There is no way this isn't trolling.
Results 41 to 52 of 52
The Tikals were conquered by the Maya, the Maya by the Spanish, and the Mongols by the Ming Chinese.
Poland was essentially a state of the Soviet Union. It should have been a forewarning when Poland elected Walensa (sp?) that the Soviets didn't do anything. They had before in Czechoslovkia and Hungary. Already the state was withering.
The Chinese state will collapse the same way if the capitalist class is eliminated. If the Chinese let Tibet go the way the Soviets let Poland go, then I would say it is happening again.
The Cuban state will be the next to collapse. And when it does, capital from the US will flood in creating a new quasi-Russian, neo-capitalist state.
There is no way this isn't trolling.
Altruism and benevolence are not even needed. Just a sober observing of facts and an acceptance to the demands created by necessaries (In other words the law of nature).
It's just obvious that you discuss about things that you has absolutely no idea.
Wałęsa was elected a year after Hungary and Czechoslovakia have elected parliaments in Western style. And all of this happened with permission of the Soviet Union. It was their strategy to make European satellites a neutral zone and demand from them to pay for oil and gas in very hard currency. The strategy goal was to cure the soviet economy. But Soviet state always had poor knowledge about economy and this is why strategy failed as the whole state.
Yes, Poland were the Soviet Union colony, but now we are neo-colony of foreign capital. And there is no difference.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
Nope. The Mayan empire collapsed hundreds of years before the Spanish arrived. The Mongolian Empire collapsed by splitting up into rival territories.
You're no answering my question.
You're hopeless.
This cannot be reconciled with the facts. The Cuban state is actively liberalising its economy. It's not withering away and private capital flooding the country as a consequence -- it's liberalising. My god.
I'm sorry but this is so unbelievably stupid. I already tackled the ridiculous notion that the state withered away, but here another argument. You act as if the state withering away is some compelling mystical force. Why would it wither away? Why would the workers in Cuba accept private capital entering the country all of a sudden when the state has withered away? They wouldn't accept, if we accept the notion that the state is withering away, that private capital comes in, subdues the population, steals all social property, etc. It would lead to open violent confrontation.... AND thus the workers' state would still exist as one part of the violent confrontation! The state does not wither away because it withers away, it withers away because it there are no class antagonisms. Cuban would have that because of the threat of private capital. So even in this regard your hypothesis is beyond stupid.
Just accept the facts for crying out loud.
pew pew pew
To those talking about how the Civil war was responsible for authoritarianism, or how it was actually Stalin's idea, sorry, but you're wrong.
"I consider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner, and much less painfully."
Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism, 1920.
.
Also, I find it interesting when Marxists criticise the Soviet union, being that there is no Marxist basis to do that on, one has to appeal to libertarianism (anarchist principles) to be against it.
According to Marxist notions, under Lenin's and Trotsky's "war communism", and later under Stalin, USSR abolished private property, there was no "bourgeoise", meaning it was, according to Marxism, a classless society. It's only faults were that in used money and that it wasn't global. I've actually seen people claim this- USSR wasn't socialism because it used money and wasn't global. In fact, being that there wasn't any "bourgoise", and that it was a classless society, it means that it fact there was no state there- because a state is, according to Marxism, just an instrument of class rule, and being that there weren't classes, there couldn't have been any state there. Stalin established a classless and a stateless society, yep. Imagine global Stalinism that uses calculation in natura instead of money and voila- full communism.
Last edited by bropasaran; 3rd July 2014 at 03:29.
pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will
previously known as impossible
I feel that a communist state is meant to be ruled by the people, not a single ruler, and that's where the Soviet Union went wrong.
So in this thread we have two people saying that, "according to Marxism", the USSR was a classless society.
Is this real life?
"We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx
"But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg
fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
Because the humanzee experiments weren't properly funded and later disbanded. Stalin's greatest tactical failure really. Total death nail for the fSU.
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
In Soviet Russia the classless society takes advantage of you
Last edited by exeexe; 4th July 2014 at 01:14.
But who were the communists then? Only the Bolsheviks?
And who determined the proletarian class interests? The Bolsheviks?
But then you deny one fundamental marxist point which is that the proletarian class conquers the political power when it forms the majority of the population and not before.
"WE COMMUNISTS ARE ALL DEAD MEN ON LEAVE"
Eugen Leviné
Check your history
This cannot be reconciled with the facts. The Cuban state is actively liberalising its economy. It's not withering away and private capital flooding the country as a consequence -- it's liberalising. My god.
You act as if the state withering away is some compelling mystical force. Why would it wither away?[/QUOTE]
It withers away for the reason that Marx and Engels said. After the capitaist classes (including the petit bourgeois) are destroyed then there will be no basis/reason/structure for the continued existence of the state. There wont be any class to be suppressed or to suppress. No class structure no state.
The russians opened the gates to the city to western capital. why do you think cuba will be any difference?
