Why does much of the left have such a distain for the Soviet Union and China

[tir1944]

Yes it seems that's the one.I'll try to get a hold of it,in the meantim,would you mind quoting some relevant parts,since you've read it an all?

[Rooster]

That's your argument? The "unions were incorporated into a state" is the proof that it wasn't a worker's state? That doesn't make any sense.

Do not be an idiot. I know it might be hard, but just try not to be. The argument I am making is that the treatment of people within the "worker's state" doesn't exactly match up with what most normal people would agree with if they had control over it. Would you prosecute a woman with a sick breast fed baby for not being able to attend work? Sounds somethign like a dictatorial state would enforce to try to squeeze out more surplus value. The fact that the trade unions had no power at all, being merely reduced to an organ of the state, meant that workers had lost the ability to collectively bargain as well. How is this hard to understand?

[tir1944]

How is it hard to understand that you should provide sources for your claims?
Mayb even quote the relevant part?

[Revolutionair]

tir1994, would you agree that a state which has a union incorporated in it, has almost complete control over the workers? If rooster can find a source that shows that the USSR had no non-state unions, would you agree that this is an odd situation for a state that is supposed to represent the workers? Would you become sceptical about the USSR being socialist/pro worker?

[Jimmie Higgins]

To do this in the face of hegemonic liberalism requires righteous proletarian balls, and those are something that the revisionists trotskyites and cliffites lack.

Ok, then we'll gladly organize with the 53% of the working class who are women. Who wants sexist M-Ls around anyway?

Because it is easy to join the liberal chorus and criticise any practical application of socialism, while holding on to some 'pure' romantic ideal.

Some ideal? Worker's power is not some ideal when it comes to Marxist socialism. Seperating the ideal of the self-emancipation of the class from the socialist equation is like passing out plates of flour and salt and saying that milk and eggs and sugar are only necessary to make some kind of idealist's version of cake.

And by liberal chorus, do you mean like lining up and sitting next to FDR and Churchill and deciding how to divide up war spoils?

[Robert]

the government owned the economy fully and by definition that is socialism.

You commies need to get your conceptual shit together. Even I'm getting tired of statements like that.

And dude, you're gonna get mail.

Now I see you already did.

[#FF0000]

If they weren't communist enough for you, then what is?

Something that isn't capitalism swathed in red, first of all.

[Comrade Hill]

I actually prefer Scandinavian styled private capitalism over USSR-styled "socialism".

This is because:
1) Workers have more rights

I have not read Marx. I have not had the time because I need to focus on my academics. But this is my understanding, based off of what I have read off the internet and it's resources.

The Soviet Union had to politically suppress people for a reason. Is there was any sort of art or literature that people wanted to freely express, it had to express support for the proletariat, socialist, or communist ideals.

By more rights, do you mean more rights to express bourgeois idealism?

2) The workers have a greater say

A greater say in terms of what? Do you mean they have a greater opportunity to democratically express themselves?

I have been searching all over the internet for examples of this, would you help me out by giving me examples?

3) The elite is less powerful

Again, what is this based off of? Do you measure power in terms of monetary values?

4) There is seemingly less income inequality

More crap statistics about how the Soviet Union had unequal wealth distribution based off of assigned "monetary values" and not benefits. There was no free market in the Soviet Union, it is completely illogical to assign meaningless monetary values to the population, when they were provided way more benefits than Scandinavian countries have provided.

shortly put, Scandinavian capitalism is more socialist than USSR's "socialism".

So they are more "socialist" because they have a more equal share of monetary values? Do you see the contradiction here?

And revisionism is the most commonly used fallacy by Marxist-Leninists. "We exposed revisionism of X, therefore we are right and you should advocate Marxism-Leninism".
"Exposing revisionism" is meaningless as revisionism does not equate a false theory--unless we accept Marxism is an objective science that holds absolute truth, thereby extolling it to religious heights.

Okay. So why is this important to me? Did I ever fall for this fallacy? I am asking questions and I am trying to get answers, not trying to defend Marxism through anti-revisionist fallacies. So far, I see Marxist-Leninism as the true form of Marxism, and I want you to convince me why Marxism needs to be revised.

You need to spend more time answering my questions instead of trying to expose the fallacies of other people.

In fact, we can already discover revisionism in Lenin's work.

Marx said: "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes".

Lenin contradicted this by advocating "utisiling the current state".

Out of curiosity, what book or source is this from? I would like to read more works from Lenin.

And I'm not sure "utilizing the current state" necessarily means that he wanted the working class to "wield machinery for it's own purposes."

Stalin furthermore argued the law of value was pretty much negligible.

Well, the Scandinavian economy and it's social-democrat leaders, from what I've read, also completely neglects the "law of value."

Stalin wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. He kind of created his own ideology, while claiming to support some aspects of Marxism-Leninism and ignore others.

The USSR systematically killed any trace of genuine socialism.

No, Khrushchev and Gorbachev killed any trace of genuine socialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have not read Marx. I have not had the time because I need to focus on my academics. But this is my understanding, based off of what I have read off the internet and it's resources.

The Soviet Union had to politically suppress people for a reason. Is there was any sort of art or literature that people wanted to freely express, it had to express support for the proletariat, socialist, or communist ideals.

... we need a facepalm emoticon
You haven't read Marx, but yet you know that the USSR had to suppress people to protect Marxism?
If people want to express freely they have to express the views you deem fit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

By more rights, do you mean more rights to express bourgeois idealism?

Who deems what is defined as bourgeois idealism? You? The Vanguard? The Party?

Okay. So why is this important to me? Did I ever fall for this fallacy? I am asking questions and I am trying to get answers, not trying to defend Marxism through anti-revisionist fallacies. So far, I see Marxist-Leninism as the true form of Marxism, and I want you to convince me why Marxism needs to be revised.

You see Marxism with a qualifier as the only true form of Marxism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Is your name by chance "Catherine Smith?" Maybe Aranson, Jones, or Rutherford?

[Comrade Hill]

... we need a facepalm emoticon
You haven't read Marx, but yet you know that the USSR had to suppress people to protect Marxism?
If people want to express freely they have to express the views you deem fit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Ah, 1984.

The great old pro-bourgeoisie dystopian novel.

Well, I hope you enjoy "covering your face" from reality, and agonizing over the fact that I haven't read Marx. Let me know when you are ready to counter my arguments (or perhaps you can dismiss them so I don't have to focus on arguing with two anarchists at one time)

My name is not "Catherine Smith," nor is it Aranson, Jones, or Rutherford.

Do you see my name? It says Donovan.

[RGacky3]

I have not read Marx. I have not had the time because I need to focus on my academics. But this is my understanding, based off of what I have read off the internet and it's resources.

The Soviet Union had to politically suppress people for a reason. Is there was any sort of art or literature that people wanted to freely express, it had to express support for the proletariat, socialist, or communist ideals.

By more rights, do you mean more rights to express bourgeois idealism?

Freedom to agree with the government is not freedom.

The Soviet Union had to politicall suppress people because that was the ONLY way it could hold power, because they knew that otherwise the people would overthrow them, and for good reason.

A greater say in terms of what? Do you mean they have a greater opportunity to democratically express themselves?

For one they can join an independant trade union.

Again, what is this based off of? Do you measure power in terms of monetary values?

On ability to dictate society.

So they are more "socialist" because they have a more equal share of monetary values? Do you see the contradiction here?

No, because workers have more say over the economy.

So far, I see Marxist-Leninism as the true form of Marxism, and I want you to convince me why Marxism needs to be revised.

You hav'nt read Marx !!!

No, Khrushchev and Gorbachev killed any trace of genuine socialism.

So there was worker control of industry and economic democracy before Krushchev????

[Per Levy]

The Soviet Union had to politically suppress people for a reason. Is there was any sort of art or literature that people wanted to freely express, it had to express support for the proletariat, socialist, or communist ideals.

interesting, so why was so much literature banned that was supportive of socialist, communist and proletarian ideals i may ask?

By more rights, do you mean more rights to express bourgeois idealism?

how about the "right" to rule them self and be ruled by a party dictatorship, you know dictatorship OF the proletariat and not OVER it.

A greater say in terms of what? Do you mean they have a greater opportunity to democratically express themselves?

well duh, in the scandinavian countries you at least can join free unions that are not another tool of a party dictatorship. workers can organize in partys and what not.

Okay. So why is this important to me? Did I ever fall for this fallacy? I am asking questions and I am trying to get answers, not trying to defend Marxism through anti-revisionist fallacies. So far, I see Marxist-Leninism as the true form of Marxism, and I want you to convince me why Marxism needs to be revised.

you do realize that marxist-leninism is a revision of marxism, right?

Stalin wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. He kind of created his own ideology, while claiming to support some aspects of Marxism-Leninism and ignore others.

you do know that stalin did create marxism-leninism, before him there was no term like that.

No, Khrushchev and Gorbachev killed any trace of genuine socialism.

any trace of socialism was, sadly, killed and sacrificed during the civil war.

[GatesofLenin]

The it probably the most weakest and lamest argument I've ever heard. Marxism-Leninism is the only radical left idea that's actually been tried, and therefore--somehow--it's correct? Apart from that this evidences your ignorance of history, how does that show Marxism-Leninism is the best system, while you fully realize that it failed?!

By that logic National-Socialism is superior to radical left wing ideologies like guild socialism since at least National-Socialism has been tried, right? right? Or maybe slavery is better as it also has been tried?

I never said it was superior! I said of all the leftist ideas out there, it's the only theory that's been tried.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, I hope you enjoy "covering your face" from reality, and agonizing over the fact that I haven't read Marx. Let me know when you are ready to counter my arguments (or perhaps you can dismiss them so I don't have to focus on arguing with two anarchists at one time)

If you haven't read Marx, at least some of the works which are very important in what is coceived as the fundation of the communist movement, then it must be that you're slavishly dependent on interpretations, which is a seriously flawed position since it rules out any possible verification, and instead necessarily relies on...good faith.
And how can you try to defend Marxism if you know jack shit about its foundations?
This is absurd, really.

[ComradeOm]

How is it hard to understand that you should provide sources for your claims?
Mayb even quote the relevant part?

"In order to facilitate the mobilisation of the working class for the 'great tasks of building socialism', and so as to avoid any organised protest about living standards or working conditions, the trade unions were turned to 'face to production', ie were instructed to act primarily as organisers and mobilisers in the interests of plan fulfilment... The protective role of the unions was greatly reduced...

When... it was decided to wind up the People's Commissariat of Labour (in 1934) the trade union centre took over some of its functions and administered social insurance. It thus became for all practical purposes a branch of government"

From Nove's Economic History of the USSR. It's a work that I highly recommend to anyone with an interest in the Soviet economy. But then that doesn't include you tir, does it? You have no interest in historical reality and your calls of 'source, source' are merely a stalling tactic. You don't apply the same standards to your own arguments and you rarely respond when someone does actually produce a proper source

[Comrade Hill]

If you haven't read Marx, at least some of the works which are very important in what is coceived as the fundation of the communist movement, then it must be that you're slavishly dependent on interpretations, which is a seriously flawed position since it rules out any possible verification, and instead necessarily relies on...good faith.
And how can you try to defend Marxism if you know jack shit about its foundations?
This is absurd, really.

I presented my argument reasonably....

And instead of countering my argument, you choose to attack me for not actually reading Marx. I understand Marx's basic criticisms and interpretations, based off of kapitalism101 on youtube and Word press. Stop getting sidetracked with tiny little details that don't really matter.

Remember, communism is supposed to be progressive. You can either choose to relentlessly attack your fellow comrades, or you can intellectually debate with them.

Perhaps I'm not asking the right questions.

What kind of socialist literature and ideology did the Soviet Union suppress? And if Scandinavian capitalism is so great, why is it failing to compete against the dominant capitalist countries?

Some workers were only forced to work in Labor camps because they criticized the Soviet leadership. They did not force everyone to work.

I'll admit that some of the conditions may have been brutal. But we shouldn't get sidetracked with things like that. You have to remember that the Soviet Union was not as developed as other countries. The Soviet leadership had no choice but to forcefully industrialize the economy, regardless of the conditions.

[Thirsty Crow]

I presented my argument reasonably....

And instead of countering my argument, you choose to attack me for not actually reading Marx. I understand Marx's basic criticisms and interpretations, based off of kapitalism101 on youtube and Word press. Stop getting sidetracked with tiny little details that don't really matter.

Tiny little details that don't matter?
As I've said, and you didn't bother to deal with this argument, in this case you are unable to verify any of the interpretations (and remember that arguing a set of positions by means of quotes torn out of context can be common), and thus you are totally dependant on good faith.

And c'mon, don't be so cynical. I answered your post earlier. Here you go: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=44

Oh yeah, and this: do you honestly find it perfectly reasonable that a state puts a human being to hard labour in a labour camp for criticizing the regime (this implies that there was actually no counter-revolutionary, pro-capitalist sentiments expressed; which then again identifies the state as the sole "locus" of revolution, implying that any criticism levelled against the state is necessarily a criticism of socialsim).

[Comrade Hill]

Tiny little details that don't matter?
As I've said, and you didn't bother to deal with this argument, in this case you are unable to verify any of the interpretations (and remember that arguing a set of positions by means of quotes torn out of context can be common), and thus you are totally dependant on good faith.

And c'mon, don't be so cynical. I answered your post earlier. Here you go: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=44

Oh yeah, and this: do you honestly find it perfectly reasonable that a state puts a human being to hard labour in a labour camp for criticizing the regime (this implies that there was actually no counter-revolutionary, pro-capitalist sentiments expressed; which then again identifies the state as the sole "locus" of revolution, implying that any criticism levelled against the state is necessarily a criticism of socialsim).

Some may not consider it moral, but it certainly was reasonable.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say my argument is based off of "good faith." I try my best to argue my viewpoints from a scientific, and historical context.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have not read Marx. I have not had the time because I need to focus on my academics. But this is my understanding, based off of what I have read off the internet and it's resources.

How does Marx describe the DOTP?

The Soviet Union had to politically suppress people for a reason.

That reason being dictatorships are self-perpetuating? That your opinions are absolute truth and therefore they should not be challenged?

Is there was any sort of art or literature that people wanted to freely express, it had to express support for the proletariat, socialist, or communist ideals.

If communism is superior to capitalism it will turn out to be so only through free exchange of ideas.

By more rights, do you mean more rights to express bourgeois idealism?

Why not? Were you born communist? Again, if communism is superior to capitalism we will find out through free exchange of ideas.

A greater say in terms of what? Do you mean they have a greater opportunity to democratically express themselves?

Yes. Self-management of collective affairs.

I have been searching all over the internet for examples of this, would you help me out by giving me examples?

Examples of what?

Again, what is this based off of? Do you measure power in terms of monetary values?

In the Soviet Union there was no popular checks on the government, in Scandinavia there is. The Russian elite was way more powerful--as it was totalitarian--than the elite in Scandinavia.

More crap statistics about how the Soviet Union had unequal wealth distribution based off of assigned "monetary values" and not benefits. There was no free market in the Soviet Union, it is completely illogical to assign meaningless monetary values to the population, when they were provided way more benefits than Scandinavian countries have provided.

No, Sweden has good social security, free healthcare, free education--so did the USSR, except Sweden has more freedom.

So they are more "socialist" because they have a more equal share of monetary values? Do you see the contradiction here?

No. They are more socialist because: less inequality, more workers' power.

Socialism = equality, workers' control.
USSR = no workers' control, and therefore no equality
Sweden = less inequality in comparsion, and workers' co-determination

Okay. So why is this important to me? Did I ever fall for this fallacy? I am asking questions and I am trying to get answers, not trying to defend Marxism through anti-revisionist fallacies. So far, I see Marxist-Leninism as the true form of Marxism, and I want you to convince me why Marxism needs to be revised.

In your opening post you said "you revisionists" implying we are wrong because we are revisionists. It it also quite ironic that someone who has not read any of Marx' work is able to call others revisionist.

You need to spend more time answering my questions instead of trying to expose the fallacies of other people.

Isn't that what I did?

Out of curiosity, what book or source is this from? I would like to read more works from Lenin.

Essential Works of Lenin, page 358. He states that the proletariat should be "utilising the present state". This is from State and Revolution

The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former [Marxists] demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.

(note that anarchists and Marxists use different definitions of "state" and therefore Lenin's criticisms of anarchism are incorrect, see also this--which is also not free of error).

And I'm not sure "utilizing the current state" necessarily means that he wanted the working class to "wield machinery for it's own purposes."

That is exactly what he said. The Marxists want to use state power, utlising the present state, and form a revolutionary dictatorship (DOTP), i.e. wield it for its own purposes. Whereas Marx said or implies the bourgeois state needs to be abolished and a proletarian state should take its place, at least temporarily until social classes disappear along with the state. Since a bourgeois state is radically different from a workers' state it's useless anyway.

Well, the Scandinavian economy and it's social-democrat leaders, from what I've read, also completely neglects the "law of value."

They don't purport to be Marxists so it's irrelevant.

Stalin wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. He kind of created his own ideology, while claiming to support some aspects of Marxism-Leninism and ignore others.

Uh, he coined the term.

No, Khrushchev and Gorbachev killed any trace of genuine socialism.

No, any form of workers' control was eliminated by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and 1919, and were not reinstated by Stalin. Khrushchov and Brezhnev merely significantly decreased income inequality created under Stalin. Source: "the Khrushchev government essentially got rid of labour
direction and greatly reduced the levels of wage dierentials. The reductions in
dierentials continued under Brezhnev (see Lane, 1985)." Towards a New Socialism, p. 30, by Paul Cockshott and Alin Cotrell who used: David Lane, Soviet Economy and Society, New York: New York University Press, 1985.

Ah, 1984.

The great old pro-bourgeoisie dystopian novel.

Written by a revolutionary socialist...

[Thirsty Crow]

Some may not consider it moral, but it certainly was reasonable.

Holy fuck.
Dare I even ask...why exactly was it reasonable?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say my argument is based off of "good faith."

Not having read the founding texts of Marxism (Marx himself), and instead going through interpretations means that you can't check the accuracy of the positions put forward in those interpretations. That's why your politics is based on good faith in some of the interpretors. Until you start going through Marx.