Which country is best suitable for Communisme?

[PaulDavidHewson]

A question for the reds, which country on this planet is ripe/could be ripe with some work for Communisme as intended by Marx and would succeed in staying one?

[Moskitto]

I would disagree that marxism and communism are mutually inclusive, However in awnser to your question, Latin American countries have come far closer to Communism than Eurasia or Africa. Grenada nearly worked but a Stalinist destroyed it.

[BatistaNationalista]

Blame everything on Stalin, eh comrades?

Stalin was a faithfull Marxist-Leninist, and you all know it. Don't go blaming others, face it, communism will and has never worked. Cuba was much better off before communists seized power.

[RedRevolutionary87]

the countries in which capitalism has taken the most controll, the most industrialy developed country. all you need is to read the manifesto, its a short read and itll help you understand.

[Xvall]

Leninist? You do realize that Trotsky was Lenin's friend. And I don't think someone who would kill Lenin's friend would be a very good Leninist. In fact, in this picture, I don't even think that Stalin or Lenin were friends anymore.

- Drake Dracoli


http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/images/lenin9.jpg

[poncho]

Quote: from BatistaNationalista on 11:12 pm on April 18, 2002
Cuba was much better off before communists seized power.


How was it better?

BaptistaNationalista+PaulDavidHewson=The former poster known as Capitalist.

[TITOMAn]

Like Marx said. Country must have some groundwork from capitalism and that this is used for forming socialism (you can not achieve it in one year, that is long procedure). Why revolution in Russia failed? First thing is that Russia was very backward country and had no basic ground for socialism. The other thing is that there was civil war in SU in year 1920 which produced a mass starvation. Some people say that it was war-communism, but war-communism was necesary at that time, because there was so many people that wanted to fight for Red Army to defend young Soviet Union and they all had to be fed and dressed. And because of that many people were forced to stay on farms and produce food for everyone. Even America (which has itself for very democratic country) would limit its freedom if there was true military attack on USA (just remember what kind of panic Bush did on 11th September, what would have been if there was true war, he would introduce probably introduce something even strickter than war-communism).

So we had big famine and big backwardness. In history every time that situation was so bad that it can hardly be even worse, form of bonapartism came to power (Bonapartism is form of tsarism and Stalinism is form of Bonapartism). We had many that kind examples in history, Napoleon, Hitler,... Hitler came to power from total crisis that was in Germany after WW I....

The next thing is that state nature of USSR was very degenerated. And workers were not even on power anymore. They were supplanted with bureaucracy and suddenly "the dictatorship of proletariat became dictatorship over proletariat" and workers were on mercy of Stalinist regime which was not de-Stalinzed when Khruschev came to power (as some people incorrectly think), because bureaucracy still stayed and was the rulling caste in the country. Anyone who ever read communist manifesto (or some other works of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Engels) see that USSR had very little or, better, nothing in common with marxism.

Main 4 resons:

1.) Proletariat was not the ruling class as marxist said that it should be when transition from capitalism to socialism would start, but were supplanted by bureaucratic caste.

2.) Workers Soviet commites were not put into practice and workers were not able to elect their representatives as Lenin and Trotsky said it should be.

3.) Internacional programme was in practice abolished by Stalin on start, when he said German revolutionaries "Let fascist try first with revolution". And internacional was later never refounded (If we put aside 4th international which was determined to loss at that time) and Soviet bureaucracy at all resources they had at disposal, not even single marxist book came out of Soviet Union, here is quotation from one book:

"It is a condemnation of the Stalinist regime that for seventy years not one original work of Marxist philosophy or economics came out of the Soviet Union. With all the resources of a subcontinent at their disposal, they were not able to match the achievements of one man sitting alone in the reading room of the British Museum. That alone is a sufficient commentary on the so-called Marxism-Leninism of the Stalinist regime. Small wonder that the rigid, lifeless dogmas that were fed to generations of students under this heading provoked aversion, and only served to discredit the very idea of Marxism in the eyes of a large number of serious intellectuals and youth."

So it was obvious that Stalin who started with programme "Socialism in one country", which was totaly alien to marxism and no marxist has never written that it should be brought to practice, laied groundwork, but not for socialism, but for capitalist resurrection.


4.) Until Brezhnevs rule, bureaucracy was still able to play a progressive role in means of production, although it made a colossal waste (used three times resorces that it should). Bureaucracy was so ignorant and wanted to produce as many products as possible. In many factories production was speeded up. Bureaucracy was forcing workers to produce more and more. People and mechanics found out that new tractors had from every series worse quality. That was because bureaucracy wanted produced as many tractor as possible and quality fell at rate for 200%, when production was speeded up for 10%. Because tractors were in worse condition already when they were new and they had lower life age, and next time bureaucracy ordered more tractors which were even worse quality, because they were produced even faster for quantity. Bureaucracy never woried about quality. Many factory workers did not support that kind of production and wanted to produce better quality, but bosses (which were told by bureacracy how many produmany products must be produced) forced workers to work so fast, no matter about quality.
There we see why Trotsky was right when he said "Planned economy needs democracy as human body needs oxygen". Workers did not really want to produce such a bad quality, but they were forced to do so. If USSR was real workers´ state that would never happen, because workers would decide about production and they would have full right to recall any official that would not work as he should and place anotherone on his place who would do work better.
But no on every genre of industry production was forced. In production of televisions and cars there was big freedom which was seen in very good quality of televisions and cars, which were also built on such way, that little things were able to be repaired by anyone (not like today when you have to go to service for any little thing). Also big freedom was in war industry, where bureaucracy wanted special quality of arms to be produced with not such fast speed (because bureaucracy wanted to show the world how good arms they have and also many were used for exports to other countries (China, Cuba, Vietnam, USSR, Yugoslavia,...). Now we see that it was bureaucracy which was obturator in planned economy and produced colossal waste and not workers or system as capitalist like to say so many times "Look people, you don´t want us to end like Soviet Union, do you." But the fact is that never was workers´ state in USSR or socialist state or even communist as some like to claim.




About the biggest potencial for first country to become socialist? I think Western Europe has the biggest potencial. Maybe Marx was not wrong when he said, "revolution will start in France it will proceed to Germany and will finish in England, then world revolution will follow". We see that Italian workers are pretty pissed of nowadays and over 13 million workers were on strike, more about that here http://www.marxist.com/Europe/italy20020416.html maybe something will come out of this. Also in Argentina tensions are pretty high http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/argentina_w...kers_power.html (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/argentina_workers_power.html)

Time will tell, but in every contry there must be one marxist organization which will be able to lead working class in struggle as soon as the chance is shown.


(Edited by TITOMAn at 5:21 am on April 19, 2002)


(Edited by TITOMAn at 12:03 am on April 20, 2002)

[IzmSchism]

the united states of america,
the new world will come to fulfill its own destiny,,,,

[PaulDavidHewson]

"BaptistaNationalista+PaulDavidHewson=The former poster known as Capitalist. "

this is my last post to poncho so read carefully:
"Nowhere, anywhere at anytime have I claimed to be a supporter of capitalisme"

If anything, I am against capitalisme as much as I am against communisme you already kenw this, I stressed this many times and I feel extremely dumb for stressing this again.

[Michael De Panama]

Um. Do you realize that Marxism is the idea of a global economic system to replace another global economic system? Communism isn't a system that works in one nation. The workers have no nation. Communism is an international goal. Instead of a competitive global economy, it's a coopertive global economy.

[Hayduke]

Lenin always said dont let Stalin get control.....he's the last suitable for the job. He would destroy everything.
Stalin just used propaganda to let people think he was lenins friend..........

[Guest]

Lenin and Stalin were still friends. Hence Lenin appointing Stalin as his minister for nationalities.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

A country suitable for communism would be Argentina, the resources are quit hingh for the living of all. the gap between the rich and ythe poor is too big. Think that the average is $600, but the poorest earns $50 while the richest earn $50000, so if all the goods are commonly divided, hunger could be defeated.

[Nateddi]

TITOMAn
Excellent report, I love it!

Bono
When Poncho refered you to Capitalist, he meant Capitalist the member on this message board, not that you are a capitalist.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Guest on 2:54 pm on April 19, 2002
Lenin and Stalin were still friends. Hence Lenin appointing Stalin as his minister for nationalities.


I don't think so. They may have been friends at the start. But before the election with Stalin and Trotsky, Lenin urged people not to vote for Stalin.

- Drake Dracoli

[oconner]

maybe it is best to create the conditions yourself

[Moskitto]

Blame everything on Stalin, eh comrades?

Note "Stalinist" Not "Stalin"

The Stalinist is question did what he did 30 years after Stalin died.

And he doesn't have to be Stalin to be a Stalinist, He just has to follow the ideology of Stalinism.

[deimos]

I thing a country were communism had good chances would be Japan.For instance, japanese farmers are working in collectivated villages.And japanese people say that the Farmer-work is the root of the economic succes.

[Communist Dominion]

Titoman, large threads do not show your intelligence, meerly making up for the size of your****. but i think russia is actuallty prime for communism because it cant live withour it. look at russia, it sux!.........that is all i have to say about modern russia, well thanks USA for the um.."liberation". liberation of stability of life and food.
And Stalin hated trotsky because trotsky thought that it would be useless to have communism in one country, it had to be worldwide. So stalin killed him, trosky was hindering the USSR.
And that picture of stalin and lenin is a fake, its two pictures superimposed. Stalinist properganda, but properganda is ot always bad. it united the russian people, i know its a little unorthadox to support stalin but he got results, at the cost of lives maybe, but in the long run it saved manymore. he was not corrupt, he looked at the big picture.

[Xvall]

... You're kidding.. Right?

[PaulDavidHewson]

Communist Dominion that is the funniest thing I read since I came on this board.

I know you are kidding, noone is that dumb.

[Dan Majerle]

This board has previously banned racists such as Rommel before right? Well in that case Stalinists must also be considered as these people who adhere to the theories and actions of not only a tyrant but a man who in the last years of his rule introduced anti-sematic policies and began to think along the racist lines of Hitler. Stalin even jailed Molotov's wife because she was Jewish. He was a racist and those who bear the name "Thine Stalin", "Stalinsoldiers" and "Communist Domain" must be considered banning unless they state immediately they are absolutely against the anti-sematicm adopted by their fuhrer and any other forms of racism.

[RedRevolutionary87]

argh stalinism is only stalins political belief not his tupid ass personal belief, so stalinism doesnt involve anti semitism. personally i hate stalinist but i hate a lack of unity in the left even more

[PaulDavidHewson]

What are you talking about?

Stallinisnme was named after Stalin, how could Stallinisme ever be different from the believes Stalin had?

By the way, Stalin gave nothing about human rights.
He ordered the contruction of appartments with double wall spacing so he could eves-drop on the people living there, if they said anyting he didn't like they would come for them at night.

He ordered the construction of cities. During the contruction more people died than at the battle of the Somme.

[pastradamus]

i think argeismntina would be a good country for social

[Xvall]

Well, I think he's trying to say, paul, is that Stalinism is meant mainly for political belief. Not nececarilly following every single atribute of Stalin. Stalin may have liked Vodka. But it does not mean all stalinists are 'bound' to the love of vodka.

- Drake Dracoli

[PaulDavidHewson]

of course you are right Drake and I will admit that I don't know enough about Stallisme, I shall read up on it and continue my bashing then :P

[PaulDavidHewson]

Anyway, I agree with the point Dan Majerle was trying to make.

Stalinisme is just as bad as facisme.

Anyone claiming to adhere to either of those cannot be taken seriously and are probably just trying to get a reaction from the people here.

[Communist Dominion]

"stalinism as bad as fascism""racist""cruel dictator"?
well you all have a lot to say about it, imagine being in his shoes at that time, out of all the time periods he got to govern the USSR during the deppresion and WW2, (talk about gettin the short straw) he did the best he could, do you hjave any idea how many jews and other demographics the Nazi's hated lived in russia? If Hitler took the USSR the death toll for genocide and war crimes would of multiplied to millions more.
please give me a web address, book title or anyhting that gives info on stalins "racist attitude" he was to god damn stressed and busy to be racist. You all seem too really hate him yet seem to know little on the matter.
Do you know what would of happend to russia without stalin? he kept it going in the worst years on earth.
Yes he did some attrocities, but was that his actual aim? No, it was all in the overall best interests of the people. Anyway im no stalinist but just hate people expressing their properganda ridden brains around places.

[Ernest Everhard]

stalins anti semitic and racist attitudes are heavily documented, not only by history text, but also by the blood of thousands of jews that died in organized pogroms, millions of tartars who died during forced migrations.

Read:

Out of the Red Shadows: Anti-Semitism in Stalin's Russia by Gennadi Kostyrchenko

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/depo.html

[Dan Majerle]

Or even Robert Conquest's "Breaker of Nations"

[Maaja]

Stalinism is bad! Stalin sent 40 000 Estonians to concentration camps to Siberia, a lot of people died there. Almost all the Chechen and Ingush nation were sent too, Latvians, Lithuanians... It was as bad as facism! It's easy to say that Stalin was a great guy and that stalinism is good if everything he did was far away from you. I've met people who've been to Siberia, even some of my relatives have been there, it wasn't that cool at all, I can swear.

[deimos]

I agree.Stalinism is almost as bad as fascism.Allthough, stalin is always seen more cruel than he really was.Our history books say, that 30 million people died in siberia.Sorry, but that can't be true.And these germans who say that the russians were so cruel forget that 18 million russian civilians were killed by the germans.No matter if they were jews or catholic people.The people are shocked when they hear that almost 350000 german soldiers were killed in stalingrad.But only a few know that 3 million russians died in the battle.

[Maaja]

30 million? That's little bit too much...

[deimos]

i can send you a copy of the page, if you want.According to this "history"book 30 people were killed by stalin!(without the losses in ww2)

[Hayduke]

Quote: from deimos on 7:56 pm on April 23, 2002
i can send you a copy of the page, if you want.According to this "history"book 30 people were killed by stalin!(without the losses in ww2)

Put it on here please man I really dig to see that

[deimos]

okay, sorry 20 million people were killed by stalin.(but that sounds a little bit "impossible" too).I added the 10 million victims of the famine in 1927-1929.

[Hayduke]

Quote: from deimos on 10:37 pm on April 23, 2002
okay, sorry 20 million people were killed by stalin.(but that sounds a little bit "impossible" too).I added the 10 million victims of the famine in 1927-1929.

Man just listen.

If we commies go fighting against each other then what could we ever accomplish together........absolutely nothing......

[RGacky3]

yes we must unite comrads.

[deimos]

yes yes i know!I said that this numbers can't be true!And this famine wasn't the fault of stalin.But in our history book(Durch die vergangenheit zur gegenwart,through history to present day page 10) is written:
Unter stalins gewaltherrschaft(bis 1953) kehrten schätzungen zufolge 20 Millionen gefangene nie wieder heim.
Under stalins violent-dictatorship(till 1953) came 20 million prisoners never home again.

[Ho]

I believe that Argentina is nowadays one of the countries which is more likely and more prepared to have a violent revolution for several reasons.
Ex-soldiers who faught in Malvinas have been ignored by every government since them. They could organize the military part.
There are several ideological liders such as Deputy Zamora to organize the government.
And last People in argentina are tiered of corrupt governments and are extremly angry with capitalism in general and moreover the U$

[deimos]

Y are the argentinians waiting?

[Communist Dominion]

Look stalin did what at the time may of been the best thing, the collectivist farms fed millions who would of starved, think if the famine ahad came upon the tsarist russia? that would of been the most terrible famine ever! and those 20 million , well all the infomation i have read said that 20 million died at stalingrad and other german occupied territories, and that 6 million died (including the famine) under the stalinist periods. but stalin did modernize the soviet union, he paved the way for practical solutions to many of their problems, but yes we comrades must unite, we needent get split upon matters such as this, forms of communism shall adapt to the situation the have to govern, in the day of the final revolution.

[Anarcho]

Study farm reports of the period if you can.... most analysts that I've read state the the famine was caused by the collectivization of the farms.

The Kolkhaz(sp?) were designed with political thoughts, not efficiency or production. They took privatly owned fields, and broke them up into many small plots. Total agrarian output dropped due to this, which was a major contributing factor to the famine.

This trend continued, off and on, thorughout Soviet history, up to the 1980's, when the US sold the USSR tons upon tons of food at very very cheap prices (much the annoyance of the farmers here).

It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the government allowed private ownership of land. All farms until that point had been "leased".

[Kez]

Moving back to what the orginal thread was about
i reckon the following coutries are ready for socialism:
"western europe"
North America
Japan
Opec Nations?

comrade kamo

[Anarcho]

Canada maybe... it already has a socialized medical system. That's a big step.

Mexico could do it, easily.

I don't know much about other countries internal politics. While within the US, there is some support for socialism in the larger cities, as I've said over and over, there is almost none in the vast hinterlands and rural areas of the nation.

Farmers would rather starve than become socialists. Trust me on this one.

[Capitalist]

Any country that can isolate outside democratic/free forces through the use of walls or oceans would suit best for a communist-totalarian form of government.

A country in which the tyrant has total control over the people through use of big military, long prison sentences, unfair courts, and deadly force.

A country which is ignored by the world.

Political Prisoners ignored as well.

[Smoking Frog II]

According to sources,
Communism works best in a large country with a large population best.

This may not be true, though, it's just someones [not mine's] opinion.

[angry]

sorry to go off topic but, BatistaNationalista don´t call us your comrads!

[Capitalist]

Stalin, Castro, & Mao

Men considered Comrades and Great Communists by Che Guevara