surely there must be an inherent flaw in communism theory

[ArgueEverything]

i think this is what reagan lives has been trying to say - that communist revolutions may start off with good intentions, but they neccesarily lead to a dictatorship because of the very nature of marxist theory.

its not good enough to say "the USSR wasnt communist, it was stalinist". WHY did it become stalinist? and for that matter, why did every other country that had a communist revolution degenerate into a similar bureacratic regime to the USSR's?

trotskyists say that if trotsky, and not stalin, had come to power, things would be different. but is this not a fundamentally anti-materialist explanation? arent marxists meant to laugh at the suggestion that one man's ideals can alter the entire course of a nation's history? a materialist explanation would hold that the USSR was determined to be a dictatorship right from the start, regardless of whether stalin emerged as leader.

it seems to me that the only explanations marxists can offer is that the USSR, cuba, china, eastern europe etc were not 'ripe' for a communist revolution bcos they had not experienced full-blown capitalism.

[Fuck A Capitalist]

Communism didn't work in those countries because the people weren't ready for the revolution and the new system of living. People are consumed by their self interests and would rather work for the betterment of their living then the whole community which takes time, dedication, and struggle. Communism is not easy to attain and the people must believe and want communism instead be forced into it.

[Super Xero]

Marx said that a Social Revolution would occur in a Developed Nation, during the early 20th century much of Russia was not developed. Germany and Britian were a good example for a Revolution during those days.

[honest intellectual]

It's Stalin's fault. He came to power and fucked evrything up. As the USSR was such a powerful state, it held influence over all the other communist countries and fucked them up too. Except maybe Cuba, but I haven't been there yet to check it out.

[Nateddi]

Revolutions failed?

I am not trying to be an apologist, but. Always compare the new nation with the pre-revolutionary nation. In that case, all revolutions are a success. They have not been able to establish true communism for the reasons that the posters above mensioned.

[peaccenicked]

caipatilism is the dominant mode of production
The first wave of world revolution came from backward
underdeveloped countries who at least escaped direct super exploitation for a while but whose leaderships dragged the name of socialism through the mud.
the world revolution can only succeed if it becomes the dominant mode of production in the world.
So far our successes have been partial, we have proved
that the majority can take power, if organised well enough. we have failed to expand revolution, and
counter revolutionary nationalism, beat us back down.
Marx predicted that our first attempts would be futile.
The next great wave of world revolution is still in its infancy, learning baby steps,but to paraphrase the words of the fictional character Fu ManChu. The world will hear from us again.
The spectre of communism will rise and rise again till
the victory of universal liberation
"forever till victory" Che.

[Imperial Power]

same old, same old

[peaccenicked]

same old, same old

[guerrillaradio]

Argue Everything's right. Communism is as much of a failure as Capitalism. Marxism was an idea, a theory, it can never work in practice. Same with Capitalism, except most people hate to admit it...

[Michael De Panama]

Funny.

No communist revolution has EVERY been led by the proletariat.

Interesting, huh?

[Thine Stalin]

Stalin's Soviet Union suceeded! Gorbechev and Stalin's Succesors ruined all Stalin had worked to achieve, total dominance of his people, succesful farming collectives, Cut off from the evils of western society, all ruined by supposed more 'humane' people..

[sabre]

they ruined the domination of the people? good! SOcialism is completely the opposite of domination

who would want to be dominated?

[Michael De Panama]

Shut up you Stalinist jackass.

[Fidelista]

Thine Stalin you obviously support a regime that murdered 30 million people and the secret police had records on 1 in every 10 russians out of like a 200 million population. Stalin is a pig. You think it is fine for 30 million people to be murdered and starved to death. Look at your family members and yourself and see if you would prepare to sacrice them along with the other 30 million innocent victims in order to industralise a nation and create a more stable economy.

[eudaimonia]

i love panama's observation that the proletariat has never led a revolution. Orwell's 1984 described a modified "class struggle" that better fits reality. The High oppresses the Low and the Middle. The Middle enlists the Low to overthrow the High, and so the Middle becomes the High, the High becomes the dead, and the Low stays as the Low. It will likely require further US "globalization", but the oppressed 3rd world countries will soon just become one big country supplying the US. When that happens (completely), nationalism will no longer be able to keep them from realizing that they are all in the same position, that they are not alone, and they will fight. A proletariat-led revolution has not happened. Marx's assumption that the proletariat's revolt would install a communist state. Neither of those things have happened- the proleteriat has never (successfully) led its own revolt, and a communist state has never been installed. What we've gotten is state socialism, in stark contrast to the democratic socialism that would have meant a gradation into communism. NAtionalesoZIaliste... state socialism was what the Nazis used. Needless to say, it isn't the way to communism. However, in order to install democratic socialism, the state needs first to be prosperous, productive, and educated (developed), in order to meet the basic needs of the people. Capitalism (or capitalistic action) does for democratic socialism what the 5-year plans did for state socialism.
To finish up, there's no inherent flaw in communism. There's an inherent flaw in thinking that people can "will" a communist society into being.

[guerrillaradio]

Eudaimonia - I think you missed the point of 1984 slightly. Orwell's point was that Communism will ultimately fail, as proved by his High, Low and Middle idea. Effectively, once the exploited overthrow the exploiters, they become the exploiters themselves, therefore defeating Marx's theory...

[eudaimonia]

I see what you mean, guerillaradio, but i want to point out that direct democracy is what is required for communism, not a big brother. in a system with REAL democracy, exploitation is pretty damn hard, unless by brainwashing/propaganda, which would be unsuccessful (you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time). Simply due to the fact that the Low outnumbers the High and the Middle, direct voting would mean that the Proletariat would hold the majority of political power.

[Rosa]

it seems to me that you guys missed something when reading marx (have you red him at all?). he never said that communism will be established by revolution, but will come natirally as stadium that comes after capitalism in evolution of society.
Thine Stalin: you can't call yourself a "leftist" if you support stalinism, for he used people as means, to pleasure his sick desire for power. he haven't seen people as a goal his system should achieve. He was opressor. Unfortunately.

[sabre]

you guys seem to forget that Orwell was a democratic-socialist

he wrote 1984 to show the dangers of a totalitarian, authoritarian communist society, like the USSR was, not to bash communism

[Thine Stalin]

To Fildesta

I don't have enough time currently to write a decent arguement back, I'll try and do it this evening, but first, why do you criticize a leader, that (I assume you support Castro?) Castro, tried to follow his example? Most Communist Leaders have tried to follow Stalin's example.

[libereco]

(warning: childish insult coming up)

Thine Stalin: go follow stalins example and die please.

[Capitalist]

Fuck a Capitalist - "Communism didn't work in those countries because the people weren't ready for the revolution and the new system of living."

What planet are you from?

The people totally supported revolution from dictatorships and corrupt democracies. Everybody in Cuba supported the downfall of Batista. Everybody in Russia supported the downfall of the Czar.

The problem is that their revolution was then stolen by the communist!

The problem with communists is they begin with purges and executions of the old regime - without fair trials.

Then a ban on free enterprise/capitalism.

Then a ban on unionized workers and freedom to assembly,

then a ban on speech against the new communisitc government,

then a ban on opposing political parties and free elections

then a ban on all newspapers that print critical reports,

then a ban on the right to bear arms,

then they begin organizing Gestapo or CDRs on every corner to encourage neighbor spying on neighbor.

they then provide "Free Education" = Brainwashed Education.

They then start demanding that everyone participate in Military = More Brainwashing for Adults,

The list goes on

In the end - a corrupt system of deomcray is replaced by a new system

A new system of TYRANNCY

[Moskitto]

Lots of revolutions do that, not just communist ones, look at Africa after the fall of colonialism or the French Revolution or the English civil war.

[Michael De Panama]

I don't know about you, but I get tired of using the same arguments again and again with ignorant capitalists.

What the guy meant by "the people in these countries weren't ready", was, for example, how Russia was not even industrialized during the time of the revolution. It didn't even have a proletariat. It didn't really have a capitalist system to rebel against.

The communist theory does not include anything related to brainwashing, abandonement of free speech, or the abandonement of a free election. Communism is actually the most democratic system out there. But if the majority rules in favor of the abandonement of free speech, that's the way things go. I, however, completely oppose any form of censorship.

The thing is...this is a WORLD economy. The workers have no nation. If revolution in one country goes through, it is still not a successfull revolution. The only way to replace the capitalist system is to replace the entire capitalist system.

Ugh...I get really sick of saying the same things...