spot;560502 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba describes the public mandate process which legitimises the Cuban National Assembly. Free secret voting, votes counted in public, universal adult suffrage, it's not democracy as we know it Jim but Cuba's only a small island and we can afford a few deviant experiments in the world surely. I think the average Cuban is proud of what's been achieved since the Revolution and so he should be.
The equivalent figure, if you're looking for one in England, is Tony Benn rather than young Blair. Had he been the Prime Minister you describe then, condescending git or not, he'd have been supported by some of us and the country would be a far different place now. It's an attractive pipe-dream, I'd have enjoyed seeing that.
As for the Soviet Union, the achievements of the Party from 1917 into the forties (I deliberately leave later years from my point so as to emphasise the result of World War Two) were unparalleled and I don't believe the country could have got where it did so fast under any other system. Whether anyone other than Stalin could have had the same result as Party Leader we'll never know and I accept that he became more flawed in some ways as time went on.
Some of us have never forgiven Sir Anthony for his betrayal of Norton in the Triumph Co-Operative Affair!
And I would contend that, whatever else it might have been, the Soviet Union was anything but a communist state. It may have had ownership vested in the state, but the state was owned by the inner circle rather than by the people - that makes it a Ogliarchy, not a communist state.
The Communist State
The Communist State
Bryn Mawr;561306 wrote: Some of us have never forgiven Sir Anthony for his betrayal of Norton in the Triumph Co-Operative Affair!
And I would contend that, whatever else it might have been, the Soviet Union was anything but a communist state. It may have had ownership vested in the state, but the state was owned by the inner circle rather than by the people - that makes it a Ogliarchy, not a communist state.
Nah, just Lenin and Stalin were communist. :wah:
And I would contend that, whatever else it might have been, the Soviet Union was anything but a communist state. It may have had ownership vested in the state, but the state was owned by the inner circle rather than by the people - that makes it a Ogliarchy, not a communist state.
Nah, just Lenin and Stalin were communist. :wah:
The Communist State
K.Snyder;561321 wrote: Nah, just Lenin and Stalin were communist. :wah:
Lenin might well have been but Stalin? Never!
Lenin might well have been but Stalin? Never!
The Communist State
K.Snyder;561321 wrote: Nah, just Lenin and Stalin were communist. :wah:
No. they were thieves.
No. they were thieves.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
The Communist State
Bryn Mawr;561370 wrote: Lenin might well have been but Stalin? Never!
Oh, I forgot, the Great Purge was just a political tactic. :wah:
Oh, I forgot, the Great Purge was just a political tactic. :wah:
The Communist State
Bryn Mawr;561306 wrote: Some of us have never forgiven Sir Anthony for his betrayal of Norton in the Triumph Co-Operative Affair!
And I would contend that, whatever else it might have been, the Soviet Union was anything but a communist state. It may have had ownership vested in the state, but the state was owned by the inner circle rather than by the people - that makes it a Ogliarchy, not a communist state.
Yes, I agree it was a murderous and bestial feudal oligarchy in reality, worse even, but I have also heard it argued that Nazi Germany was not a true National Socialist government because of various and blatant flaws in the doctrines, (oh and that interfering Hitler chap who should have let the original Nazi's get on with their enlightened and fantastic program for world government, but instead ruined it for everyone by being a murderous maniac) and we should give Fascism a proper chance as it would improve the roads, boost productivity, and solve the immigration issue, I tend to distrust the motives of people who say such things.
I'm afraid that bemoaning the fact that the Soviet Union did not exactly live up to its own ideals (let alone anyone else's) doesn't remove the operative fact that the Soviet Union was set up as a communist state, by self-proclaimed communists, who espoused communist dogma in their political pronouncements for the lifespan of the soviet union and its empire, and were prepared to many terrible deeds and always in the name of Communism not socialism, capitalism, fascism, catholicism, Islam or anything else, but Communism, so if it looks like a duck etc etc.
Also I have often heard it said that the problem with communism is that we don't give it a proper chance, I would suggest the truth is that whenever its actually attempted it becomes what we observe (i.e. an unmitigated human disaster) as all communist-inspired societies become (to date anyway), initially extremely oppressive and murderous because of the natural human resistance to collectivization and the state control of "everything", then if you are lucky they turn into vaguely (and sometimes sharply), casually-coercive, tautological, immensely baffling, pointless societies that eventually fall apart from their own inability to deal with the reality of human social interaction and economic existence. The only ones that have actually prospered are the ones that have dumped communism for totalitarian corporate capitalism (i.e China, which is still better than what that despicable human being Mao offered his people).
The only people who morn the complete rejection of all these things in Europe are certain romantic intellectuals (for reasons I don't fully understand, other than the obvious one that they would prefer intellectuals to run everything (its not the panacea it would appear at first, honest)), apart from that little inclination, I think they general mood would be "good riddance to bad rubbish".
And I would contend that, whatever else it might have been, the Soviet Union was anything but a communist state. It may have had ownership vested in the state, but the state was owned by the inner circle rather than by the people - that makes it a Ogliarchy, not a communist state.
Yes, I agree it was a murderous and bestial feudal oligarchy in reality, worse even, but I have also heard it argued that Nazi Germany was not a true National Socialist government because of various and blatant flaws in the doctrines, (oh and that interfering Hitler chap who should have let the original Nazi's get on with their enlightened and fantastic program for world government, but instead ruined it for everyone by being a murderous maniac) and we should give Fascism a proper chance as it would improve the roads, boost productivity, and solve the immigration issue, I tend to distrust the motives of people who say such things.
I'm afraid that bemoaning the fact that the Soviet Union did not exactly live up to its own ideals (let alone anyone else's) doesn't remove the operative fact that the Soviet Union was set up as a communist state, by self-proclaimed communists, who espoused communist dogma in their political pronouncements for the lifespan of the soviet union and its empire, and were prepared to many terrible deeds and always in the name of Communism not socialism, capitalism, fascism, catholicism, Islam or anything else, but Communism, so if it looks like a duck etc etc.
Also I have often heard it said that the problem with communism is that we don't give it a proper chance, I would suggest the truth is that whenever its actually attempted it becomes what we observe (i.e. an unmitigated human disaster) as all communist-inspired societies become (to date anyway), initially extremely oppressive and murderous because of the natural human resistance to collectivization and the state control of "everything", then if you are lucky they turn into vaguely (and sometimes sharply), casually-coercive, tautological, immensely baffling, pointless societies that eventually fall apart from their own inability to deal with the reality of human social interaction and economic existence. The only ones that have actually prospered are the ones that have dumped communism for totalitarian corporate capitalism (i.e China, which is still better than what that despicable human being Mao offered his people).
The only people who morn the complete rejection of all these things in Europe are certain romantic intellectuals (for reasons I don't fully understand, other than the obvious one that they would prefer intellectuals to run everything (its not the panacea it would appear at first, honest)), apart from that little inclination, I think they general mood would be "good riddance to bad rubbish".
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Communist State
Galbally;560968 wrote:
Though the fact that there are far, far worse people in power than George Bush around the world doesn't excuse him for being not very good either, it is interesting alright.
dittos
Though the fact that there are far, far worse people in power than George Bush around the world doesn't excuse him for being not very good either, it is interesting alright.
dittos
The Communist State
Galbally;561395 wrote: Yes, I agree it was a murderous and bestial feudal oligarchy in reality, worse even, but I have also heard it argued that Nazi Germany was not a true National Socialist government because of various and blatant flaws in the doctrines, and we should give Fascism a proper chance as it would improve the roads, boost productivity, and solve the immigration issue, I tend to distrust the motives of people who say such things.
That's one I've never come across. As for my motives - pure as the driven snow, I assure you
Galbally wrote: I'm afraid that bemoaning the fact that the Soviet Union did not exactly live up to its own ideals (let alone anyone else's) doesn't remove the operative fact that the Soviet Union was set up as a communist state, by self-proclaimed communists, who espoused communist dogma in their political pronouncements for the lifespan of the soviet union and its empire, and were prepared to many terrible deeds and always in the name of Communism not socialism, capitalism, fascism, catholicism, Islam or anything else, but Communism, so if it looks like a duck etc etc.
I'm always surprised that no-one mentions the old Israli Kibutz when discussing practical communist systems - run by the people, for the people. I've always doubted that any communist system can work when it goes over a critical size. Maybe the next stage would be a commune of communes - each independant but working together co-operatively.
Galbally wrote: Also I have often heard it said that the problem with communism is that we don't give it a proper chance, I would suggest the truth is that whenever its actually attempted it becomes what we observe (i.e. an unmitigated human disaster) as all communist-inspired societies become (to date anyway), initially extremely oppressive and murderous because of the natural human resistance to collectivization and the state control of "everything", then if you are lucky they turn into vaguely and sometimes sharply, casually coercive, tautological, immensely baffling, pointless societies that eventually fall apart from their own inability to deal with the reality of human social interaction and economic existence. The only ones that have actually prospered are the ones that have dumped communism for totalitarian corporate capitalism (i.e China, which is still better than what that despicable human being Mao offered his people).
Again, once you exceed a critical size where the peoples representatives do not know the people they represent and the people do not know who they are electing then the system breaks down and is ripe for a totalitarian takeover.
the only reason that oour version of democracy does not suffer the same fate is that the vote transfers from the representative to the party he is a member of and we elect a party to reppresent us. In a one party state this cannot happen.
Galbally wrote: The only people who morn the complete rejection of all these things in Europe are certain romantic intellectuals (for reasons I don't fully understand, other than the obvious one that they would prefer intellectuals to run everything (its not the panacea it would appear at first, honest)), apart from that little inclination, I think they general mood would be "good riddance to bad rubbish".
No one cheered as loud as I when the wall came down - your description of the Soviet state is accurate all the way down the line.
Now if we were exploring the pros and cons of a Meritocracy then it would be a completely different discussion. The ways and means of selecting the elite are legion.
That's one I've never come across. As for my motives - pure as the driven snow, I assure you
Galbally wrote: I'm afraid that bemoaning the fact that the Soviet Union did not exactly live up to its own ideals (let alone anyone else's) doesn't remove the operative fact that the Soviet Union was set up as a communist state, by self-proclaimed communists, who espoused communist dogma in their political pronouncements for the lifespan of the soviet union and its empire, and were prepared to many terrible deeds and always in the name of Communism not socialism, capitalism, fascism, catholicism, Islam or anything else, but Communism, so if it looks like a duck etc etc.
I'm always surprised that no-one mentions the old Israli Kibutz when discussing practical communist systems - run by the people, for the people. I've always doubted that any communist system can work when it goes over a critical size. Maybe the next stage would be a commune of communes - each independant but working together co-operatively.
Galbally wrote: Also I have often heard it said that the problem with communism is that we don't give it a proper chance, I would suggest the truth is that whenever its actually attempted it becomes what we observe (i.e. an unmitigated human disaster) as all communist-inspired societies become (to date anyway), initially extremely oppressive and murderous because of the natural human resistance to collectivization and the state control of "everything", then if you are lucky they turn into vaguely and sometimes sharply, casually coercive, tautological, immensely baffling, pointless societies that eventually fall apart from their own inability to deal with the reality of human social interaction and economic existence. The only ones that have actually prospered are the ones that have dumped communism for totalitarian corporate capitalism (i.e China, which is still better than what that despicable human being Mao offered his people).
Again, once you exceed a critical size where the peoples representatives do not know the people they represent and the people do not know who they are electing then the system breaks down and is ripe for a totalitarian takeover.
the only reason that oour version of democracy does not suffer the same fate is that the vote transfers from the representative to the party he is a member of and we elect a party to reppresent us. In a one party state this cannot happen.
Galbally wrote: The only people who morn the complete rejection of all these things in Europe are certain romantic intellectuals (for reasons I don't fully understand, other than the obvious one that they would prefer intellectuals to run everything (its not the panacea it would appear at first, honest)), apart from that little inclination, I think they general mood would be "good riddance to bad rubbish".
No one cheered as loud as I when the wall came down - your description of the Soviet state is accurate all the way down the line.
Now if we were exploring the pros and cons of a Meritocracy then it would be a completely different discussion. The ways and means of selecting the elite are legion.
The Communist State
Bryn Mawr;561470 wrote: That's one I've never come across. As for my motives - pure as the driven snow, I assure you
I'm always surprised that no-one mentions the old Israli Kibutz when discussing practical communist systems - run by the people, for the people. I've always doubted that any communist system can work when it goes over a critical size. Maybe the next stage would be a commune of communes - each independant but working together co-operatively.
Again, once you exceed a critical size where the peoples representatives do not know the people they represent and the people do not know who they are electing then the system breaks down and is ripe for a totalitarian takeover.
the only reason that oour version of democracy does not suffer the same fate is that the vote transfers from the representative to the party he is a member of and we elect a party to reppresent us. In a one party state this cannot happen.
No one cheered as loud as I when the wall came down - your description of the Soviet state is accurate all the way down the line.
Now if we were exploring the pros and cons of a Meritocracy then it would be a completely different discussion. The ways and means of selecting the elite are legion.
Yes, an interesting debate, which I am too tired for right now, but later I will talk more about it, needless to say we are definetly in sharp disagreement on this, but thats what debate is all about.
I'm always surprised that no-one mentions the old Israli Kibutz when discussing practical communist systems - run by the people, for the people. I've always doubted that any communist system can work when it goes over a critical size. Maybe the next stage would be a commune of communes - each independant but working together co-operatively.
Again, once you exceed a critical size where the peoples representatives do not know the people they represent and the people do not know who they are electing then the system breaks down and is ripe for a totalitarian takeover.
the only reason that oour version of democracy does not suffer the same fate is that the vote transfers from the representative to the party he is a member of and we elect a party to reppresent us. In a one party state this cannot happen.
No one cheered as loud as I when the wall came down - your description of the Soviet state is accurate all the way down the line.
Now if we were exploring the pros and cons of a Meritocracy then it would be a completely different discussion. The ways and means of selecting the elite are legion.
Yes, an interesting debate, which I am too tired for right now, but later I will talk more about it, needless to say we are definetly in sharp disagreement on this, but thats what debate is all about.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Communist State
Galbally;561538 wrote: Yes, an interesting debate, which I am too tired for right now, but later I will talk more about it, needless to say we are definetly in sharp disagreement on this, but thats what debate is all about.
Until the next time then - sleep well :-6
Until the next time then - sleep well :-6
The Communist State
I've always leaned more towards anarchy than communism or capitalism.
I'm not convinced that any system works, really. I'm watching this discussion as someone who does not currently have a set point of view. Which is an interesting position to be in. For me.
I'm not convinced that any system works, really. I'm watching this discussion as someone who does not currently have a set point of view. Which is an interesting position to be in. For me.
The Communist State
Posted by Galbally
Also I have often heard it said that the problem with communism is that we don't give it a proper chance, I would suggest the truth is that whenever its actually attempted it becomes what we observe (i.e. an unmitigated human disaster) as all communist-inspired societies become (to date anyway), initially extremely oppressive and murderous because of the natural human resistance to collectivization and the state control of "everything", then if you are lucky they turn into vaguely (and sometimes sharply), casually-coercive, tautological, immensely baffling, pointless societies that eventually fall apart from their own inability to deal with the reality of human social interaction and economic existence.
The problem with communism is that basic human flaw that there will always be those that think they know better and know best what needs to be done. In essence socialism is a patronising middle class political philosphy where those and such as those will sort everybody out. Socialism and it's bastard offspring cThe film was banned in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Falangist Spain. According to Capra, the film was also dubbed in certain European countries to alter the message of the film so it conformed with official ideology.ommunim are just two of the strands of political thought that interweave the fabric of political life.
Communism didn't take hold in the countries where Marx thought it would-the indistrialised countries where they had a literate and politically active work force for the simple reason that most saw through to the basic flaw that all you would do is swop one set of masters for another. It had success in those countries where political freedom was denied-where that happens extremes become more attractive and where the people as a whole are not used to the idea they have a rght to have a say the instinct to stand up and think for yourself and a small group can get hold of the body politic and if the instinct to challenge is not there they get away with it.
It's a utopian day dream that's why it will never happen. I would also argue that never will.
Lenin was a ruthless politician who believed the end justified any means, an idealist even if you don't agree with his ideals.
Stalin was a psychopath-at the end Lenin realised just how dangerous he was but was too late to stop him. Russia never became a communist state because to achieve a utopian state where all work for the common good just isn't going to happen. it was a totalitarian dictatorship where the dictatorship of the proletariat became dictatorship by the few.
Mao was a very different character and chinese communism took a different road.
You need I think to put things in the context of what it was like at the time to be alive and remember there was no mass media and access to universal education for all that we take so much for granted.
It's easy to forget that at the time of WW1 there were no democracies around in the sense that we now take for granted with universal suffrage for all of voting age regardles of creed, colour or sex. WW1 was the last throw of empire after whioch most people began to learn not to trust their leaders any more and question what right they had to rule. Warfare politicises a population like nothing else can.
Next time you hear the lament that the young no longer respect authority perhaps you should ask who's authority and by what right it demands respect. It's a basic human right to ask the question who the ^*&^ are you to tell me what to do. and IMO one we discourage at our peril.
When you look at china and Russia ask what was there before and on whose side you would have been had you been there-at least to begin with. The flaws of communism were not apparent to all just as the flaws of nazism were not either.
Hitler had many admirers in other countries including many that heartily agreed with his racial policies and with the idea you should lock up troublemakers hat question the "natural" order. Hitler didn't start with the jews he started with the liberal opposition that thought imprisonment without trial was a bad idea and labour activists which got the support of the moneyed classes.
It's easier to bandy about labels and categorise someone so they can be dismissed without thought than it is to deal with what they are actually saying. Socialism did not just suddenly appear out of nowhere
I'm not a christian but that dosn't mean i don't agree with and adhere to some christian values. They are not uniquely christian.
A socialist believes in equality for all- so does a capitalist but they argue about the means. Very few nowadays would claim moral supriority and the right to rule because of who their parents were. They might think it mind you.
If a socialist argues for equality of opportunity in say education or access to medical care why then do you become a social pariah if you argue that that should be a function of government? What if you happen to think that exploiting people and resources as they sit fit is not something individuals or corporations should be allowed to do unchecked. Are you now a communist and a danger to society if you suggest the workers combine to give themselves more power when negotiation with employers? Does the label communist suddenly make the idea of labour organistion something people are afraid to discuss?
The use of words and their meaning can be very subtle in moulding he way people think.
Any of you seen Mr Smith goes to washington?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_ ... Washington
When it was first released, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was attacked by the Washington press, and politicians in the U. S. Congress, as anti-American and pro-Communist for its portrayal of corruption in the American government.
Communist propoganda or a film shouting the merits of liberal democracy?
The film was banned in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Falangist Spain. According to Capra, the film was also dubbed in certain European countries to alter the message of the film so it conformed with official ideology.
Same film different label.
Also I have often heard it said that the problem with communism is that we don't give it a proper chance, I would suggest the truth is that whenever its actually attempted it becomes what we observe (i.e. an unmitigated human disaster) as all communist-inspired societies become (to date anyway), initially extremely oppressive and murderous because of the natural human resistance to collectivization and the state control of "everything", then if you are lucky they turn into vaguely (and sometimes sharply), casually-coercive, tautological, immensely baffling, pointless societies that eventually fall apart from their own inability to deal with the reality of human social interaction and economic existence.
The problem with communism is that basic human flaw that there will always be those that think they know better and know best what needs to be done. In essence socialism is a patronising middle class political philosphy where those and such as those will sort everybody out. Socialism and it's bastard offspring cThe film was banned in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Falangist Spain. According to Capra, the film was also dubbed in certain European countries to alter the message of the film so it conformed with official ideology.ommunim are just two of the strands of political thought that interweave the fabric of political life.
Communism didn't take hold in the countries where Marx thought it would-the indistrialised countries where they had a literate and politically active work force for the simple reason that most saw through to the basic flaw that all you would do is swop one set of masters for another. It had success in those countries where political freedom was denied-where that happens extremes become more attractive and where the people as a whole are not used to the idea they have a rght to have a say the instinct to stand up and think for yourself and a small group can get hold of the body politic and if the instinct to challenge is not there they get away with it.
It's a utopian day dream that's why it will never happen. I would also argue that never will.
Lenin was a ruthless politician who believed the end justified any means, an idealist even if you don't agree with his ideals.
Stalin was a psychopath-at the end Lenin realised just how dangerous he was but was too late to stop him. Russia never became a communist state because to achieve a utopian state where all work for the common good just isn't going to happen. it was a totalitarian dictatorship where the dictatorship of the proletariat became dictatorship by the few.
Mao was a very different character and chinese communism took a different road.
You need I think to put things in the context of what it was like at the time to be alive and remember there was no mass media and access to universal education for all that we take so much for granted.
It's easy to forget that at the time of WW1 there were no democracies around in the sense that we now take for granted with universal suffrage for all of voting age regardles of creed, colour or sex. WW1 was the last throw of empire after whioch most people began to learn not to trust their leaders any more and question what right they had to rule. Warfare politicises a population like nothing else can.
Next time you hear the lament that the young no longer respect authority perhaps you should ask who's authority and by what right it demands respect. It's a basic human right to ask the question who the ^*&^ are you to tell me what to do. and IMO one we discourage at our peril.
When you look at china and Russia ask what was there before and on whose side you would have been had you been there-at least to begin with. The flaws of communism were not apparent to all just as the flaws of nazism were not either.
Hitler had many admirers in other countries including many that heartily agreed with his racial policies and with the idea you should lock up troublemakers hat question the "natural" order. Hitler didn't start with the jews he started with the liberal opposition that thought imprisonment without trial was a bad idea and labour activists which got the support of the moneyed classes.
It's easier to bandy about labels and categorise someone so they can be dismissed without thought than it is to deal with what they are actually saying. Socialism did not just suddenly appear out of nowhere
I'm not a christian but that dosn't mean i don't agree with and adhere to some christian values. They are not uniquely christian.
A socialist believes in equality for all- so does a capitalist but they argue about the means. Very few nowadays would claim moral supriority and the right to rule because of who their parents were. They might think it mind you.
If a socialist argues for equality of opportunity in say education or access to medical care why then do you become a social pariah if you argue that that should be a function of government? What if you happen to think that exploiting people and resources as they sit fit is not something individuals or corporations should be allowed to do unchecked. Are you now a communist and a danger to society if you suggest the workers combine to give themselves more power when negotiation with employers? Does the label communist suddenly make the idea of labour organistion something people are afraid to discuss?
The use of words and their meaning can be very subtle in moulding he way people think.
Any of you seen Mr Smith goes to washington?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_ ... Washington
When it was first released, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was attacked by the Washington press, and politicians in the U. S. Congress, as anti-American and pro-Communist for its portrayal of corruption in the American government.
Communist propoganda or a film shouting the merits of liberal democracy?
The film was banned in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Falangist Spain. According to Capra, the film was also dubbed in certain European countries to alter the message of the film so it conformed with official ideology.
Same film different label.
The Communist State
I will say, before we get into the heavier aspects of this stuff, that my own inclination is to be social liberal in terms of people's decisions to make personal choices, that all people, all humans should inherently be treated equally under the law in a free nation, I am also politically liberal in that I believe in liberal republican democracy and not despotisms, monarchies, theocracies, plutocracies, not nanny states run by well meaning but essentially coercive left wing intellectuals, not corporate states run by agglomeration's of super-rich capitalists, and their legal and media lackeys.
But in terms of macro economics, I am right-wing really as I honestly believe that free markets (constrained by law, which should include social responsibility and the concept of social equity) are the best way of economically ordering human affairs, and that the right to own property protected by law, is a fundamental entitlement in a free society. I am not a great believer in the benevolence of the species so I am not that cool with very liberal law-and-order policies, or liberal ideas about bringing up children with no discipline (I think these ideas are disastrous actually), I also think its all people's general inclination to be lazy, selfish, and irresponsible unless they actually confront life and reality themselves so the more the state tries to protect people from that reality (and the idea of taking personal responsibility for yourself as a privileged member of a free society) then the worse that societies social problems, and general alienation becomes, (its a cultural thing as much as a economic thing).
I am also not a pacifistic, and none of these ideas would last 5 minutes unless you actually are prepared at some stage to use force to ensure that people with other, maybe less equitable ideas and better weapons don't kill you, and I am also not into multiculturalism in its sharp sense, (and for its own sake as part of a white-guilt-agenda) in that it seems a very divisive and not a actually a unifying ideal upon which to try and run a nation state. So its a mix of all different types of agendas and ideas really, which is also why I tend not to get too het up about any of the political parties as in Ireland they are mostly based on the issues of a civil war and a war of independence fought 85 years ago, while in England they are divided on class lines, and also based on economic theories from the 19th century and I honestly believed that the world and Europe are moving on, but the political system hasn't caught up yet.
Anyway, back to why communism sucks. :wah:
But in terms of macro economics, I am right-wing really as I honestly believe that free markets (constrained by law, which should include social responsibility and the concept of social equity) are the best way of economically ordering human affairs, and that the right to own property protected by law, is a fundamental entitlement in a free society. I am not a great believer in the benevolence of the species so I am not that cool with very liberal law-and-order policies, or liberal ideas about bringing up children with no discipline (I think these ideas are disastrous actually), I also think its all people's general inclination to be lazy, selfish, and irresponsible unless they actually confront life and reality themselves so the more the state tries to protect people from that reality (and the idea of taking personal responsibility for yourself as a privileged member of a free society) then the worse that societies social problems, and general alienation becomes, (its a cultural thing as much as a economic thing).
I am also not a pacifistic, and none of these ideas would last 5 minutes unless you actually are prepared at some stage to use force to ensure that people with other, maybe less equitable ideas and better weapons don't kill you, and I am also not into multiculturalism in its sharp sense, (and for its own sake as part of a white-guilt-agenda) in that it seems a very divisive and not a actually a unifying ideal upon which to try and run a nation state. So its a mix of all different types of agendas and ideas really, which is also why I tend not to get too het up about any of the political parties as in Ireland they are mostly based on the issues of a civil war and a war of independence fought 85 years ago, while in England they are divided on class lines, and also based on economic theories from the 19th century and I honestly believed that the world and Europe are moving on, but the political system hasn't caught up yet.
Anyway, back to why communism sucks. :wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Communist State
Diuretic;562091 wrote: I think if we're talking about an economic theory that's one thing, social theories are another. It doesn't matter if our economy is somewhere on the spectrum between a total laissez-faire capitalist economy or the most tightly planned communist economy, the tendency to oligarchy or plutocracy will be there and it will require a massive effort to overcome it.
The two are intertwined. You can't talk about socialism withouit bringing economics in to it any mor than you can talk about laissez-faire capitalism without bringing in social theory. Keep politics out of business just isn't possible.
The two are intertwined. You can't talk about socialism withouit bringing economics in to it any mor than you can talk about laissez-faire capitalism without bringing in social theory. Keep politics out of business just isn't possible.
The Communist State
Diuretic;562463 wrote: I was struggling to make my thoughts clear and I failed.
I agree with you. Socialism is about economics, well to me at least, as is capitalism. The difference is how they're enterwined with politics I suppose. Socialism requires a strong mix of government control in the economy while laissez-faire capitalism by definition requires a minimal intervention, some would argue no intervention. Like most extremes they're useless in practice.
The point I was trying to make was that social policy isn't just about economics. I think for the last twenty-something years we've forgotten that governments need to govern as well as take responsibilty for national economies, by that I mean they need to pursue social policies and not just economic aims.
Both are so intertwined I would argue it is pointless to try and seperate them. Even capitalism has to have some kind of system to control the excesses that would result if left unchecked. Capitalism does not mean no interference at all-monopolies (not just state ones under socialism) for instance are anti capitalistic and if unchecked and allowed to come in to existence cause considerable damage by stultifying competition and it's concomitant innovation and development of goods and services. Forcing down wages and prices paid to prime producers is also detrimental in the long run to the economy.
I agree with you. Socialism is about economics, well to me at least, as is capitalism. The difference is how they're enterwined with politics I suppose. Socialism requires a strong mix of government control in the economy while laissez-faire capitalism by definition requires a minimal intervention, some would argue no intervention. Like most extremes they're useless in practice.
The point I was trying to make was that social policy isn't just about economics. I think for the last twenty-something years we've forgotten that governments need to govern as well as take responsibilty for national economies, by that I mean they need to pursue social policies and not just economic aims.
Both are so intertwined I would argue it is pointless to try and seperate them. Even capitalism has to have some kind of system to control the excesses that would result if left unchecked. Capitalism does not mean no interference at all-monopolies (not just state ones under socialism) for instance are anti capitalistic and if unchecked and allowed to come in to existence cause considerable damage by stultifying competition and it's concomitant innovation and development of goods and services. Forcing down wages and prices paid to prime producers is also detrimental in the long run to the economy.
The Communist State
spot;559681 wrote: The world would, I'm quite sure, be a poorer place without the idealism of the Cuban population as a whole. Socialism in action as opposed to Batista-style corruption. Fidel has been a beacon of hope to the planet, bless him.
Weird under the Batista regime, Cuba had the second highest per capita income among all Latin American nations. In 1958, the International Labour Organization said that the average daily wage for a Cuban agricultural worker was $3.00, compared to the wages in France ($2.73), Belgium ($2.76) and West Germany ($2.73).
Cuba was NOT a 3rd world country until Castro arrived
In 1842, the food ration for slaves in Cuba was far higher than it is today under government rationing. In 1842 slaves got 8 oz. of meat, chicken and fish, while under the Castro government the ration is a starvation level 2 oz. The 1842 ration for rice was 4 oz. Today it's 3 oz. In 1842, it was 16 oz of starches. Today it's 6.5 oz. In 1842 slaves got 4 oz of beans. Today Castro's enslaved people get 1 oz.
Oh how bout this:
On Nov. 17, 1962, J. Edgar Hoovers' FBI cracked a terrorist plot (though the term "terrorist" was not used at the time) by Castro-Cuban agents that targeted Macy's, Gimbel's, Bloomindales and Manhattan's Grand Central Station with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The holocaust was set to go off the following week, the day after Thanksgiving.
A little perspective: for their March 2004 Madrid subway blasts -- all 10 of them -- that killed and maimed almost 2,000 people, al Qaeda used a grand total of 100 kilos of TNT. Fidel Castro's agents planned to set off five times that explosive power in the three biggest department stores on earth, all packed to suffocation and pulsing with holiday cheer on the year's biggest shopping day. Thousands of New Yorkers, including women and children -- actually, given the date and targets, probably mostly women and children -- were to be incinerated and entombed.
YES SPOT I quote:
"Fidel has been a beacon of hope to the planet, bless him:
AHMEN
Weird under the Batista regime, Cuba had the second highest per capita income among all Latin American nations. In 1958, the International Labour Organization said that the average daily wage for a Cuban agricultural worker was $3.00, compared to the wages in France ($2.73), Belgium ($2.76) and West Germany ($2.73).
Cuba was NOT a 3rd world country until Castro arrived
In 1842, the food ration for slaves in Cuba was far higher than it is today under government rationing. In 1842 slaves got 8 oz. of meat, chicken and fish, while under the Castro government the ration is a starvation level 2 oz. The 1842 ration for rice was 4 oz. Today it's 3 oz. In 1842, it was 16 oz of starches. Today it's 6.5 oz. In 1842 slaves got 4 oz of beans. Today Castro's enslaved people get 1 oz.
Oh how bout this:
On Nov. 17, 1962, J. Edgar Hoovers' FBI cracked a terrorist plot (though the term "terrorist" was not used at the time) by Castro-Cuban agents that targeted Macy's, Gimbel's, Bloomindales and Manhattan's Grand Central Station with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The holocaust was set to go off the following week, the day after Thanksgiving.
A little perspective: for their March 2004 Madrid subway blasts -- all 10 of them -- that killed and maimed almost 2,000 people, al Qaeda used a grand total of 100 kilos of TNT. Fidel Castro's agents planned to set off five times that explosive power in the three biggest department stores on earth, all packed to suffocation and pulsing with holiday cheer on the year's biggest shopping day. Thousands of New Yorkers, including women and children -- actually, given the date and targets, probably mostly women and children -- were to be incinerated and entombed.
YES SPOT I quote:
"Fidel has been a beacon of hope to the planet, bless him:
AHMEN
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
The Communist State
koan;560859 wrote: I'm having trouble seeing Castro as a "terrible dictator"
Some fat ta chew:
Executions resumed
The three-year de facto moratorium on the use of the death penalty ended with the execution by firing squad of Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla GarcÃa and Jorge Luis MartÃnez Isaac on 11 April. They were among a group of people convicted of hijacking a Cuban ferry with several dozen passengers on board. The hijacking was resolved without violence. The three men were brought to trial, found guilty under “anti-terrorism†legislation, and had their appeals denied all within the space of one week. This raised profound concerns about the fairness of the judicial procedure to which they were subjected. President Castro said the executions were necessary to halt hijackings and stem a growing migration crisis from Cuba to the USA. Approximately 50 prisoners remained on death row at the end of the year.
Fidel Castro questioning a Cuban farmer who was later executed. The woman behind Castro is Celia Sánchez and sitting next to him is Camilo Cienfuegos.
Even before the triumph of the Revolution, Castro and his gang were prone to murder those who disagreed with them. In the photo below, taken while still in the Sierra Maestra mountains, Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, is seen getting ready to shoot a young rebel soldier who disobeyed orders.
And more than forty -eight years after the above photo was taken, Castro and his gang of murderers continue to send to the firing squad, those Cubans who oppose his betrayal of the Revolution.
The two photos above show two prisoners being shot by Castro's rebel forces in the Sierra Maestra mountains.
Castro's reign of brutality began over 50 years ago, and it still continues today.
Some fat ta chew:
Executions resumed
The three-year de facto moratorium on the use of the death penalty ended with the execution by firing squad of Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla GarcÃa and Jorge Luis MartÃnez Isaac on 11 April. They were among a group of people convicted of hijacking a Cuban ferry with several dozen passengers on board. The hijacking was resolved without violence. The three men were brought to trial, found guilty under “anti-terrorism†legislation, and had their appeals denied all within the space of one week. This raised profound concerns about the fairness of the judicial procedure to which they were subjected. President Castro said the executions were necessary to halt hijackings and stem a growing migration crisis from Cuba to the USA. Approximately 50 prisoners remained on death row at the end of the year.
Fidel Castro questioning a Cuban farmer who was later executed. The woman behind Castro is Celia Sánchez and sitting next to him is Camilo Cienfuegos.
Even before the triumph of the Revolution, Castro and his gang were prone to murder those who disagreed with them. In the photo below, taken while still in the Sierra Maestra mountains, Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, is seen getting ready to shoot a young rebel soldier who disobeyed orders.
And more than forty -eight years after the above photo was taken, Castro and his gang of murderers continue to send to the firing squad, those Cubans who oppose his betrayal of the Revolution.
The two photos above show two prisoners being shot by Castro's rebel forces in the Sierra Maestra mountains.
Castro's reign of brutality began over 50 years ago, and it still continues today.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
The Communist State
Scrat;568190 wrote: And the Bush family does not do the same?
Fools.
Who has Bush had executed?
FACTS PLEASE.
There are facts of CASTRO ordering KILLINGS..........
Show us ALL of Bush's orders to kill someone.....
Fools.
Who has Bush had executed?
FACTS PLEASE.
There are facts of CASTRO ordering KILLINGS..........
Show us ALL of Bush's orders to kill someone.....
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
The Communist State
Scrat;568190 wrote: Castro did things to get where he is, he was fighting a revolution.
Fools.
HUH???????????:-2 :-2 :-2
And you can't support the revolution against Saddam?
Dead or not.............. It is a revolution....
He was a dick-tator..... at the least
Fools.
HUH???????????:-2 :-2 :-2
And you can't support the revolution against Saddam?
Dead or not.............. It is a revolution....
He was a dick-tator..... at the least
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
The Communist State
Scrat;568199 wrote: Put up or shutup, show me unbiased documentation of Castro ordering killings, not in english either. 
Sure will Skeerat
As soon as you back up your statement:
Even before the triumph of the Revolution, Castro and his gang were prone to murder those who disagreed with them.
And you SAID:
And the Bush family does not do the same?
I ask again
Put up or SHUT UP!!!!!!
Show us ALL who Bush had murdered???
FACTS.......... About your HERO KASTRO........
(EVEN before you PUT UP)
Castro's execution of 3 raises specter of racism
http://washingtontimes.com/world/200306 ... -1741r.htm
Fidel Castro: Can A Leopard Change Its Spots?
http://www.politixgroup.com/comm118.htm
OK here is his Brothers killings while he (KASTRO) was the HEAD chumpo
http://www.cubaarchive.org/downloads/CA14.pdf
Sure will Skeerat
As soon as you back up your statement:
Even before the triumph of the Revolution, Castro and his gang were prone to murder those who disagreed with them.
And you SAID:
And the Bush family does not do the same?
I ask again
Put up or SHUT UP!!!!!!
Show us ALL who Bush had murdered???
FACTS.......... About your HERO KASTRO........
(EVEN before you PUT UP)
Castro's execution of 3 raises specter of racism
http://washingtontimes.com/world/200306 ... -1741r.htm
Fidel Castro: Can A Leopard Change Its Spots?
http://www.politixgroup.com/comm118.htm
OK here is his Brothers killings while he (KASTRO) was the HEAD chumpo
http://www.cubaarchive.org/downloads/CA14.pdf
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
The Communist State
Scrat;570710 wrote: Stalin was what was needed at the time. People may have died under his policies but he kept the Union together. The wars that would have happened without his methods would have cost Russia much more in the way of lives lost and possibly could be going to this day.
Don't forget what happens when every little petty dictator on the continent has their own personal army. Stalin brought them from the middleages into an industrialized society very fast. In the long run he did more good than harm. Not that some things could have been done differently.
I don't know about that. The biggest business entity in Russia is Gazprom. It seems to be largely run by the government. I don't know who is running who there.
More than a little could have been done differently. Lenin had begun to realise how dangerous Stalin could become, he was certainly warning people about him before he died but was too late realising what stalin was actually like.Perhaps if he hadn't become incapacitated he would have stopped Stalin before he could go as far as he did
I think you have a tendency to romanticise Stalin. The only ones who can really judge him are the Russians themselves.
Communuism never really took hold in those countrieswhere marx thought a communist revolutuion was inevitable-where there was a heavily industrialised educated population where the people saw straight through to the basic flaw of revolutionary communism-that you swop one set of masters for another. It's significant that china and russia were both backward peasant societies with no tradition of political change wrought from below.
Fear of communism was used to combat those who wanted social change-never mind the arguement just label the opposition. Hitler didn't start with the jews he started with the liberal opposition locking away the most articulate and using the media to convince people the threat was enough to justify the action. Arrest and imprisonment without trial-the one thing that no free people should ever allow a government to do for what ever reason.
posted by far rider
The probelm with communism and socialism is that someone has to have total power, and typically that power corrupts. Unless the power sytem is shared a government will fail, and still some will fail anyways.
The flaw with communism is that the political elite are seen as the ones that will bring freedom and equality to the masses manipulating the said masses and sacrificing as many as necessary to the common good. It has a kind of demented logic that requires belief to be almost an act of faith. Indeed if you look at some of the arguements amongst all the various branches it has a lot of similarity to religious cults where fightiong over the true meaning becomes more important than anything else.
Socialism and communism are not synonymous the latter being a variation or indeed an aberration.
At the heart of socialism is the basic belief that all men are equal. Then the arguements start. When you talk about political systems it's never as simple as this all good that all bad.
posted by BTS
The three-year de facto moratorium on the use of the death penalty ended with the execution by firing squad of Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla GarcÃa and Jorge Luis MartÃnez Isaac on 11 April. They were among a group of people convicted of hijacking a Cuban ferry with several dozen passengers on board. The hijacking was resolved without violence. The three men were brought to trial, found guilty under “anti-terrorism†legislation, and had their appeals denied all within the space of one week. This raised profound concerns about the fairness of the judicial procedure to which they were subjected. President Castro said the executions were necessary to halt hijackings and stem a growing migration crisis from Cuba to the USA. Approximately 50 prisoners remained on death row at the end of the year.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Only Iran and china executed more people than the united states in 2005.
There are hundreds of prisoners being held by the Bush administration without trial simply because they might be guilty of being terrorists. Carefully held in a place where american courts have no jurisdiction. You have a vice president that openly advocates some forms of mild torture as being justified. Those whom are deemed to be worth torturing properly get shipped to countries where such things are still allowed. America is not a dictatorship so who is to blame for that happening? before you argue that those held in guantanimo are terrorists-who told you they were?
Don't forget what happens when every little petty dictator on the continent has their own personal army. Stalin brought them from the middleages into an industrialized society very fast. In the long run he did more good than harm. Not that some things could have been done differently.
I don't know about that. The biggest business entity in Russia is Gazprom. It seems to be largely run by the government. I don't know who is running who there.
More than a little could have been done differently. Lenin had begun to realise how dangerous Stalin could become, he was certainly warning people about him before he died but was too late realising what stalin was actually like.Perhaps if he hadn't become incapacitated he would have stopped Stalin before he could go as far as he did
I think you have a tendency to romanticise Stalin. The only ones who can really judge him are the Russians themselves.
Communuism never really took hold in those countrieswhere marx thought a communist revolutuion was inevitable-where there was a heavily industrialised educated population where the people saw straight through to the basic flaw of revolutionary communism-that you swop one set of masters for another. It's significant that china and russia were both backward peasant societies with no tradition of political change wrought from below.
Fear of communism was used to combat those who wanted social change-never mind the arguement just label the opposition. Hitler didn't start with the jews he started with the liberal opposition locking away the most articulate and using the media to convince people the threat was enough to justify the action. Arrest and imprisonment without trial-the one thing that no free people should ever allow a government to do for what ever reason.
posted by far rider
The probelm with communism and socialism is that someone has to have total power, and typically that power corrupts. Unless the power sytem is shared a government will fail, and still some will fail anyways.
The flaw with communism is that the political elite are seen as the ones that will bring freedom and equality to the masses manipulating the said masses and sacrificing as many as necessary to the common good. It has a kind of demented logic that requires belief to be almost an act of faith. Indeed if you look at some of the arguements amongst all the various branches it has a lot of similarity to religious cults where fightiong over the true meaning becomes more important than anything else.
Socialism and communism are not synonymous the latter being a variation or indeed an aberration.
At the heart of socialism is the basic belief that all men are equal. Then the arguements start. When you talk about political systems it's never as simple as this all good that all bad.
posted by BTS
The three-year de facto moratorium on the use of the death penalty ended with the execution by firing squad of Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla GarcÃa and Jorge Luis MartÃnez Isaac on 11 April. They were among a group of people convicted of hijacking a Cuban ferry with several dozen passengers on board. The hijacking was resolved without violence. The three men were brought to trial, found guilty under “anti-terrorism†legislation, and had their appeals denied all within the space of one week. This raised profound concerns about the fairness of the judicial procedure to which they were subjected. President Castro said the executions were necessary to halt hijackings and stem a growing migration crisis from Cuba to the USA. Approximately 50 prisoners remained on death row at the end of the year.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Only Iran and china executed more people than the united states in 2005.
There are hundreds of prisoners being held by the Bush administration without trial simply because they might be guilty of being terrorists. Carefully held in a place where american courts have no jurisdiction. You have a vice president that openly advocates some forms of mild torture as being justified. Those whom are deemed to be worth torturing properly get shipped to countries where such things are still allowed. America is not a dictatorship so who is to blame for that happening? before you argue that those held in guantanimo are terrorists-who told you they were?
The Communist State
posted by scrat
I fail to see where Lenin is relevant to this discussion.
Seeing as it was Lenin who helped shaped the character of the communist revolution party he can hardly be discarded as irrelevant. Even if he was sent back as a puppet of the imperialist germans to destabilise russia.
Stalin took advantage of Lenin's being immobilised due to a stroke to seize power. It was after all lenin who appointed him general seccratary of the party. Without enin there would have been no Stalin and possibly no communist revolution. Had lenin not been subsequently been incapacitated it is possible he may have stopped Stalin and all that followed might have been very different. His last breath was used to advocate the removal of Stalin as party secretary as his dictatorial nature was becoming evident. Stalin took advantage of the situation to make his bid for power.
posted by scrat
I think you have a tendancy to bristle like a cat when anyone dares to question the dogma that you were weaned on. Don't take that as an insult, it's ubiquitous amongst the intellectuals of the west. I think that this is the one subject where you let your thoughtful, logical side lapse in favor of an emotional gut reaction.
I feel a mild surprise you consider me an intellectual-or perhaps i read too much in to that.:-3
In response I would point out that like many left wing intellectuals you bristle like a cat when someone challenges your rose tinted view of what actually went on in those times.
Initially Lenin encouraged the kulaks-it was the new economic policy he introduced in 1921 that encouraged their trade with the cities out of necessity for the simple reason that without their support and produce the cities would have starved although he never viewed it as a long lasting solution, free enterprise being anathema to a communist state the disagreement with stalin over economic policy was one of the sources of friction.
The kulaks incidentally go all the way back to land reform legislation back in 1906, by WW! about 15% of russia's farmers were Kulaks and were the most productive sector of the agricultural sector. Before you dismiss them all as money grabbing exploiters of helpless women maybe you should investigate a bit more. Reality is never as black and white as it is painted by those writing the history of what they did. Smolensk was only a small part of russia. Look elsewhere as well.
Stalin wasn't too keen on the republics that wanted to go their own way either but no doubt slaughtering those that didn't follow the party line all for the greater good is acceptable. Dress it up any way you like, you can even argue the situation needed a man like him ( as indeed you seem to do) but Stalin made himself a dictator and was very far from the loveable Uncle Joe so beloved of americans during WW2. Necessity makes the strangest bedfellows does it not.
posted by scrat
The fact is that in the western versions of the history of Russia and ther coldwar era there are great gaps, there are even greater exaggerations, illogical stats, half truths, outright lies and a whole heaping of hysterics mixed in.
There were but a lot of the gaps are being filled in not least because the 30 and 40 year moratotiums on govt papers in the west are ending and what actually went on during the cold war is coming to light.
Interesting also that you blithely accept there are "greater exaggerations, illogical stats, half truths, outright lies and a whole heaping of hysterics mixed in." in our view in the west but seem to forget that russians will be equally guilty. Criticising stalin was a downright dangerous activity so I would be surprised if there was not a shortage of material written from the point of view of his opponents. It's only now that events and histories can be told by the russians themselves.
There were many other european marxists that visited Russia during those years imediately post ww1 and there are archives of their writing you can trawl through if you feel like it. A lot of them are available on line. George Orwell is perhaps one of the best known-many people assume erroniously that 1984 was about the nazi state Some of the writings from the Spanish civil war are fascinating as well. That was the point when many socialists became thouroughly disillusioned with the communist party.
Communism was not confined to russia any more than fascism was to italy and nazism to germany.
http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/leni ... lume45.htm
Knock yourself out, If you feel up to it you can wade through the collected works of stalin as well if you want. Although I assume in the interests of pursuing your desire of getting to grips with the communist state you have already done so. Read what he said and look at what he did. Personally I'm glad I'm not a Russian.
I fail to see where Lenin is relevant to this discussion.
Seeing as it was Lenin who helped shaped the character of the communist revolution party he can hardly be discarded as irrelevant. Even if he was sent back as a puppet of the imperialist germans to destabilise russia.
Stalin took advantage of Lenin's being immobilised due to a stroke to seize power. It was after all lenin who appointed him general seccratary of the party. Without enin there would have been no Stalin and possibly no communist revolution. Had lenin not been subsequently been incapacitated it is possible he may have stopped Stalin and all that followed might have been very different. His last breath was used to advocate the removal of Stalin as party secretary as his dictatorial nature was becoming evident. Stalin took advantage of the situation to make his bid for power.
posted by scrat
I think you have a tendancy to bristle like a cat when anyone dares to question the dogma that you were weaned on. Don't take that as an insult, it's ubiquitous amongst the intellectuals of the west. I think that this is the one subject where you let your thoughtful, logical side lapse in favor of an emotional gut reaction.
I feel a mild surprise you consider me an intellectual-or perhaps i read too much in to that.:-3
In response I would point out that like many left wing intellectuals you bristle like a cat when someone challenges your rose tinted view of what actually went on in those times.
Initially Lenin encouraged the kulaks-it was the new economic policy he introduced in 1921 that encouraged their trade with the cities out of necessity for the simple reason that without their support and produce the cities would have starved although he never viewed it as a long lasting solution, free enterprise being anathema to a communist state the disagreement with stalin over economic policy was one of the sources of friction.
The kulaks incidentally go all the way back to land reform legislation back in 1906, by WW! about 15% of russia's farmers were Kulaks and were the most productive sector of the agricultural sector. Before you dismiss them all as money grabbing exploiters of helpless women maybe you should investigate a bit more. Reality is never as black and white as it is painted by those writing the history of what they did. Smolensk was only a small part of russia. Look elsewhere as well.
Stalin wasn't too keen on the republics that wanted to go their own way either but no doubt slaughtering those that didn't follow the party line all for the greater good is acceptable. Dress it up any way you like, you can even argue the situation needed a man like him ( as indeed you seem to do) but Stalin made himself a dictator and was very far from the loveable Uncle Joe so beloved of americans during WW2. Necessity makes the strangest bedfellows does it not.
posted by scrat
The fact is that in the western versions of the history of Russia and ther coldwar era there are great gaps, there are even greater exaggerations, illogical stats, half truths, outright lies and a whole heaping of hysterics mixed in.
There were but a lot of the gaps are being filled in not least because the 30 and 40 year moratotiums on govt papers in the west are ending and what actually went on during the cold war is coming to light.
Interesting also that you blithely accept there are "greater exaggerations, illogical stats, half truths, outright lies and a whole heaping of hysterics mixed in." in our view in the west but seem to forget that russians will be equally guilty. Criticising stalin was a downright dangerous activity so I would be surprised if there was not a shortage of material written from the point of view of his opponents. It's only now that events and histories can be told by the russians themselves.
There were many other european marxists that visited Russia during those years imediately post ww1 and there are archives of their writing you can trawl through if you feel like it. A lot of them are available on line. George Orwell is perhaps one of the best known-many people assume erroniously that 1984 was about the nazi state Some of the writings from the Spanish civil war are fascinating as well. That was the point when many socialists became thouroughly disillusioned with the communist party.
Communism was not confined to russia any more than fascism was to italy and nazism to germany.
http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/leni ... lume45.htm
Knock yourself out, If you feel up to it you can wade through the collected works of stalin as well if you want. Although I assume in the interests of pursuing your desire of getting to grips with the communist state you have already done so. Read what he said and look at what he did. Personally I'm glad I'm not a Russian.
The Communist State
Diuretic;572190 wrote: I wonder if Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, being Russian (or Georgian) brought a certain cultural slant to communism?
They most certainly did. It was part of an international movement. But there were interminable arguements about what was the "correct" way to proceed. If you look at left wing web sites you still see the same language of revolution being used and harking on about class struggles completely oblivious to how things have moved on. As the first successful communist revolution lenin and stalin had ststus. But Russian attitudes and in particular Stalin's attitide to ethnic nationalism have a lot to do with the way he dealt with nationalist movements in Russia and later in post war europe and the shape of conflict in russia today.
There's plenty of material of what happened and why your concluscions are going to be as good as anybody elses-unless you like to be told how to think in which case you will probably toe the party line or join a religious cult.
They most certainly did. It was part of an international movement. But there were interminable arguements about what was the "correct" way to proceed. If you look at left wing web sites you still see the same language of revolution being used and harking on about class struggles completely oblivious to how things have moved on. As the first successful communist revolution lenin and stalin had ststus. But Russian attitudes and in particular Stalin's attitide to ethnic nationalism have a lot to do with the way he dealt with nationalist movements in Russia and later in post war europe and the shape of conflict in russia today.
There's plenty of material of what happened and why your concluscions are going to be as good as anybody elses-unless you like to be told how to think in which case you will probably toe the party line or join a religious cult.
The Communist State
posted by scrat
No you did not GMC, you are one of the most thoughtful individuals on this board but on this subject I think you go more from gut reaction/emotion.
No. But I would suggest you are because I am disagreeing with you to some extent-(not to a great extent actually-I think you have a point about Stalin perhaps being a man of his times but he was a power mad **** however you look at it) and your profound declarations of the way things really are accusing everyone else of ignorance aren't impressing. You found a book about smolensk written in Russian-big deal there was a lot more than that one written. Have a look at what Stalin said himself about the need to collective agriculture and what would happen to those who opposed him. Similarly what happened to the stillborn nationalism of the various republics. Stalins purges also left the russian army so weakened it couldn't even defeat Finland which is one of the reasons Hitler saw it as an easy mark. Perhaps he saved russia arguably he also came pretty close to destroying it completely. post ww2 he effectively strangled the hopes for freedom and liberty for millions throughout europe.
Rather than convincing yourself there is a dearth of material and what is available is biased and inaccurate perhaps you should look around more first.
Is Russian communism and the methods of stalin a model for any political reformer? If you want to argue that go ahead I would love to argue with you even if you are wrong:sneaky: .
Yes he went after the Kulaks, they were essentially a bunch of theives/mafiosos who's greatest claim to fame was taking the land of peasant women who's husbands died in the war along with the help of a corrupt judicial system.
You can get rich real quick when you can send the boys up the road to a womans farm and "persuade" her to sign over her land. Don't worry, if the judge questions what the bill of sale is signed with just slip him a little money. Funny fact btw, Kulak is the Russian word for fist, that thing you use to smash someones face in.
Good bit of informed objective comment that is.
posted by scrat
Even to this day the soft under belly of Russia is the fuse on the powder keg that can destroy the entire continent. Why do you think the west want to influence it so bad?
Oil and other natural resources and trade just as it always has been. Ineed if you take marxist view of history everything is down to economics and warfare is always about the struggle for resources. Russia has never been without western influence-apart from the occasional incusrions from the east-the very name is derived from the western viking tribe that setted there in the 9th century. Communism is every bit as much a western political philosophy as capitalism and liberal democracy. It's religon is western as well, or middle eastern perhaps, another mutated spawn of judaism for which comment I will no doubt burn in hell.
posted by scrat
He gave women equal rights, tore down the plutocracies and aristocracies of a large part of europe (for dubious gain at best) and destroyed the classism and societal structure that was of dubious value.
That was also happening in the rest of europe as well without quite the same amount of bloodshed. Often forgotten fact. ww1 was not fought by armies from countries where all men had the vote.
posted by koan way back before the thread began
Why do most people believe that Communism won't work? Can it?
I say "most" in assumption.
eta: I put this in history so that responses might take history into example.
Human nature gets in the way. In reality it means swopping rule by one set masters for rule by a different set of would be masters. A point which most in the very industrialised societies marx thought the revolution would happen saw right through to. Education is a wonderful thing it makes you less likely to follow blindly or beleive without question what you are told.
Left wing intellectuals behave like members of a religious cult in that they get more involved in arguing about the word and what the word should be they forget what they were interested in in the first place.
On the other hand most who believe it won't work can't articulate why they believe that it won't, not having thought a great deal about it or even why they haven't thought about it.
No liberal ever said toe the party line. You wouldn't if you believe in individual liberty and freedom would you now.
No you did not GMC, you are one of the most thoughtful individuals on this board but on this subject I think you go more from gut reaction/emotion.
No. But I would suggest you are because I am disagreeing with you to some extent-(not to a great extent actually-I think you have a point about Stalin perhaps being a man of his times but he was a power mad **** however you look at it) and your profound declarations of the way things really are accusing everyone else of ignorance aren't impressing. You found a book about smolensk written in Russian-big deal there was a lot more than that one written. Have a look at what Stalin said himself about the need to collective agriculture and what would happen to those who opposed him. Similarly what happened to the stillborn nationalism of the various republics. Stalins purges also left the russian army so weakened it couldn't even defeat Finland which is one of the reasons Hitler saw it as an easy mark. Perhaps he saved russia arguably he also came pretty close to destroying it completely. post ww2 he effectively strangled the hopes for freedom and liberty for millions throughout europe.
Rather than convincing yourself there is a dearth of material and what is available is biased and inaccurate perhaps you should look around more first.
Is Russian communism and the methods of stalin a model for any political reformer? If you want to argue that go ahead I would love to argue with you even if you are wrong:sneaky: .
Yes he went after the Kulaks, they were essentially a bunch of theives/mafiosos who's greatest claim to fame was taking the land of peasant women who's husbands died in the war along with the help of a corrupt judicial system.
You can get rich real quick when you can send the boys up the road to a womans farm and "persuade" her to sign over her land. Don't worry, if the judge questions what the bill of sale is signed with just slip him a little money. Funny fact btw, Kulak is the Russian word for fist, that thing you use to smash someones face in.
Good bit of informed objective comment that is.
posted by scrat
Even to this day the soft under belly of Russia is the fuse on the powder keg that can destroy the entire continent. Why do you think the west want to influence it so bad?
Oil and other natural resources and trade just as it always has been. Ineed if you take marxist view of history everything is down to economics and warfare is always about the struggle for resources. Russia has never been without western influence-apart from the occasional incusrions from the east-the very name is derived from the western viking tribe that setted there in the 9th century. Communism is every bit as much a western political philosophy as capitalism and liberal democracy. It's religon is western as well, or middle eastern perhaps, another mutated spawn of judaism for which comment I will no doubt burn in hell.
posted by scrat
He gave women equal rights, tore down the plutocracies and aristocracies of a large part of europe (for dubious gain at best) and destroyed the classism and societal structure that was of dubious value.
That was also happening in the rest of europe as well without quite the same amount of bloodshed. Often forgotten fact. ww1 was not fought by armies from countries where all men had the vote.
posted by koan way back before the thread began
Why do most people believe that Communism won't work? Can it?
I say "most" in assumption.
eta: I put this in history so that responses might take history into example.
Human nature gets in the way. In reality it means swopping rule by one set masters for rule by a different set of would be masters. A point which most in the very industrialised societies marx thought the revolution would happen saw right through to. Education is a wonderful thing it makes you less likely to follow blindly or beleive without question what you are told.
Left wing intellectuals behave like members of a religious cult in that they get more involved in arguing about the word and what the word should be they forget what they were interested in in the first place.
On the other hand most who believe it won't work can't articulate why they believe that it won't, not having thought a great deal about it or even why they haven't thought about it.
No liberal ever said toe the party line. You wouldn't if you believe in individual liberty and freedom would you now.
The Communist State
posted by scrat
Certainly not , it is however a model. Hugo Chavez is trying a similar path as we speak, it is already quite evident that it is not working well. You have to compromise which was done in many ways in Russia from the 1920S onward.
There is quite a diiference between the social democracy of Chavez and the revolutionary communism of lenin and stalin. It's abit naive to expect things to work out just right from the word go. Chavez can be unelected if things don't work out.
Communism is just one strain of socialism largely fallen in to disrepute although there are plenty who like the rhetoric of class war and revolution oblivious tio the fact things have rather moved on. It has had it's day. One of the biggest flaws of communuism is the assumption that a few and only a few who follow the correct party line have all the answers. It's a political dead end, an elitist philosophy constructed in an age when universal suffrage and free elections were not commonplace and intended as a means to get to that point. That free societies don't choose to elect communists to power shopuld tell you something. Socialist parties yes, social democrats yes, but not communist. Even the UK is run by a nominally socialist part (:yh_rotfl run by a public schoolboy you have to appreciate the irony of that) and the opposition ignore socialist ideals at peril of being kicked out of office
Pure bullshit, he/they laid the foundation that brought them out of the middleages to an idustrial power capable of standing up to the greatest military power on earth. They all but beat the German army single handedly (don't even go into lend lease, they could've built enough trucks and had a few less T-34s and another year or 2 of war to accomplish the same thing) there was more educated people in Russia than ever before. Their system changed Russia forever.
Russia had already started moving away from the middle ages before Stalin. It's rather academic whether now whether things could have been done differently, perhaps it was the only way to change Russia There were plenty who visited russia and brought back reports of what was happening. He abandoned communism and the dictatorship of the proleteriat for just simply dictatorship taking over from the tsars and carrying on with himself as the king pin. You should really take look at how he took and kept power. Many socialists had become disillusioned with Russian communism long before the cold war started.
Course when he carved up Poland with hitler he was just interested in freeing them and had their interests at heart.
posted by scrat
Oh really. Or did he free them from one kind of oppression only to bestow another on them? With the fall of the SU were the people of Romania freed? Freed to prostitute themselves to Italian engineering firms for 1/2 of what your average Italian makes? How many Poles are emigrating to Britain? I see a lot of them around here and I pass through Warsaw regularly. Last Nov I was talking to a young man at the big market on the other side of the river, he spent 5 years in college and has spent the last 2 years looking for a freaking job.
Romania was on it's way to being free when Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife were executed by the Romanians themselves. Romania was within the soviet sphere of influence it wasn't actually part of the soviet union. Round about the time the SU was changing and the Berlin wall came down. There are now new marjets in eastern europe taking advantage of the choices they now have to develop their their economies. The workers in romanian factories are getting a sense of the economic power they have through collective bargaining. How the unemployed italian car workers feel is perhaps a differnt matter.
As to the rest of eastern europe how do you think the czechs and hungarians and poles felt about Stalin freeing them from democracy? You should really take another look at just how big a megalomaniac stalin was. Working class hero you may think he was, personally I disagree.
osted by scrat
You walk around that city you see mainly 2 things, the very rich and well to do and those barely making it. A middleclass is all but non existant. I fail to see where the fall of the SU (which was created by Stalin and his people) has helped the lot of Eastern Europeans. It's certainly helped a few though hasn't it?
Sounds just like any big city you care to name. Time will tell but just because there is not a small intellectual elite calling the tune any more doesn't mean it will turn out all bad. Social change always takes time. Given the enthusiasm they all have for joining the EU many seem to look towards the future rather than feel nostalgic for the days of the trabi. Be interesting how all the geirgians and ukrainians get on with the fall of the SU. You seem to forget the SU was actually an empire made up of disparate peoples.
posted by scrat
Did you hear about the riots last year in Hungary?
Yes. Bit different result from the ones in 1958.
What's the difference between what he did and what is happening now? Does a T-34 museum piece rolling down the street give you any clues?
Quite a lot but I begin to wonder if you would see a difference.
Political dissent and protest are part and parcel of normal life and don't necessarily indicate the desire top go back to the way things were. Govt's need to be afraid of their people, not the other way around.
You also need to adress with your statement the presence of American forces in europe, NATO and the military doctrines of the parties involved if you want to go there.
I think it's safer to say that the whole Europe was enslaved by 2 much greater powers staring over a line at one another.
I know quite a few europeans who would tell you that things are not as simple as that. Put more simple-bollocks.
Certainly not , it is however a model. Hugo Chavez is trying a similar path as we speak, it is already quite evident that it is not working well. You have to compromise which was done in many ways in Russia from the 1920S onward.
There is quite a diiference between the social democracy of Chavez and the revolutionary communism of lenin and stalin. It's abit naive to expect things to work out just right from the word go. Chavez can be unelected if things don't work out.
Communism is just one strain of socialism largely fallen in to disrepute although there are plenty who like the rhetoric of class war and revolution oblivious tio the fact things have rather moved on. It has had it's day. One of the biggest flaws of communuism is the assumption that a few and only a few who follow the correct party line have all the answers. It's a political dead end, an elitist philosophy constructed in an age when universal suffrage and free elections were not commonplace and intended as a means to get to that point. That free societies don't choose to elect communists to power shopuld tell you something. Socialist parties yes, social democrats yes, but not communist. Even the UK is run by a nominally socialist part (:yh_rotfl run by a public schoolboy you have to appreciate the irony of that) and the opposition ignore socialist ideals at peril of being kicked out of office
Pure bullshit, he/they laid the foundation that brought them out of the middleages to an idustrial power capable of standing up to the greatest military power on earth. They all but beat the German army single handedly (don't even go into lend lease, they could've built enough trucks and had a few less T-34s and another year or 2 of war to accomplish the same thing) there was more educated people in Russia than ever before. Their system changed Russia forever.
Russia had already started moving away from the middle ages before Stalin. It's rather academic whether now whether things could have been done differently, perhaps it was the only way to change Russia There were plenty who visited russia and brought back reports of what was happening. He abandoned communism and the dictatorship of the proleteriat for just simply dictatorship taking over from the tsars and carrying on with himself as the king pin. You should really take look at how he took and kept power. Many socialists had become disillusioned with Russian communism long before the cold war started.
Course when he carved up Poland with hitler he was just interested in freeing them and had their interests at heart.
posted by scrat
Oh really. Or did he free them from one kind of oppression only to bestow another on them? With the fall of the SU were the people of Romania freed? Freed to prostitute themselves to Italian engineering firms for 1/2 of what your average Italian makes? How many Poles are emigrating to Britain? I see a lot of them around here and I pass through Warsaw regularly. Last Nov I was talking to a young man at the big market on the other side of the river, he spent 5 years in college and has spent the last 2 years looking for a freaking job.
Romania was on it's way to being free when Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife were executed by the Romanians themselves. Romania was within the soviet sphere of influence it wasn't actually part of the soviet union. Round about the time the SU was changing and the Berlin wall came down. There are now new marjets in eastern europe taking advantage of the choices they now have to develop their their economies. The workers in romanian factories are getting a sense of the economic power they have through collective bargaining. How the unemployed italian car workers feel is perhaps a differnt matter.
As to the rest of eastern europe how do you think the czechs and hungarians and poles felt about Stalin freeing them from democracy? You should really take another look at just how big a megalomaniac stalin was. Working class hero you may think he was, personally I disagree.
osted by scrat
You walk around that city you see mainly 2 things, the very rich and well to do and those barely making it. A middleclass is all but non existant. I fail to see where the fall of the SU (which was created by Stalin and his people) has helped the lot of Eastern Europeans. It's certainly helped a few though hasn't it?
Sounds just like any big city you care to name. Time will tell but just because there is not a small intellectual elite calling the tune any more doesn't mean it will turn out all bad. Social change always takes time. Given the enthusiasm they all have for joining the EU many seem to look towards the future rather than feel nostalgic for the days of the trabi. Be interesting how all the geirgians and ukrainians get on with the fall of the SU. You seem to forget the SU was actually an empire made up of disparate peoples.
posted by scrat
Did you hear about the riots last year in Hungary?
Yes. Bit different result from the ones in 1958.
What's the difference between what he did and what is happening now? Does a T-34 museum piece rolling down the street give you any clues?
Quite a lot but I begin to wonder if you would see a difference.
Political dissent and protest are part and parcel of normal life and don't necessarily indicate the desire top go back to the way things were. Govt's need to be afraid of their people, not the other way around.
You also need to adress with your statement the presence of American forces in europe, NATO and the military doctrines of the parties involved if you want to go there.
I think it's safer to say that the whole Europe was enslaved by 2 much greater powers staring over a line at one another.
I know quite a few europeans who would tell you that things are not as simple as that. Put more simple-bollocks.
The Communist State
posted by scrat
Don't forget your (Britains) part in this either. Or lack thereof and broken promises.
As an american you are not exactly in a position to be smug either.:sneaky:
posted by scrat
Only when certain treaties were signed and European countries showed a little independance from Washington did Russia relax and ultimately the SU put itself on the road of change.
Not to mention that stalin died and the survivors could start to make the changes.
Clearly we can both hold our own pissing up the historical wall.
So what is your opinion on the communist state?
Would you want t live in one and do you seriously think revolutionary communism of the russian model has any place nowadays? personally i would say no. Like most people i would be viewed as very left wing about some things and very right wing about others. It's complicated by the fact that terms like socialism and liberal seem to have different connotations on both sides of the atlantic.
Don't forget your (Britains) part in this either. Or lack thereof and broken promises.
As an american you are not exactly in a position to be smug either.:sneaky:
posted by scrat
Only when certain treaties were signed and European countries showed a little independance from Washington did Russia relax and ultimately the SU put itself on the road of change.
Not to mention that stalin died and the survivors could start to make the changes.
Clearly we can both hold our own pissing up the historical wall.
So what is your opinion on the communist state?
Would you want t live in one and do you seriously think revolutionary communism of the russian model has any place nowadays? personally i would say no. Like most people i would be viewed as very left wing about some things and very right wing about others. It's complicated by the fact that terms like socialism and liberal seem to have different connotations on both sides of the atlantic.
The Communist State
koan;559524 wrote: Why do most people believe that Communism won't work? Can it?
I say "most" in assumption.
eta: I put this in history so that responses might take history into example.
wtf do you mean by "most", marxism is utopian, people are too greedy for such a system.
I say "most" in assumption.
eta: I put this in history so that responses might take history into example.
wtf do you mean by "most", marxism is utopian, people are too greedy for such a system.
The Communist State
Scrat;567623 wrote: It is a theory, used as a way to manipulate the minds of the people. Having traveled to Russia many times and these last few years having read a few of THEIR history books I don't see where they were ever communist or really even extremely socialist. If you look at buildings built before WWII and after you can see differences, you can tell when they were built prewar or postwar.
Prewar tend to be more gaudy in appearance where as postwar were obviously put up in haste, sound but devoid of the fancy trimming. Millions of homes were destroyed in the war, the laws of supply, demand and time said that there was no effort put into fancy trims ect.
A good way to describe it was capitalism with the head cut off, there weren't any huge corporations running things.
When you get to the propaganda aspects of it the distortions are pretty obvious to me as is they way the word was used and the almost maniacal reactions to it that usage brought about. A kind of conditioning.
If you tell someone a lie often enough, it will become the truth.
Because the U.S.S.R. was never communist
Prewar tend to be more gaudy in appearance where as postwar were obviously put up in haste, sound but devoid of the fancy trimming. Millions of homes were destroyed in the war, the laws of supply, demand and time said that there was no effort put into fancy trims ect.
A good way to describe it was capitalism with the head cut off, there weren't any huge corporations running things.
When you get to the propaganda aspects of it the distortions are pretty obvious to me as is they way the word was used and the almost maniacal reactions to it that usage brought about. A kind of conditioning.
If you tell someone a lie often enough, it will become the truth.
Because the U.S.S.R. was never communist
The Communist State
posted by scrat
Of the Russians I have met, to a man you see 4 things really fast. First you see a realization that they are talking to a foreigner a kind of confusion, then you see curiosity and politeness then you see suspicion. If you get beyond the first few minutes of conversation curiosity inevitably over comes suspicion and you will see the willingness to mix and to learn and to "commune".
Actually they sound just like everybody else around the world. Actually where there are a lot of tourists people tend to get get a bit fed up and sometimes unfriendly especially in an area where the get the ype of tourists that don't respect local culture and expect everybody to speak english-or german. funnily enough in italy it seems to be the dutch that everybody dislikes.
posted by scrat
Historically people had to work together to survive in tight knit communities. I think that Russians thrive in tight knit communities with high degrees of sociability whereas in the west everyone is an island unto themselves and more individualistic.
If you'll take note of one thing about the SU, how it was isolated from the rest of the world in many ways and still very capable on its own and some of the attitudes of the ethnic Russians in the Ukraine today you'll see a pattern.
Industrialisation and the growth of cities changed a lot. I suspect in russian cities you will find the same island unto thmselves attitude just as inn rural america you will find community attitiudes that are lost in the cities. It is not peculiarly Russian.
posted by scrat
Would I like to live in a society like that? Good question. I'm off to Kiev, I'll get back to this when I can.
I'll reiterate the question
Would you want t live in one and do you seriously think revolutionary communism of the russian model has any place nowadays?
The qestion was specifically about the type of revolutionary communism of lenin.
Russia wan't isolated as you think. The russian communist party was part of a european wide socialist movement of which lenin was actually a small part. bolshevik does mean minority after all. He gave it his own spin that was arguably peculiarly russian and his theories were influential. If you really want to bore yourself to eath have look at some of his letters and reports of the debates they were having.
There was a massive european socialist movement of which the russian party was a small part and communism particularly revolutionary communism only appealed to the more extreme elements. There was a communist uprising in germany in the UK the govt was scared enough to have troops and tanks standing by ready to go in to action. Even america was influenced by it. Russian communism did not spring up in asolation hawever much you would like to think it did.
The "ordinary" socialists got disenchanted with the russian version of communism seeing all too clearly early on that swopping one set of masters for another was a bit pointless and only the intellectual left found any continuing appeal in it.
posted by scrat
I think we need some of the aspects of Russian cultural community in American society. Some of the rest we already have or are working towards in ways. I don't know if people realize it or not but it seems "democracy" is becoming the hallmark of corrupt politicos everywhere in the eyes of most people.
I don't know about american society but Like many americans you seem to make the assumption that everywhere is just like the states except the cars are different and they talk funny languages or in the case of the UK with funny accents and we're ruled by the queen.
Of the Russians I have met, to a man you see 4 things really fast. First you see a realization that they are talking to a foreigner a kind of confusion, then you see curiosity and politeness then you see suspicion. If you get beyond the first few minutes of conversation curiosity inevitably over comes suspicion and you will see the willingness to mix and to learn and to "commune".
Actually they sound just like everybody else around the world. Actually where there are a lot of tourists people tend to get get a bit fed up and sometimes unfriendly especially in an area where the get the ype of tourists that don't respect local culture and expect everybody to speak english-or german. funnily enough in italy it seems to be the dutch that everybody dislikes.
posted by scrat
Historically people had to work together to survive in tight knit communities. I think that Russians thrive in tight knit communities with high degrees of sociability whereas in the west everyone is an island unto themselves and more individualistic.
If you'll take note of one thing about the SU, how it was isolated from the rest of the world in many ways and still very capable on its own and some of the attitudes of the ethnic Russians in the Ukraine today you'll see a pattern.
Industrialisation and the growth of cities changed a lot. I suspect in russian cities you will find the same island unto thmselves attitude just as inn rural america you will find community attitiudes that are lost in the cities. It is not peculiarly Russian.
posted by scrat
Would I like to live in a society like that? Good question. I'm off to Kiev, I'll get back to this when I can.
I'll reiterate the question
Would you want t live in one and do you seriously think revolutionary communism of the russian model has any place nowadays?
The qestion was specifically about the type of revolutionary communism of lenin.
Russia wan't isolated as you think. The russian communist party was part of a european wide socialist movement of which lenin was actually a small part. bolshevik does mean minority after all. He gave it his own spin that was arguably peculiarly russian and his theories were influential. If you really want to bore yourself to eath have look at some of his letters and reports of the debates they were having.
There was a massive european socialist movement of which the russian party was a small part and communism particularly revolutionary communism only appealed to the more extreme elements. There was a communist uprising in germany in the UK the govt was scared enough to have troops and tanks standing by ready to go in to action. Even america was influenced by it. Russian communism did not spring up in asolation hawever much you would like to think it did.
The "ordinary" socialists got disenchanted with the russian version of communism seeing all too clearly early on that swopping one set of masters for another was a bit pointless and only the intellectual left found any continuing appeal in it.
posted by scrat
I think we need some of the aspects of Russian cultural community in American society. Some of the rest we already have or are working towards in ways. I don't know if people realize it or not but it seems "democracy" is becoming the hallmark of corrupt politicos everywhere in the eyes of most people.
I don't know about american society but Like many americans you seem to make the assumption that everywhere is just like the states except the cars are different and they talk funny languages or in the case of the UK with funny accents and we're ruled by the queen.
The Communist State
Quote:
Russian communism did not spring up in isolation however much you would like to think it did.
When did I think that?
I don't know, but you are giving the impression that you think communism was a Russian idea. It wasn't, Russian communists were part of a European wide phenomenon, much their discourse was aimed at other socialists and what happened in Russia was closely by socialists all over the place. There were many foreigners who visited and went back home with what they saw. What finally turned many away from communism and the Russian version in particular was the Spanish civil war and the way the communists behaved to those supposedly on the same side.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... /index.htm
Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder
I've always thought left wing parties were very similar to religious cults with the same desire to make everybody to conform and follow "the correct way"
posted by scrat
Yeah I read about the German Navy in WWI and the social upheaval they experienced. They (the German officers) scuttled the German fleet in Scapa Flow? Good to know that the western governments will so readily slaughter their own people though. Really just one set of masters protecting their turf from another set who aspires to be on top. Really, what in the hell is the difference?
Actually I wonder of you actually have. They let all the sailors leave before they set off the charges. You seem to have some strange notions of what actually went on. Good to know that the western governments will so readily slaughter their own people though. Well yes and ww1 was the last time people were so ready to be slaughtered in the name of king and country and trust their leaders had their best interests at heart, post ww2 even more so. Blind patriotism was washed out of most Europeans with blood. WW1 was a rather major war even if the US didn't get involved till late on. So was ww2.
The social upheaval was world wide-even in America. You should know your own history so I won't bother pointing to links about what was happening in America at the same time. Prohibition is quite interesting-shows what happens when the sanctimonious get their way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg
many of the freikorps went on to form part of hitlers private army.
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/redcly025.htm
The bit about the English soldiers is quite interesting.
posted by scrat
I partially disagree. Russians seem to think differently than westerners, they do have the same traits as all humans do but the necessities of life have brought more social traits to the forefront and after 20 years of capitalism they are certainly more somewhat individualistic but the bonds of their style of community HAVE NOT broken.
Wholly disagree if you like. Of course they think differently. Most Americans think differently from most Europeans about a lot of issues so do the Chinese and Japanese . Different cultures different viewpoints but basically we are all very much alike.
Russian communism did not spring up in isolation however much you would like to think it did.
When did I think that?
I don't know, but you are giving the impression that you think communism was a Russian idea. It wasn't, Russian communists were part of a European wide phenomenon, much their discourse was aimed at other socialists and what happened in Russia was closely by socialists all over the place. There were many foreigners who visited and went back home with what they saw. What finally turned many away from communism and the Russian version in particular was the Spanish civil war and the way the communists behaved to those supposedly on the same side.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... /index.htm
Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder
I've always thought left wing parties were very similar to religious cults with the same desire to make everybody to conform and follow "the correct way"
posted by scrat
Yeah I read about the German Navy in WWI and the social upheaval they experienced. They (the German officers) scuttled the German fleet in Scapa Flow? Good to know that the western governments will so readily slaughter their own people though. Really just one set of masters protecting their turf from another set who aspires to be on top. Really, what in the hell is the difference?
Actually I wonder of you actually have. They let all the sailors leave before they set off the charges. You seem to have some strange notions of what actually went on. Good to know that the western governments will so readily slaughter their own people though. Well yes and ww1 was the last time people were so ready to be slaughtered in the name of king and country and trust their leaders had their best interests at heart, post ww2 even more so. Blind patriotism was washed out of most Europeans with blood. WW1 was a rather major war even if the US didn't get involved till late on. So was ww2.
The social upheaval was world wide-even in America. You should know your own history so I won't bother pointing to links about what was happening in America at the same time. Prohibition is quite interesting-shows what happens when the sanctimonious get their way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg
many of the freikorps went on to form part of hitlers private army.
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/redcly025.htm
The bit about the English soldiers is quite interesting.
posted by scrat
I partially disagree. Russians seem to think differently than westerners, they do have the same traits as all humans do but the necessities of life have brought more social traits to the forefront and after 20 years of capitalism they are certainly more somewhat individualistic but the bonds of their style of community HAVE NOT broken.
Wholly disagree if you like. Of course they think differently. Most Americans think differently from most Europeans about a lot of issues so do the Chinese and Japanese . Different cultures different viewpoints but basically we are all very much alike.