Piercing the mystical voodoo of Marxist

[Solzhenitsyn]

I'm new to the board but I've already seen this clever sleight of hand trick that Communists are world famous for using. They compare Capitalism in practice with Communism in theory. Thus capitalists are never able to criticize it. The socialist utopia forever dances on the horizon like the mirage that it surely is. Why don't they compare socialism in practice (USSR, PRC, Cambodia) with capitalism in practice?

A related phenomenon is the "moving goal post" syndrome on questions about how this Utopia will work. Whatever your doubts about its utimate composition; that what it surely is not. Will it have a bloated centralized distributing apparatus? No. Will it be based on local communities that can't have any advanced technologies? No. Will there be people in charge of determining human needs and thereby wielding absolute economic power? No. Will there be a cental career planning bereau so people will know what jobs to fill. No. Will there be widescale corruption and shirking work? No. Will you solve the horrible contradictions of Marxism by making consumer goods and food materialize from rocks? Eh, maybe.

Next up is the absurdity of Marxist historical intrepretations and its GIGO theory.

[RedRevolutionary87]

not true, capitalist theory is also flawed, but communist theory isnt

[IzmSchism]

i think communist theory is flawed from the point of view of the western notion of freedom, capitalism is based out of the christian spirit, perhaps more specifically, the spirit of protestentism, the drive to create as much wealth, and determination to be salvaged in the ressurection of christ, where marxist thought is as much atheistic in this historical perspective, it aims to achieve a similar type ressurection in terms of the church in its aim to conquer suffering and eliminate inequality, this would be the marxist salvation. The failing I understand, as only through my naive and limited scope is that we (people from the West) are so immersed in the capitalist spirit,or the spirit of the church, the undying spirit of freedom and choice, that we cannot embrace the idea of socialism or communism (whatever degree you wish to accept) from the simple fact that it goes against our moral inclination. To submit to the face of marxism, would be to hand over our freedom of choice. But then when we choose this, we find ourselves evermore facing the construct of a world of chaos, masked by a world of commercialism and materialism, evermore creating a juggernaut of imperialism, with at which there might come a time when even the capitalists or those who favour such systems will begin to realize even as praticed communism has failed, a system of capitalism will face the mobs of angry dissidents.

[Michael De Panama]

Only capitalists and Stalinist pseudo-fascist leaders of these "Socialism in practice" countries like to refer to Russia, China, Vietnam ect. as actually socialist.

Socialism is a democratic, world economic classless system, not an authoritarian, centralized hierarchial system. Capitalism in theory is the exact same as it is in practice.

[RedCeltic]

USSR, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam... etc. none of these countries where a highly industrialized nation enjoying any form of democracy... the result like in China is the shift from an repressive feudalistic society where people live in communes... to an repressive "Communist" society where people live in communes... very little change there... people basically stay with what they where used to.

The reason not to compare these past governments to ideologies of people on this board is because most people on this board are talking about communism within a western, highly industrialized, and democratic state such as the United States, UK, etc.

People have different values in different cultures, therefore there is no reason to compare would be socialism for a western state to communism of the third world.




(Edited by RedCeltic at 2:55 pm on April 13, 2002)

[Solzhenitsyn]

Irregardless*, of what you think of the USSR, Cuba and the PRC, you cannot deny that they started out as Marxist revolutions/movements.
All I asked was point to a socialist revolution that hasn't degenerated into the terrible ethos of crime and madness that goes hand in hand with marxist movements.


* Word not yet approved for widespread use by the People's Comissariat of Language.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 11:13 pm on April 13, 2002)

[poncho]

You could strongly argue that Cuba did not start as a Marxist revolution movement.

[pce]

Piercing the mystical voodoo of Capitalism

Do everything possible to run every leftist revolution to the ground, pull a mask of happiness over the only people who could actually lead a successful revolution in the first place (people of industrialized countries) and point at the "failure" of communistic theory.

mmm...

by the way shukhov, "irregardless" is not a word

[Guest]

>Poncho
>You could strongly argue that Cuba did not start as a >Marxist revolution movement.

You are right there, Cuba started as a Stallinist regime.
The asked the help of USSR to implement "communisme"in Cuba, not really realising I guess that USSR is not communist as meant by Karl Marx and have long abandoned the Lenist views.
In reality, the USSR(and cuba) or both run by capitalist who enjoy all the priviliges and wealth most western leader have and hide under a mask called propoganda.

But I'm glad Russia saw it's flaws back then and now they are going to recover with the Help of western funds:)

Even China is disbanding their Maoist views and are gradually changing to a democracy.

I'm thinking about registering and having a signature something like:
Communisme leads to Democracy eventually.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Dear loyal aparatchnik.

Irregardless is a word in most dialects in the US so is aint, but to appease your Marxist puritanical zeal, I have edited my post denoting my shameless act of using words not yet approved by the People's Comissariat of Language. I hope you'll find it in your heart not to report me to NKVD.

[Angie]

Wow. The Cappies population of this forum is growing. Did someone from a Cappie forum post a link to us, and invite them all to drift over? :biggrin:

(Edited by Angie at 4:37 pm on April 14, 2002)

[RedCeltic]

Well, you did get one thing right... Irregardless is a word. It is a double negative, and in 'non-standard' English. Although rarely used in conversational English, is acceptable as an added emphasis.

Basically in use to sound more scholarly while simply 'regardless' would suffice.

Let’s not pick on peoples English now… remember the board is full on non native English speakers.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Irregardless is from the Southern dialect, which is rife with double negatives (and even triple negatives). Ahhh, no matter how much I've been educated; my Southern kulak roots show through at times.

[antitrot]

Utopia on the horizon? Sounds more like Capitalism then Socialism. So when do I get my *****es, my benz and my billion bucks? Boss says it's right on the horizon if I work hard! Then of course, we could explore this ever growing market populism which is essentially Utopian (albeit Capitalist and Utopian) rhetoric in itself.

There is only a few strains of Socialists and communists who claim that their system will bring about a "utopia," they are aptly called "Utopian Socialists." The strongest current of "Utopian Socialists" runs in the large, good hearted, but ultimately useless non-violent movement here in North America. However, they do not represent what Socialism is. Rather, they represent a genuine lack of understanding of the very principles of Socialism, or communism, or Anarchism or whatever it is they consider themselves.

So to clear another myth, no one I consider a true Socialist (read: whatever left political label) is shouting "utopia on the horizon!" I'd send 'em back home to read their Marx if they did! ;)

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Solzhenitsyn on 4:15 am on April 14, 2002
Irregardless of what you think of the USSR, Cuba and the PRC, you cannot deny that they started out as Marxist revolutions/movements.
All I asked was point to a socialist revolution that hasn't degenerated into the terrible ethos of crime and madness that goes hand in hand with marxist movements.


I can't? Watch me:
None of those countries began as Marxist revolutions.

It's "regardless" in the context that you were using it, by the way. But that really doesn't matter.

[antitrot]

Bah, with the exception of Cambodia and that ilk, they were all halfway decent Socialist revolutions.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 3:12 am on April 14, 2002

I can't? Watch me:
None of those countries began as Marxist revolutions.

Can you deny it with any intellectual honesty? Do marxists even have intellectual honesty? Do marxists even have honesty? No, No, & No.



It's "regardless" in the context that you were using it, by the way. But that really doesn't matter.


Then why bring it up? I've already apologized for my use of unapproved words. Please don't liquidate me in the coming communist hell for my kulak upbringing.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 2:26 pm on April 14, 2002)

[RedCeltic]

Oh.. .stop with attacking on grounds of using slang language... the greater majority here use four letter slang words here from time to time. In the context of a publish printed essay, "Irregardless" is not acceptable, however in the usage displayed here, it's perfectly acceptable if you write how you talk... and use "Irregardless", "Aint", "Gonna", "Ustacould" or what you like...

This is Che-Lives not English 101...

And no I'm not "Defending a Cappie"... it's just common sense.

[Moskitto]

talking in slang is ok, but then it just turns inA sorA talking like dis u nowe where u start typing like shI across da iNernet and no one can undersand ya.