Perfection

[LittleMao]

I am still a bit new at this, but I have a few things to say/ask.

From what I know, do no true Communist contries exist?

Is the problem with Communism the leaders, who twist the perfect idea, and use it to their advantage.
So the only way to achive perfect communism, is to have the perfect leader.
How can we have the perfect leader who will not become corrupt with power and money, some one who will distribute the wealth as it should be?

[RGacky3]

The solution is to have no Leader.

[KC]

Leaders only emerge as a result of material conditions and are representative of those conditions. Blaming leaders is wrong because of this.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Marxist analysis of human history differs from what might be called the 'great man' theory of history (which places great emphasis on the role of individuals and their aspirations) in that Marxists believe that all changes in the political, cultural, and social aspects of society are the results of underlying economic forces that derive from class struggle (conflict between classes) and changes in the forces of production (the resources we have avaliable to produce goods and services). The leaders that you describe are in fact simply the products of other conditions, as another poster suggested. If a totalitarian leader is able to gain power (as occurred in Russia) this shows that the material conditions were not supportive of a class-less and democratic society.

[Whitten]

Trying to implement "perfect communism" without adapting it to the material conditions of the time, would be far worse than any historic example.

[Janus]

So the only way to achive perfect communism
That's a poor/incorrect term. We shouldn't fetishize communism as some utopian and perfect society when the reality is that it will always be changing and improving.


How can we have the perfect leader who will not become corrupt with power and money, some one who will distribute the wealth as it should be?
Something which is utterly impossible and which will only lead to more failures. After a paradigm has encoutered so many failures, common sense would dictate that we should move away from it rather than holding onto any straws.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:47 am
I am still a bit new at this, but I have a few things to say/ask.

From what I know, do no true Communist contries exist?

Is the problem with Communism the leaders, who twist the perfect idea, and use it to their advantage.
So the only way to achive perfect communism, is to have the perfect leader.
How can we have the perfect leader who will not become corrupt with power and money, some one who will distribute the wealth as it should be?
No true Communist country has ever existed. When deluded cappies think communism/socialism, they think Stalinist Soviet Russia, which of course was more fascist than anything. Also China, North Korea and Cuba are not true Marxist regimes. They have all been stolen from the cause. The Soviet Union could have been the perfect Communist society, but Stalin betrayed us, blah blah blah, Trotsky, blah blah. You've heard the story.

And as for the bourgeois leader problem, there is no perfect leader, so the solution is to not have one at all.

[manic expression]

"Perfection" is fallacious, it is impossible.

Communism is not "perfect", it is classless and stateless and more, but that does not make it "perfect".

And no, there has never been communism.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:18 am
The Marxist analysis of human history differs from what might be called the 'great man' theory of history (which places great emphasis on the role of individuals and their aspirations) in that Marxists believe that all changes in the political, cultural, and social aspects of society are the results of underlying economic forces that derive from class struggle (conflict between classes) and changes in the forces of production (the resources we have avaliable to produce goods and services). The leaders that you describe are in fact simply the products of other conditions, as another poster suggested. If a totalitarian leader is able to gain power (as occurred in Russia) this shows that the material conditions were not supportive of a class-less and democratic society.
Which is interesting when you consider that many "Leninists" blame Stalin for preventing (or reversing or whatever) Socialism from happening in the USSR.

Many Stalinists then go on to blame Khrushchev.

So, are these (often Trotskyists in the first case) misguided and not thinking appropriate Marxian thoughts? Keen minds (not mine, my mind is rather dull) await your answer.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:31 pm
No true Communist country has ever existed.
Your wrong, on both a historical and theoretical level.

[Rawthentic]

Really?

Wow. Maybe I should pick up a history book and reread. Im so confused now.... :P

[ExpansiveThought]

The failure of supposed 'communist' society certainly cant be attirbuted to that of the leaders alone, as throughout history world super powers have always placed on extreme emphasis on the containment and dismantling of communism everywhere.

I would like to add this question however, what was the role of the russian mafia in the collapse of the USSR?

[RedLenin]

So, are these (often Trotskyists in the first case) misguided and not thinking appropriate Marxian thoughts?
We do not believe that Stalin was the sole thing that ended the workers state in the Soviet Union. Really the rise of Stalin and the consolidation of the bureaucracy was just the critical point in a long process of bureaucratic degeneration, which was rooted in real material factors. Mainly the isolation and backwardness. These factors forced the rise of undesireable elements in the workers state: a standing army, secret police, and stunted workers democracy.

It wasn't all perfect under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, it was actually severely bureaucratically deformed, and even Lenin admitted this. The marxist analysis of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution is fully materialist, we do not blame everything on one man.

As to the original question, obviously no communist society has ever existed. And communism can only world-wide in the first place. That said, I think Cuba is the closest thing to socialism that exists today. Cuba is not fully socialist and it has some problems, but it is the only state in the world that is close to socialism and retains worker's democracy.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
So, are these (often Trotskyists in the first case) misguided and not thinking appropriate Marxian thoughts?

If you have ever read anything of Marx or Lenin or Trotsky you would have never asked this idiotic question. Trotskyist's criticism of Stalin is not because we hate the individual Stalin like the bourgeoisie and individuals like you you do. It is beacause what Stalin did in the circumstances he lived in. And our criticism is not baseless.

As for original topic, Communism is not an ideal system. It is a material necessity.Our movement is never based on principles but on concrete facts.

[Janus]

I would like to add this question however, what was the role of the russian mafia in the collapse of the USSR?
The Russian Mafia was simply an outgrowth/consequence of the USSR's economic troubles particularly with its rationing system.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+March 23, 2007 10:12 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ March 23, 2007 10:12 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 04:31 pm
No true Communist country has ever existed.
Your wrong, on both a historical and theoretical level. [/b]
How so? What TRUE Communist country has ever existed? Please elaborate.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:22 pm
How so? What TRUE Communist country has ever existed? Please elaborate.
The USSR, China, Vietnam, various Eastern European countries, and to a certain extent Mongolia, just to name a few, and all of which were Communist, up until a certain point, until they then fell prey to crypto-capitalism in the form of "market Socialism," such as China, or to revisionism, as was the case for the USSR, and Mongolia, and the Eastern European countries.

[Janus]

I think this is a semantical debate here.

Communism (when capitalized) simply means that the state and economy is dominated and controlled by a Communist Party whereas communism (notice that it isn't in caps) is a classless, stateless society. The latter has yet to be achieved to date on any large scale.

[RGacky3]

depends how you define Communism, I define it as a community where property is communal, or held in common. By that definition there have been a couple communist Societies. Not including however the Vnaguardist State Socialist Societies, becuase the State or the Party Control is'nt the same as Communal.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:59 am
Not including however the Vnaguardist State Socialist Societies, becuase the State or the Party Control
Just for reference Marx talked about the worker's state control in the Communist Manifesto, so by his own words, that was Communism, which has been in practice.