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

[NGNM85]

Because they were/are oppressive police states. No Libertarian could engage in apologetics for these regimes. They simply replaced one form of oppression with another.

[Per Levy]

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

reading your op, you call pretty much anyone who has critice to offer on the ussr and china as "revisionists" that life in a dream world. so that is not an attack on your comrades? is that the way to intellectually debate with your comrades?

What kind of socialist literature and ideology did the Soviet Union suppress?

anarchism, left communism, trotskyism and its literature and thats just as a start.

Some workers were only forced to work in Labor camps because they criticized the Soviet leadership.

great worker state there, criticise the party bureaucracy and be send of to a labour camp. socialism in action...

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

sure thing, lock the workers up when they decide to emancipate themselfs, wich comes of course with critizising the status quo and we cant have that.

[Comrade Hill]

reading your op, you call pretty much anyone who has critice to offer on the ussr and china as "revisionists" that life in a dream world. so that is not an attack on your comrades? is that the way to intellectually debate with your comrades?

Well, what can I say.

The first thing that comes to mind when I see someone who doesn't support Marx's original ideas, one including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in which Marx advocates for the proletariat to take control of the state, is someone who indeed deserves to be called a "revisionist."

anarchism, left communism, trotskyism and its literature and thats just as a start.

great worker state there, criticise the party bureaucracy and be send of to a labour camp. socialism in action...

Yes. It's called a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason. Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean openness to criticism of the state.

How would we ever get anywhere if we just allowed everyone's ideas to pile on top of the established framework of the bureacracy? Since when did Marx advocate fallibilism? Since when did Karl Marx advocate for "natural right?"

sure thing, lock the workers up when they decide to emancipate themselfs, wich comes of course with critizising the status quo and we cant have that.

Natural right is not advocated by Marx. He criticizes natural right in Das Kapital.

Get over your shit about having freedom of speech.

How does Marx describe the DOTP?

And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove:
(1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production,
(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,
(3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

This dictatorship of the proletariat ended when Khrushchev took office and implemented his reforms.

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

No. But you wait for the experiment to finish before you challenge the hypothesis.

What happened in the Soviet Union after 1956 was sort of like a scientist getting interrupted while doing an experiment, by a bunch of other scientists who believe the experiment is too dangerous.

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

You mean like Glasnost?

Yes. Self-management of collective affairs.

Scandinavian countries are so small. How do you know that would work in a significantly larger country?

Also note that Sweden is a member of the WTO. What do communists think of the WTO? Do Communists glorify the WTO as an organization that represents the working class?

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.

Democratic Centralism, as advocated by Marxists, is not a government of "checks and balances."

Ah, and here we go, the myth known as totalitarianism.

Dictatorship is not the same thing as totalitarianism. There has always been some other force of government that influences the decisions.

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

Okay, well I'm a Marxist so I do not glorify one country over another.

I am not interested in your definition of socialism.

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

It still boggles my mind that you think you can compare a country as small as Sweden to a Country as large as the USSR, which had undergone Tsarist rule before the Socialist state took over.

What kind of struggles against Fuedalism has Sweden gone through? Why do they deserve more credit for what they do?

And I do not have time to respond to all 3 of you guys. I will respond to the others later.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes. It's called a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason. Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean openness to criticism of the state.

How would we ever get anywhere if we just allowed everyone's ideas to pile on top of the established framework of the bureacracy? Since when did Marx advocate fallibilism? Since when did Karl Marx advocate for "natural right?"

Should Germans have not criticized Hitler... or was that different because the USSR claimed to act in the interests of the workers? If a scientist proposes an experiment, and the other scientists in his dept see that it's flawed in many ways, he won't even get to start the experiment, let alone have someone interrupt her.

Please note that I am not on the side of "Sweden is more socialist." That's not an accurate portrayal either... sorry Goti.

But seriously, if you advocate that workers should not be able to challenge the power structure, you advocate a system that will directly work against the interest of the workers, and in the interests of those with power.

[Azraella]

.And Mr. Mikhail, my apologies. I tend to throw out the words "you guys" a lot and it tends to confuse a lot of people. I was really referring to people like Anarchists, and people who have a distaste for the Soviet Union.

I'm an anarchist. I don't personally understand why people think the Bolsheviks were so bad. To be brutally honest, save during the worst of the Stalinist period Communism in Russia was no worse than what predated it, and it (at the very least) modernized their country with incredible speed. To go from an essentially feudal agricultural society to a global superpower in less than one-hundred years is incredible. I'll grant there was a vast human cost. You could argue however that as a country and culture they would have essentially been destroyed in WWII were it not for rapid industrialization under Stalin. I'm not saying I'd like to live there, but nobody was giving them the choice to become a happy stateless classless society.

I don't dislike the USSR and China, but if you think revolutions in places like the U.S. and France are going to even remotely look like them you are truly living in the past.

This.

[Per Levy]

Well, what can I say.

The first thing that comes to mind when I see someone who doesn't support Marx's original ideas, one including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in which Marx advocates for the proletariat to take control of the state, is someone who indeed deserves to be called a "revisionist."

explain to me what were marxs views on the dictatorship of the proletariat(dotp) and was marxes dotp the same one that was later executed in the ussr and china?

now my little view on this, marxs dotp mean the rule of the proletariat, in the ussr and china it was not the rule of the proletariat but the rule of a party bureaucracy. and that was not marxs idea at all.

Yes. It's called a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason. Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean openness to criticism of the state.

so the dotp = dictatorship of the ruling party? really, is that your view?

How would we ever get anywhere if we just allowed everyone's ideas to pile on top of the established framework of the bureacracy?

ever heard of workers democracy? and why do we need a bureaucracy that rules over the proletariat at all? marx wanted the emacipation of the working class through the working class and not the rise of a party bureaucracy that screws the proletariat.

Since when did Marx advocate fallibilism? Since when did Karl Marx advocate for "natural right?"



Natural right is not advocated by Marx. He criticizes natural right in Das Kapital.

what do you mean with natural right?

Get over your shit about having freedom of speech.

yes the workers dont deserve freedom of speach, nor they deserve to rule by your defenition.


This dictatorship of the proletariat ended when Khrushchev took office and implemented his reforms.

Democratic Centralism, as advocated by Marxists, is not a government of "checks and balances."

there are a shitload of marxists that dont care about democratic centralism in any way. just saying...

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, what can I say.

The first thing that comes to mind when I see someone who doesn't support Marx's original ideas, one including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in which Marx advocates for the proletariat to take control of the state, is someone who indeed deserves to be called a "revisionist."

It's not an argument. And you don't even know what a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, for crying out loud.

Yes. It's called a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason. Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean openness to criticism of the state.

Again, you don't even know what the DOTP entails.

How would we ever get anywhere if we just allowed everyone's ideas to pile on top of the established framework of the bureacracy? Since when did Marx advocate fallibilism? Since when did Karl Marx advocate for "natural right?"

So you advocate bureaucratic collectivism rather than socialism?

Natural right is not advocated by Marx. He criticizes natural right in Das Kapital.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS A FALLACY

Get over your shit about having freedom of speech.

I wonder whether you would object to being locked up for voicing your opinion.

This dictatorship of the proletariat ended when Khrushchev took office and implemented his reforms

You don't know what the DOTP is!

No. But you wait for the experiment to finish before you challenge the hypothesis.

What happened in the Soviet Union after 1956 was sort of like a scientist getting interrupted while doing an experiment, by a bunch of other scientists who believe the experiment is too dangerous.

No, just no. It failed, it utterly failed. And yes it was too dangerous as it killed millions.

You mean like Glasnost?

Stop wearing an ass for a hat! Glasnost is better than Stalin, yes.

Scandinavian countries are so small. How do you know that would work in a significantly larger country?

How, what, I don't even. Why wouldn't it? If it can work in a country of ten, why not in a country of 20, 40, 80 or 300? What kind of argument is this?

Also note that Sweden is a member of the WTO. What do communists think of the WTO? Do Communists glorify the WTO as an organization that represents the working class?

Way to miss the point. Sweden is capitalist, but it is better than USSR-styled "socialism". I'm not saying Sweden is communist.

Democratic Centralism, as advocated by Marxists, is not a government of "checks and balances."

Ah, and here we go, the myth known as totalitarianism.

No, there is a difference between advocating something and implementing it. USSR was totalitarian, that's a historical fact. It has all the hallmarks of totalitarianism.

Dictatorship is not the same thing as totalitarianism. There has always been some other force of government that influences the decisions.

What's your point?

Okay, well I'm a Marxist so I do not glorify one country over another.

Way to miss the point. Sweden's socio-politico-economic system is superior the the system of the USSR. And you are not a Marxist.

I am not interested in your definition of socialism.

How about Marx's? No?

It still boggles my mind that you think you can compare a country as small as Sweden to a Country as large as the USSR, which had undergone Tsarist rule before the Socialist state took over.

Oh, because you can never ever compare anything to anything?
Do you agree that Sweden's economic system is superior to the economic system of the USSR? If not, why?

What kind of struggles against Fuedalism has Sweden gone through? Why do they deserve more credit for what they do?

What the fuck kind of argument is this? How is this remotely relevant?

And I do not have time to respond to all 3 of you guys. I will respond to the others later.

Save yourself the embarrassment. You know nothing about Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, or socialism.

Questions:

1. What is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat according to Marx?
2. Why are you a Marxist-Leninist?
3. What do you want socialism to achieve?

[Comrade Hill]

It's not an argument. And you don't even know what a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, for crying out loud.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is where the societal class, that is the working class, takes control of the state and the means of production, and nationalizes the industry, as described in the Communist Manifesto (and yes, I have begun to read it)

Again, you don't even know what the DOTP entails.

Again, Sweden is not even remotely close to a DOTP, the USSR was much more closer and revolutionary, whilst Sweden is reformist and social democratic.

So you advocate bureaucratic collectivism rather than socialism?

Bureacratic collectivism is the DOTP.

Your version of "socialism" isn't actually socialism at all. You even made a thread claiming you are "disillusioned with communism."

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS A FALLACY

A red herring is a fallacy too.

I hope that you are not implying that advocating for the DOTP is an appeal to authority.

I wonder whether you would object to being locked up for voicing your opinion.

Another red herring.

You don't know what the DOTP is!

Says the person who believes Sweden is closer to a DOTP than the USSR.

No, just no. It failed, it utterly failed. And yes it was too dangerous as it killed millions.

It utterly failed when Khrushchev tried to apply reformist ideas to a heavily nationalized economy.

Stop wearing an ass for a hat! Glasnost is better than Stalin, yes.

So you basically support the fall of the USSR. Yet you criticize it for "failing."

How, what, I don't even. Why wouldn't it? If it can work in a country of ten, why not in a country of 20, 40, 80 or 300? What kind of argument is this?

Having 80% of the economy under the control of labor unions would not work in countries that rely on cheap labor for production for the bourgeoise.

Good luck getting the bourgeoise to hand over their power in countries like the United States and China, especially by applying reformist, market socialist ideas.

Way to miss the point. Sweden is capitalist, but it is better than USSR-styled "socialism". I'm not saying Sweden is communist.

So you are advocating for private capitalism over state capitalism. Lenin said state capitalism was the first step towards socialism. Marx advocated for similar ideas.

Can you tell me where the fuck Marx glorifies reformist private market economies?

No, there is a difference between advocating something and implementing it. USSR was totalitarian, that's a historical fact. It has all the hallmarks of totalitarianism.

And the Dictatorship of the bourgeoise is not totalitarian?

Save yourself the embarrassment. You know nothing about Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, or socialism.

Says the confused social democrat, who believes dictatorship of the proletariat is actually better represented in bourgeoise Sweden than the USSR.

Questions:

1. What is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat according to Marx?
2. Why are you a Marxist-Leninist?
3. What do you want socialism to achieve?

1. See the first response
2. I strongly believe in having a vanguard party represent the interests of the working class, and act as the DOTP.
3. I want it to achieve what Marx envisioned it to be: class antagonisms are disposed of, social relations between workers and the production are not skewed, the DOTP takes over and implements its ideas without falling prey to revisionism, and eventually when the production relations are changed for the better, the state will wither away and the world will become a gift economy as opposed to state capitalist.

[Koba1917]

EVERY State is 'Totalitarian', 'Authoritarian' and 'Bureaucratic'. No Marxist deny this simple fact. But in reality they are just buzz words. The problem here is that Anarchists/Libertarians oppose all States so they have an automatic presupposition against the idea of 'State Socialism'. Our definitions simply vary which creates a pointless debate to the degree of 'State Socialism' vs. Anarchist/Libertarian 'Socialism'.

[Rooster]

EVERY State is 'Totalitarian', 'Authoritarian' and 'Bureaucratic'. No Marxist deny this simple fact. But in reality they are just buzz words.

I'm sorry, what? They're facts and then they're buzzwords?

The problem here is that Anarchists/Libertarians oppose all States so they have an automatic presupposition against the idea of 'State Socialism'. Our definitions simply vary which creates a pointless debate to the degree of 'State Socialism' vs. Anarchist/Libertarian 'Socialism'.

That's not the problem. The problem here is that there's a small sect of people who think that there's such a thing as "state socialism". And I believe anarchists generally disagree with marxists over the way to achieve a classless society instead of the form it takes.

[Koba1917]

I'm sorry, what? They're facts and then they're buzzwords?

They are used as words to simply say something is 'bad'. Pretty much when people say the USSR was Totalitarian, therefore is was bad. The West will claim the USSR did X, but at the same time they will do the exact same thing (invasion of privacy, phone tapping, ect)

That's not the problem. The problem here is that there's a small sect of people who think that there's such a thing as "state socialism". And I believe anarchists generally disagree with marxists over the way to achieve a classless society instead of the form it takes.

/facepalm I've heard many Anarchists say that Marxism has no type of Socialism. Anarchists see Anarchism the as only type of Socialism. Like I said it's the different idea of 'Socialism'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The classic problem with Leninists of all stripes (i'm including pro-Stalin, pro-Hoxha, pro-Mao and pro-Trotsky types) is that they cannot differentiate between the working class and the vanguard party, and thus seem to think that the Dictatorship of the Party is an acceptable form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, when in reality the former is a very serious, reprehensible degeneration of the latter.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, what can I say.

The first thing that comes to mind when I see someone who doesn't support Marx's original ideas, one including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in which Marx advocates for the proletariat to take control of the state, is someone who indeed deserves to be called a "revisionist."

Yes. It's called a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason. Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean openness to criticism of the state.

How would we ever get anywhere if we just allowed everyone's ideas to pile on top of the established framework of the bureacracy? Since when did Marx advocate fallibilism? Since when did Karl Marx advocate for "natural right?"


Get over your shit about having freedom of speech.
[/SIZE]




What happened in the Soviet Union after 1956 was sort of like a scientist getting interrupted while doing an experiment, by a bunch of other scientists who believe the experiment is too dangerous.

Can you actually comprehend what you are saying here?

1. Marx was a philosopher, an economist and a sociologist. He was not a deity. Sometimes, he was wrong. If someone doesn't support every one of Marx's original ideas, that doesn't mean they aren't Marxists, it means they have used their free thoughts to come to a reasonable conclusion regarding the accuracy of this one man. To believe that Marx was 100% correct about everything would actually be extremely un-Marxist and un-materialistic.

2. As Marxists, we should do nothing but criticise the state. You see, i'll take you back to Marxism 101: Karl Marx's best 'original idea', was to argue for a stateless, classless and moneyless society. You do not get a stateless society by bowing down to the state, whatever colour flag is flying from the government building! It's called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not Dictatorship of the State, Party or Stalin's pecular facial hair. Thus, the proletariat will have extreme power of democracy over all economic, political, social and cultural matters. Extreme power. They can criticise who they want, we can criticise who we want, and at the end of the day we decide things democratically, we don't send people to the Gulag for disagreeing with our notion of Socialism. You'd do well to understand this.

3. "Get over your shit about having freedom of speech." Yeah, I know it's sometimes seen as trendy to be all authoritarian, but really this is the usual Leninist idiocy of "I don't like A, so the only option is to support B"-type logic. I mean, step back and actually think about what you're implying. Do you really want to live in a society that doesn't have freedom of speech? I mean, really? We can all be internet warriors, but I don't truly believe that a sane person can advocate a society based on lack of freedom of speech.

4. Revolution, Socialism and running a society are not 'experiments'. Scientific experiments are done in controlled zones/laboratories, they do not play with peoples' lives or execute people simply for holding opposition left-wing opinions. That is not Socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Dictatorship of the proletariat is where the societal class, that is the working class, takes control of the state and the means of production, and nationalizes the industry, as described in the Communist Manifesto (and yes, I have begun to read it)

And this is exactly why the USSR was not a DOTP as it was controlled by an elite of vanguardists rather than the working class.

Again, Sweden is not even remotely close to a DOTP, the USSR was much more closer and revolutionary, whilst Sweden is reformist and social democratic.

I never claimed it was! I am saying Sweden is more socialistic-like than the USSR was, and neither were DOTP.

Bureacratic collectivism is the DOTP.

.... Are you.... are you serious? So now Marxist-Leninists aren't even avowedl admitting the failure of their ideology?

DOTP = working class controls state and means of production
Bureaucratic collectivism = bureaucracy controls state and means of production

they are mutually exclusive.

Your version of "socialism" isn't actually socialism at all.

"My" version of socialism is based on historically and theoretically accurate definition of socialism. Namely a society where the workers control the productive resources of society. This includes Marxism, anarchism, and syndicalism.

You even made a thread claiming you are "disillusioned with communism."

Doesn't mean I'm not a socialist. I merely doubted whether international allocation of intermediate goods and raw materials could be sufficiently organised in the absence of a medium of exchange.

A red herring is a fallacy too.

I hope that you are not implying that advocating for the DOTP is an appeal to authority.

You said "Marx did not believe in natural rights", but that is not a refutation of what I said. It is an appeal to authority "Marx did not believe in X, therefore X can be ignored".

Another red herring.

What?! No it's not! You oppose freedom of speech, as such do I have the right to lock you up for opposing me? According to your logic yes. How is this red herring?

Says the person who believes Sweden is closer to a DOTP than the USSR.

No you frikkin' asshat! READ WHAT I AM WRITING, M'KAY? I said: Sweden is more socialist than the USSR was.

Socialism does not equal DOTP!!!!!!!

It utterly failed when Khrushchev tried to apply reformist ideas to a heavily nationalized economy.

Millions of people starving under Stalin versus 0 people starving under Kruchev... hmmm.. Of course, it was the evil fascistic Trotskyist imperialists.

So you basically support the fall of the USSR. Yet you criticize it for "failing."

If it didn't fail, it wouldn't have fallen.

Having 80% of the economy under the control of labor unions would not work in countries that rely on cheap labor for production for the bourgeoise.

How is that a refutation of what I said. A Scandinavian styled welfare state can work in the US as it can work in Sweden regardless of size.

Good luck getting the bourgeoise to hand over their power in countries like the United States and China, especially by applying reformist, market socialist ideas.

I never said I support a Swedish-styled economy!!!!!!!!! I merely said it's BETTER than the USSR.

Like you know, Stalin was better than Pol Pot. It doesn't mean I therefore support Stalin!

So you are advocating for private capitalism over state capitalism.

NOOOOOOOO. I am advocating common ownership over private and state capitalism! But if I had to choose between private capitalism a-la Scandinavia or state capitalism as in the USSR I would definitely choose the former.

Lenin said state capitalism was the first step towards socialism. Marx advocated for similar ideas.

Another appeal to authority. So what if they said that? It doesn't mean it's right.

Can you tell me where the fuck Marx glorifies reformist private market economies?

Holy shit. You keep and keep and keep misrepresenting what I said. NOWHERE did Marx glorify it, I am talking about ME and I have nothing to do with Marx because I--unlike you--am able to think for myself.

Again, I am saying Sweden > USSR but I am also saying genuine socialism > Sweden

And the Dictatorship of the bourgeoise is not totalitarian?

No it's not.

Totalitarian systems are:
one-party state, the state controls all private, social, cultural and economic affairs, uses widespread terror again dissidents. Examples: North Korea, Nazi-Germany, Stalinist Russia, Khmer Rouge.

Says the confused social democrat, who believes dictatorship of the proletariat is actually better represented in bourgeoise Sweden than the USSR.

No asshat. I'm a revolutionary socialist. I do not believe Sweden is the ideal society, far from it. I'm saying Sweden is BETTER than the Soviet Union, and SOCIALISm is BETTER than Sweden.

2. I strongly believe in having a vanguard party represent the interests of the working class, and act as the DOTP

So you don't believe in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat but a Dictatorship of the Party?

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a state controlled by the proletariat, i.e. the working class.

If a vanguard party controls the state, the working class does not--they are mutually exclusive.

3. I want it to achieve what Marx envisioned it to be: class antagonisms are disposed of, social relations between workers and the production are not skewed, the DOTP takes over and implements its ideas without falling prey to revisionism, and eventually when the production relations are changed for the better, the state will wither away and the world will become a gift economy as opposed to state capitalist.

How can you dispose of class antagonisms when you create a new ruling class, the vanguard party? (it's a rhetorical question, it can't be done).

I'm done with you. You are unbelievably ignorant and are unable to read or comprehend the most basic analogies.

---------------------------

EVERY State is 'Totalitarian', 'Authoritarian' and 'Bureaucratic'. No Marxist deny this simple fact. But in reality they are just buzz words. The problem here is that Anarchists/Libertarians oppose all States so they have an automatic presupposition against the idea of 'State Socialism'. Our definitions simply vary which creates a pointless debate to the degree of 'State Socialism' vs. Anarchist/Libertarian 'Socialism'.

No. Totalitarianism is a one-party state where the state (a small minority) controls all private, social, economic, and cultural affairs by means of physical coercion. It decides what writers write, what songs are sung, how hard to work, and where indoctrination is widespread.

I think you are equating the word "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". Authoritarian is something different. But you're right, libertarian socialists and authoritarian socialists use their own definitions of the state and authority to refute the others creating useless debates. But totalitarianism is something different.

[Zealot]

Despite being always under threat from the imperialists, despite World War II, despite the absence of industrialism and the overload of peasantry etc.etc.etc. the USSR and China wasn't socialism because they never gave the bourgeoisie a chance to get back to power like in the Paris Commune! No, what should've happened was a one day transition to communism

Gtfo.

[Tim Finnegan]

Despite being always under threat from the imperialists, despite World War II, despite the absence of industrialism and the overload of peasantry etc.etc.etc. the USSR and China wasn't socialism because they never gave the bourgeoisie a chance to get back to power like in the Paris Commune! No, what should've happened was a one day transition to communism

Gtfo.

Do all your history books end in 1975 or something?

(Noting, of course, that the absence of a bourgeoisie in the classical does not for a second imply the absence of a capitalist class...)

[Comrade Hill]

And this is exactly why the USSR was not a DOTP as it was controlled by an elite of vanguardists rather than the working class.

In the Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels outline the role of a communist party as a proletarian vanguard party:
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

I don't know what it's going to take for you to get it. I give the fuck up.

I never claimed it was! I am saying Sweden is more socialistic-like than the USSR was, and neither were DOTP.

The mode of production in Sweden is M-C-M, as opposed to the USSR, which did not have any exchange markets. The USSR was by far more socialist.

The mere fact that the wealth is more equal does not make Sweden more "socialist." Sweden has not had to deal with a poor peasant class like the USSR has. Therefore, Sweden has had more equal wealth distribution by chance, not by decision.

.... Are you.... are you serious? So now Marxist-Leninists aren't even avowedl admitting the failure of their ideology?

DOTP = working class controls state and means of production
Bureaucratic collectivism = bureaucracy controls state and means of production

they are mutually exclusive.

There you go with your revisionism again.

"My" version of socialism is based on historically and theoretically accurate definition of socialism. Namely a society where the workers control the productive resources of society. This includes Marxism, anarchism, and syndicalism.

Your version of socialism is YOUR VERSION of socialism, nothing more.

Doesn't mean I'm not a socialist. I merely doubted whether international allocation of intermediate goods and raw materials could be sufficiently organised in the absence of a medium of exchange.

It could happen if reformists like you did not stand in the way of solidarity.

You said "Marx did not believe in natural rights", but that is not a refutation of what I said. It is an appeal to authority "Marx did not believe in X, therefore X can be ignored".

Various other socialists agree that there is really no such thing as "free will" or natural right, as the human race is dynamic and is constantly adapting to their environment and does not need a specific set of rights. Materialism is the essence of socialism.

The argument is an appeal to socialism, not authority. But of course, with you being a reformist anarchist, you are more concerned with the authority of government than of changing the production relations and empowering the working class through a vanguard party.

What?! No it's not! You oppose freedom of speech, as such do I have the right to lock you up for opposing me? According to your logic yes. How is this red herring?

Because freedom of speech is not the main focus of this argument. Moving along.

No you frikkin' asshat! READ WHAT I AM WRITING, M'KAY? I said: Sweden is more socialist than the USSR was.

Socialism does not equal DOTP!!!!!!!

DOTP is an important part of socialism. Way to completely brush it off after advocating for it

Millions of people starving under Stalin versus 0 people starving under Kruchev... hmmm.. Of course, it was the evil fascistic Trotskyist imperialists.

Ah....believing in the fascist lies of Hitler and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, are we?

People in the Ukraine starved because of Stalin? Are you really that stupid to believe in these Western cold war fabrications?

If it didn't fail, it wouldn't have fallen.

More reactionary propaganda. You are really beginning to piss me off.

How is that a refutation of what I said. A Scandinavian styled welfare state can work in the US as it can work in Sweden regardless of size.

The U.S. government is plagued with lobbyists, committees, super committees, bought off politicians, and all sorts of layers of bureacracy. You will never implement a Swedish style economy unless you have some kind of revolution and you can adequately fight off the very powerful bourgeoisie that controls the United States and the global economy, as the United States is the reserve currency and has a very large influence.

With that said, I will choose not to respond to your other loaded comments, as they are just repeats of the same argument over and over again.

You have said that Marx is wrong on a lot of things. So just admit it---you are a revisionist.

Once you do that, we can finally move on to discuss why you hold a revisionist POV, and what ideas you have that you think are better than Marx's ideas.

[kashkin]

Dear Donovan:

A) How do you explain the millions of deaths in Ukraine in 1932-33?

B) What exactly is so terrible about being a revisionist (I'm using a definition you seem to be implying: that changing any single word of Marx's or Engel's is revisionism)? Are we not allowed to criticise and question?

C) Could I have some examples (or pointers to) of this reactionary propaganda.

[ComradeOm]

There you go with your revisionism again

Please stop accusing people of 'revisionism' if you've never read Marx. You have no idea of what you're defending

Ah....believing in the fascist lies of Hitler and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, are we?

People in the Ukraine starved because of Stalin? Are you really that stupid to believe in these Western cold war fabrications?

And decades of subsequent academic research. The famines of 1932-33 happened and millions died during them. Any attempt to argue otherwise is denialism of the worst order

In the off chance that you are interested in further reading then Davies and Wheatcroft's The Years of Hunger is currently the definitive text on the famine

[thefinalmarch]

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

You are a twisted, anti-worker fuck.