Oh... I see. Socialism can never fail.
Results 61 to 80 of 96
I have no argument that the first revolutionary territories will have to co-exist with territories that are not yet under the political control of the proletariat. I don't believe the world civil war can be won upon the instant. But if it is not won, as it was not between 1917-27, we cannot pretend that the once-revolutionary states that came out of the failed revolution were socialist.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Oh... I see. Socialism can never fail.
Baseball imagine if the American Revolution had only given the vote to property holding white males, and then ruthlessly slaughtered all opposition to this new system. That's how we view the revolution in the USSR.
... In case you haven't noticed, that IS what happen. Don't think you capitalists get a free pass because population rates were much lower, and the civilzed didn't even view the people they oppressed as people (at least the USSR gave their peasants THAT courtesy). The early US was no paradise for most people.
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
I don't even know what that means.
I do know that revolutions can fail though, and the world revolution of 1917-27 did. What resulted was not socialism, because socialism cannot even be built until capitalism is defeated worldwide. As capitalism was not defeated worldwide, there was no prospect of even begining the transition to socialism.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I am not sure what Bismark has to do with anything. The "trail of tears" was the result of a victory of a pillar of socialism; democracy. The first "democrat" in the White House backed it and supported as it was one of basis for his being elected (the rather asistocratic Adams Administration had worked to defend the Cherokee).
[QUOTE]Well, no. Most males (including free blacks) could vote in the nascent USA. Not sure what "slaughter" you have in mind, though.
The trail of tears happened because people came into previously occupied "common" land, set up a fence and claimed "private property." This caused all kinds of problems with the local population that was already there. Jackson, the sick fuck that he was, actually was moving the natives to stop all the violence. He, living in a capitalist system, had chose to protect the ruling class over liberty. That is capitalism, time and again; liberty for the ruling class, everyone else can get fucked.
[QUOTE=Baseball;2249568]I seem to remember most states only allowing property holding persons to vote... maybe I am wrong...
What slaughter? We were just talking about it. They had to get those dirty communist indians off the land so they could put down fences and claim private property. We can also include slavery in here; the wholesale destruction of african communities so landowners could sell their product on the free market. And don't forget the whiskey rebellion, the numerous labor strikes that were violently repressed by the state, and all other such action.
It's funny how people conviently forget that America was a great nation only for some white people. Everyone else got shit. That is, until the workers got together, busted shit up, and became too powerful to contain. So they were bought off. And that buying off is the only reason people used to refer to this as the greatest nation on the planet.
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
[QUOTE] Jackson was OPPOSED by the "ruling class" (whatever that was). He was a great hero to the "common man" (being one himself). Jackson backed the majority.
You are wrong. There was a wealth requirement, which was set very low. In later decades it was reduced for whites (and raised for blacks).
So then what do socialists advise workers in countries, or areas, who managed to pull off a revolution? That they are SOL for socialism because their fellow proletariat in some other country were not successful in their efforts? Seems kind of lousy and rather "evolutionary."
Perhaps the workers in the former can use themselves as a rallying point to the oppressed elsewhere in the latter? The former can provide material, ideological, and perhaps on occasion, physical support to the latter?
Sitting around pouting otherwise doesn't seem particularly progressive, or even decent.
I don't know what SOL means, but never mind, I get the context.
If we're all working together to build a house, and the west wall goes up and the south wall goes up, but the north wall and the east wall don't, you can't just stick a roof on and call it a house.
Likewise, a revolution that only succeeds in places has not succeeded, if the aim of the revolution is the worldwide overthrowing of capitalism. If there is some other 'revolutionary' objective (getting rid of a particular regime) that's a different story. But if the goal is the establishment of socialism, then capitalism must be overthrown worldwide before that is possible.
Absolutely I agree that the areas under the working class's control must use the material resources they have to spread the world revolution - but that has nothing to do with any notion that China was 'communist'.
Not sure what 'pouting' has to do with anything. I call things as I see them; capitalism hadn't been overthrown worldwide, communism hasn't been established, so China was not 'communist'. I don't see any need to redefine what words mean so we can give ourselves false comfort.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
No, that's state capitalism. In communism there is no state and there are no businesses"
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
sh*t outta luck.
Sure it does- add the USSR as well. They put up those two walls, and tried render assistance to those struggling to put up the others.
That they were unsuccessful in doing so shouldn't be written off. Perhaps they were trying to build on mud, with a faulty foundation and subpar wood, rather than than being lousy foremen.
Actually stalin aided national bourgeois movements more than he did socialist ones, at least in the 3rd world. He wanted communists to be subordinate to liberals, which is why the revolutions failed. Socialism In One Country, doesn't work.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
To the OP:
I know you wanted to hear from the communists, but I hope my butting in to point a few things out won't hurt.
First you'll notice there's not even unanimity among the communists and "revolutionary left". And it takes little to make them squabble amongst themselves. Hardly a unified front. Can you imagine what happens if these viewpoints actually became a politically reality? Authoritarianism and infighting, the same thing that happened in every wanna-be commie country. Each one knows better than his red brothers, so he will seize power and show 'em how it's done!
You'll also notice very few are honest with themselves about what "public ownership" actually is. Public ownership, or as some call it, "pure democracy", is a fantasy. That simply creates a state, and then becomes the explicit, private property of the oligarchs... just like every wanna-be commie country.
Most dangerous of all is the general collectivist ideal... individuals mean nothing. Some here, such a Joseph, freely admit they believe the state should "protect dumb people from themselves" -- we know what lengths government goes to for that end. And we know what happens in wanna-be collectivist societies... "dissident" individuals must be exterminated for the "greater good".
Another funny thing is that they're talking about a stateless-society, but then telling you what they will "abolish".
Communism is just nonsense. It sounded like a good idea when Marx wrote his books. But communism and prohibition simply don't work. The anti-property views really have one purpose -- to strip individuals of everything, destroy your identity and force conformity. The military does this to new recruits (usually temporarily) to achieve that end and teach discipline for the sake of keeping soldiers alive in terrible battles. Commies want to do that permanently to forever create a bland society of faceless, expendable cogs in the wheel owned by the state oligarchs. Writers like George Orwell had it right...
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson
George Orwell was a socialist who advocated the abolition of capitalism, the state, money, commodity production, and class society.
One never gets tired of Austrian-lite clowns who can't read books to save their life.
Depends on who you are. If you're an imperialist oppressor, Capitalism is better hands down.
I dont think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.To the OP:
I know you wanted to hear from the communists, but I hope my butting in to point a few things out won't hurt.
First you'll notice there's not even unanimity among the communists and "revolutionary left". And it takes little to make them squabble amongst themselves. Hardly a unified front. Can you imagine what happens if these viewpoints actually became a politically reality? Authoritarianism and infighting, the same thing that happened in every wanna-be commie country. Each one knows better than his red brothers, so he will seize power and show 'em how it's done!
You'll also notice very few are honest with themselves about what "public ownership" actually is. Public ownership, or as some call it, "pure democracy", is a fantasy. That simply creates a state, and then becomes the explicit, private property of the oligarchs... just like every wanna-be commie country.
Most dangerous of all is the general collectivist ideal... individuals mean nothing. Some here, such a Joseph, freely admit they believe the state should "protect dumb people from themselves" -- we know what lengths government goes to for that end. And we know what happens in wanna-be collectivist societies... "dissident" individuals must be exterminated for the "greater good".
Another funny thing is that they're talking about a stateless-society, but then telling you what they will "abolish".
Communism is just nonsense. It sounded like a good idea when Marx wrote his books. But communism and prohibition simply don't work. The anti-property views really have one purpose -- to strip individuals of everything, destroy your identity and force conformity. The military does this to new recruits (usually temporarily) to achieve that end and teach discipline for the sake of keeping soldiers alive in terrible battles. Commies want to do that permanently to forever create a bland society of faceless, expendable cogs in the wheel owned by the state oligarchs. Writers like George Orwell had it right...
Communism is pretty generally understood to mean a moneyless wageless stateless community in which individuals freely give according to their ability and freely take according to their need.
Show me the mechanism - the means of leverage - that any individual or group could exercise over any other individual of group with the outcome that you suppose - namely to "strip individuals of everything, destroy your identity and force conformity". There is none and if you are honest with yourself you would acknowlege this.
Actually the kind of coercion that you allude to is only possible where one section of the population has the means at it disposal to force another to submnit to its will. In other words, where there is private (including state) ownership pf the means of prpoduction with the result that the great majority are compelled to become wage slaves.
You are just defending one group of robber barons against another - the super-rich of the West as against the party plutocrats and the privileged nomenklatura of the various state capitalist regimes, miscalled communist.
Of course some misguided Leftists think state capitalism has some relevance to the attainment of a communistr/socialist society and will therefore be willing to defend regimes that went down this road. Many of us however are not of this persuasion at all. We oppose state capitalism as vigorously as we oppose free market capitalism. However, even amongst those who wrongly support state capitalism as some kind of interim arrangement would agrree that it is not communism. Apart from the deluded Right who have bought into their own silly rhetoric very few would
This is the point that you conspicuously ignore
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
Erm, duh... It sort of says that in the "About the Author" page at the front of copies of his books... And also that while he was a socialist, he was critical of his own ideology and the dangers he saw in it being misused (as it always tends to be).George Orwell was a socialist who advocated the abolition of capitalism, the state, money, commodity production, and class society.
One never gets tired of Austrian-lite clowns who can't read books to save their life.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson
Right back at ya!
Communism is pretty generally understood to be a pipe dream and failure too.
It happens every time. The "revolution" is always lead by the intelligent and charismatic few who draw in the masses with their spicy rhetoric and fill their heads with these utopian ideas. Once the "capitalist pigs" and "bourgeoisie" are deposed, shot in the nape of the neck and kicked into mass graves, the charismatic leaders turn against each other. Each one "knows better", and is the only hope for the revolution. One eventually manages to kill off the rest (or imprison / expel them) and secure a position of dominance. He establishes his vanguard, and then moves against dissidents amongst the proletariat masses. Any voice of opposition is silenced. The dear leader then declares "all that you see belongs to you! ...but I'm just going to "oversee" it and make sure everyone behaves". But it effectively becomes state property at that point. Nothing was accomplished except creating a worse social order than existed before. Now everyone is on the bottom, in squaller and misery. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
If it didn't happen that way, which would be wishful thinking, then the truth is that people aren't going to play along with communism. Someone will just use the repressive social atmosphere to take over and become the state. That's why revolutionaries prefer to take care of this from the beginning.
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand [1]compensation.Contracting your labor to an employer for pay simply isn't slavery. Been there, done that. I walked out on my boss and struck out on my own. I was never a slave.
The Soviet Union was real communism -- the communist manifesto is theoretical or "textbook" communism. What happened there, and everywhere else, is the natural outcome of communist revolution.
I'm not sure what your point is. I understand what you think and how you feel. I've read Marx's books. I also respect your opinions, and I'm not trying to say that you are a madman or wanna-be dictator. But the people who are will ultimately wreck your vision and just repeat the course of history again and again. If communism would actually work and not go awry, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. Of course, I'd still choose to go live somewhere else... I'd rather be alone and live off the land than be a nothing and nobody belonging to the abstraction of "society".
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson
I hate to break it to you, but its generally considered good form to not drop quotes in a pursuit of sounding clever and in pursuit of misleading your audience about the views and position of who you are citing.Erm, duh... It sort of says that in the "About the Author" page at the front of copies of his books... And also that while he was a socialist, he was critical of his own ideology and the dangers he saw in it being misused (as it always tends to be).
Is that why it bore no resemblance to the policies and desires of the revolutionaries of 1917, and Stalin had to butcher nearly the entire original Bolshevik party in order to realize his program?
This is tantamount to if Alexander Hamilton had had every member of the Continental Congress, Constitutional Convention, and Sons of Liberty hung or shot and then people claimed Hamilton's autocracy was the responsibility of every thinker and every one of their thoughts who had been shot or hung. Totally ridiculous.
