or something like that.

It really doesn't matter what degrees your teacher has. It is always necessary to question what you are told and who is telling it to you.

This is true, all because someone has a degree doesn't make them smarter than you in all areas of knowledge.

If that were the case though, my teachers (specifically my history teachers) would know alot about Leftism than me, but that has never been the case.

[KC]

You sir are highly mistaken, in fact one of the most important themes in Marx's theory is "technology", it is probably the most essential part in his whole theory.

Let's stop doing the old back-and-forth and actually start debating. Would you care to substantiate your assertion with some evidence?


Class struggle is simply what has been going on since we stepped out of caves and started history and society.

Ah, so to Marx class struggle was just secondary? That's ridiculous. Check out the Manifesto of the Communist Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/). He doesn't say "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of technological change". In fact increases in the means of production and technological advancement is based on class struggle; it is done out of necessity so that the bourgeoisie can maintain the conditions of its rule.


In fact Marx attributes technology as the cause for all changes in our consciousness; i hope you do know of Marx's theory of life experience? Our consciousness is the product of our life experience, or are you going to tell me Marx never said this either?

Of course he did, but that's not really specific to technology and doesn't really prove your point; that's simply a materialist outlook.


Look its simple, if you think communism is possible in a country that doesn't have the technological capacity to create a surplus to meet everyone's needs, than you surely know nothing of Marx and it sure as hell won't be communism.

Please show me where Marx has said such a thing. If you were really interested enough to have this debate you would support your assertions rather than "being too lazy".


well that teacher is obviously off....the fact is my teacher uses Kemenka's "The Portable Marx" as his guide, he also has a german assistant from a university who is like his "teacher's aid" or what not at his side and im pretty sure he would correct him if something was wrong etc...and the fact that my teacher doesn't critique Marx at all, in fact he is the one who has changed me into actually believing communism can be possible and he has changed my outlook on communism as a whole 100%.

Then I invite you to actually read some Marx instead of relying solely on your professor's opinions. You could start with The Manifesto of the Communist Party or Principles of Communism. You'll quickly realize that Marx's theories are based primarily on class struggle. Hell, read the first few pages of the first section of the Manifesto and you'll realize it. Hell, just look at the table of contents!


Ahh well, if your going to talk about revisionists etc... like Mendel or what not, and people who have revisioned the Marxist theory than thats another thing, because im not totally aware of them, but im basing my comments on classical Marxism, on what Marx actually said...

You mean Ernest Mandel? He's not a revisionist.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 13, 2007 09:34 am

You sir are highly mistaken, in fact one of the most important themes in Marx's theory is "technology", it is probably the most essential part in his whole theory.

Let's stop doing the old back-and-forth and actually start debating. Would you care to substantiate your assertion with some evidence?


He was banned. No debating him now.

[KC]

What was he banned for?

[Phalanx]

Look in the Admin actions thread.