@Jet_viking - haha no blame are world and ppl who denied good stuffs what made wester world and its not my compatenace taolk who are blame and yes its Blame if Stail attac to Germany 2 weeks fatser how Hitler to Poland

But ppl always had denieded greeks and romans sooo ...

Written by Bad English on 29.10.2006 at 17:26

@Jet_viking - haha no blame are world and ppl who denied good stuffs what made wester world and its not my compatenace taolk who are blame and yes its Blame if Stail attac to Germany 2 weeks fatser how Hitler to Poland

But ppl always had denieded greeks and romans sooo ...

Stalin led Soviet in particularly and the world in general beating Nazi and save the world. And Soviet under Stalin era did reach many achievement even in economy and other science fields such as universe research, etc. I have read that Trotsky wanted to use market economy or some mean of caplitalism, but I dont think its really right or exact weigh much to Soviet and actually, all Stalin did to Soviet, made it had a time of mighty, and standed peer as US and Western. Anywayz, Trotsky was different to Stalin that is about Revolution in whole world or in particular country. That all are abit disgressed from the subject, but what I debate that is we cant blame to who denied what made western world

I'm kind of lost. What does all this have to do with this thread?
Anyway, Stalin was an idiot. The only reason why Soviet defeated Nazis was because Stalin stopped interfering in the war and let his generals do all the work. They would win much earlier if he did that from the start.

@Skald - Stalin and Hitler and Duce was idiots, if duce didnta ttack to Greece., germans had 3 weeks sunny eather and thay woud win in east
But Alos wester Europa was to week like nowdays

@Jet_viking - Do ou know how was life in USSR? Reading your post, seems no, but in Vietnam are comunismus too and some naiboutr countries so...

Written by Bad English on 30.10.2006 at 09:45

@Skald - Stalin and Hitler and Duce was idiots, if duce didnta ttack to Greece., germans had 3 weeks sunny eather and thay woud win in east
But Alos wester Europa was to week like nowdays

@Jet_viking - Do ou know how was life in USSR? Reading your post, seems no, but in Vietnam are comunismus too and some naiboutr countries so...

I base on wikipedia and some article written by US, and both indicate that during the exist time, or at least Soviet exact have high develop economy once ( people in Soviet have private house for holidays, therefore Chairman Mao supposed that was capitalist downfall). That is enough to prove that not the whole Soviet brought the poor. My country, Vietnam also is Communist. It also was planned centralization. But now it changes to market economy with socialist orientation like Nep Lenin used in Soviet.

@Jet_viking - Mistace ppl was no private house all belongs to country, My gradmothers house was conicied and land too and there thay build new houses, thay wanna blow up my grandmother house, but ussr fall
Those privat houses belong to comunistic party leaders and only russian nationality and big comunistic leaders can get aparmens in Moscow, Kyiv, St pereburg(Leningrad) and Riga, tallin, in better towns in USSR

you mean Cerno More? In that case Bulgarians has better because there weather are better how Ukraina

Haha we hawnt food, paper nohing in Tbilisi was skies but in North pat was T hirts and that was politic, all TV was national(where was comunistic propoganda) wester radui wa sblocked and so on

One day pal Braznev told all to grow Corn so in whole county pl shood grow corn and well us I told ppl whp hawnt live in USSR dont understand it

@Kariasakis7, this thing I see. Same as my country: all houses and lands belong to exact goverment. If they build new house and blow your house, thats very common, same as here. Example: they want to build public house, new hospital and just opening a new road. But really the people own house can buy or sell houses, land to other, this exactly called "transfering the right of use", because all belong to goverment. This is not big problem. After USSR fell, the communist leaders can get aparment in big city Moscow, Kiev, St Peterburg etc, of course because they work there. In my country, the capital concentrate of most Communist cadres, but the people from other place, they also can go there if they have job or they have money.

I mean Chairman Mao, exact MaoZedong also a Marxist most affected in Asian Communism.

TV in North is communist propaganda, same as my country, of course because Communist was ruling at that time. But now I saw in TV most old region of Soviet such as Lithuana, Estonia, Ukraina, etc more beautiful and modern than my country ,they going out by car. And yeah from Soviet era in every where people touched with modern things
Well I need to know more about Soviet's life at that time. And Im on that way.

@Jet_viking - Public house hahaha in some countries its whore house

Vietnam man asiac comunism can you coment North Corea and ''Atom Bomb'' crises? Im nots so inform in Vietman only lil in Chine, I was short cours ein Uni about it and here are no bocks so

In those cities in Riga moust speek russian, same in tallin and still
now ppl can get those houses and private stuff but its was problme, gourement wanna stoll wiligae where my granmother live well this asshole didnt wanna give bech land what she belongs since 1920 she get beck half, buts still it was idiotic way how all happen

Haha TV are propogana even now, only diferent, but i those times some pll didn watch TV fiew years only what was normal it was sport and its all

Written by Bad English on 31.10.2006 at 18:09

@Jet_viking - Public house hahaha in some countries its whore house
Vietnam man asiac comunism can you coment North Corea and ''Atom Bomb'' crises? Im nots so inform in Vietman only lil in Chine, I was short cours ein Uni about it and here are no bocks so
In those cities in Riga moust speek russian, same in tallin and still
now ppl can get those houses and private stuff but its was problme, gourement wanna stoll wiligae where my granmother live well this asshole didnt wanna give bech land what she belongs since 1920 she get beck half, buts still it was idiotic way how all happen

Haha TV are propogana even now, only diferent, but i those times some pll didn watch TV fiew years only what was normal it was sport and its all

If u ask me to comment about Atom bomb crises of North Korea, a communist country, so can I ask u back why Iran, not a communist country still arise this same problem.

Based on the time 1920, I guess ur grandmother family was bourgeois, or in some case the time nearly the revolution, it has been using by revolution government, but its really common in my country too. In war of revolution, some people "must" devote possesion to government because that was in trouble times, and yeah then the problem of giving back these stuff is really complex, or exact hardly get all. But I guess if even the Soviet fell, still hard to get back.

TV propaganda is term, called by western world. Thats national TV and still have many programs. I agree that which program are communist propaganda, are boring, in here we also dont care about it. But I think it cant be the way for us to accuse communism.

I'm wondering if either of you two actually read this thread's opening post...

Written by [user id=3152] on 28.08.2006 at 01:36

1) There has never been a communist society existing on a national level. None have ever claimed to be communist. Of the very few that call themselves socialist, hardly any are truly socialist in the actual literal definition of the word. Referring to china, north korea or russia in this thread is pointless, as none of those are connected in any meaningful manner to Communism.

@Jet_viking -
Iran - Its agreise regime form where rulle crazy islamic ppl who think islam are only way of living and all reasons in Jihad are good but remeber Iran in 70ties
NK - Comunisti gourement who wanna proove thay tha has power and who use it because thay need other world help IMO if NATO attac there before this crises in 90ties all was ok

That problesms was only in those countries who asnt ready for 20 century and like deasise get into other Europe countries too only Old Europa + uSA, Canada, Astarlia are ready for 20 century, but those countries wasnt, ppl life was hard and comunistic ideas thay get deep into ppl minds, but IMO colonism, if those teritories still was under Europa I dunno what hepen but ist be diferent, seems India and China dont made a dangerous to Europa

About TV all hat ou see gat into your minde so even MS are propoganda in diferent meaning ewerything can be propoganda

@ Kariasakis7
No, the islamic ppl in Iran are not devout like that, those who believe in Jiahad were only in Afganishtan but now they were overthrew and some but small number in Pakistan, .. Maybe some in Iran but Im sure Iran people are modernest of thought, not much for Jihad. Well but thats digressive from the topic.

About North Korean, as u said if Nato, or more enemy United States, South Korean, didnt want to destroy and embargo ,North Korean would not make nuclear weapons. And North Korean and Iran have same point that they are threatened from US. All I make to be sure that Communist essence of North Korean is not the reason of the nuclear tension

My position on communism, is probably a really cliche'd one but ill say it anyways, communism looks good on paper but I doubt it would ever work in western society, to quote Frank Zappa- "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

I'm a communist.. And I think that people need to learn a lot and to be very mature to communism work, that is not imposible, but we will need a lot of time to win egocentrism and consumism..

Written by [user id=4589] on 14.02.2007 at 23:03

I'm a communist.. And I think that people need to learn a lot and to be very mature to communism work, that is not imposible, but we will need a lot of time to win egocentrism and consumism..

hahah seems ewery bodty there are left winged, seems only Augusto Pinuchet was right so deep rspect to him

@Metal_Messias ad Dr.Rock - Communism is great idea as you sad but completely impossible, I lived in a communist country for a long time, and everyone was rich, everyone lived good but it was the responsibility of one man who put some of his idea into the communism theory. But as soon as he died we started to suffer the consequences, no one could continue his work and we felt into war and shit and some kinds of socialism, in some way that guy screwwed us, so even if I lved good I blame him for lot of shits happend o this country after him.
So my point is that communism is good idea that need some corrects and many more, there are many sort of communism now and we can't possibly compare Stallin's communism with Tito's or Pol Pot's. Some of the communist dictators was good, some awful, as Dr.Rock said it is cliche and I don't think it is possible to discuss so complicated thing like communism

@Aronax: You are talking about Yoguslavia?? Because I'm Tito's fan! hehehe!
But, man, there was never a Communist country on Earth, only Socialist ones, Communism is the evolution of Socialism.

@Kariasakis7: You are talking about South America? You should check out about Getúlio Vargas, Médici, Geisel, all guys from extreme right.. But Pinochet was terrible, he made people from Chile suffer a lot..

@Metal_Messias - Ye, you are right, but those countries were calling them selves communist countries... that is why I wrote that but you can see in my post that I dismissed any talk about communism theory in practise.

I'll say what most people usually says: It's a good idea but it doesn't work in the real world, not good at least.
My History B lesson at school today was about communism, we're supposed to write an essay about totalitarian states and I chose to write about the old czar empire in Russia and it's way on to communism.

Written by Warman on 23.02.2007 at 21:24

I'll say what most people usually says: It's a good idea but it doesn't work in the real world, not good at least.

If ignorance could kill, most people would die. The fact is communism was used in the real world, and with a good effect.

I dispise all this rhetoric that "communism is good in thoery, but not in practice." Ideals are to be judges by the depths pf their failures not the heights of its
asperations. ie, if it doesnt work in practice it does nor work in theory. Communism calls all men to equal action with equal result. this is not possible since men are
not created equal in result, only equal in rights.

It is western civ that has followed Aristotle via John Locke which formed western civs greatest document, the constitution. thus capitalism. It is plato via Hegal and
Marx that are ancestors of all totalitan and welfare states. whether they be Hitler or Lenin.

the thing is the people who rule and support these types of systems need to check their premisis.

Written by Anthem on 25.02.2007 at 16:52

I dispise all this rhetoric that "communism is good in thoery, but not in practice." Ideals are to be judges by the depths pf their failures not the heights of its
asperations. ie, if it doesnt work in practice it does nor work in theory.

Out of curiousity, do you actually know what is communism?

I have read Karl Marx manifesto (which is not identical to communism) but simular enough.

Whether it was Stalin/Lenin style where 20 or more million people were slaughtered or China and North Korea where people are starving to death, the results are the same.

It was capitalism , the anti communism which has raised mans standard of living to its highest point known to man!

Written by Anthem on 26.02.2007 at 20:48

Whether it was Stalin/Lenin style where 20 or more million people were slaughtered or China and North Korea where people are starving to death, the results are the same.

I'd like to hear what your definition of communism is then.
Because any decently educated historician will find it obvious that what you're talking about is utter bullshit.

Written by Anthem on 26.02.2007 at 20:48

It was capitalism , the anti communism which has raised mans standard of living to its highest point known to man!

Known to you, maybe.

@Bluescaponne: Lenin only done the necessary to defend Russia from the capitalist invaders. He was a great leader and a great man, sadly, he died before the Soviets could get the power that he wished.

Capitalism is pure shit! Millions of people die everyday because of hungry in capitalist countries! Now look to Cuba, no one dies like that in there. People have food, acess to good educational and health services, life reached a very good level in there, but then URSS fell and they were economically blocked by the US, so people become poor, but everyone still equal to each other and they still have acess to educational and health services, no one is marginalized. Now look to capitalist countries, there is always individuals marginalized by the system that can't buy a thing. And there is always a minority full with money that do everything to manipulate the poor people, because if they don't do this, people will claim for justice and that justice is called Communism!

Written by Anthem on 26.02.2007 at 20:48

I have read Karl Marx manifesto (which is not identical to communism) but simular enough.

Whether it was Stalin/Lenin style where 20 or more million people were slaughtered or China and North Korea where people are starving to death, the results are the same.

It was capitalism , the anti communism which has raised mans standard of living to its highest point known to man!

First, applying war communism to a peaceful country (i.e. Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s) obviously results in a human catastrophe; it is an incongruence. Yet capitalism is no anti-communism; it is a prior socioeconomic state to the Socialist utopia.

Quote:

The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism.

- V.I. Lenin

Communism, as Marx and Lenin described it and as I defend it myself, shall be the result of a number of relevant stages in society:

1. Capitalism - The social system we live in. The proletariat and means of labour embody the productive forces while capitalistic bourgeoisie embodies the capital, i.e.: while capitalists own the capital and means of production, proletarians indulge their labour power on the latter and get a wage in exchange.
2. Surplus value and accumulation - Surplus value is defined as the difference of the final value of a specific product minus its labour cost. Capitalists accumulate capital (income through surplus value), part of which is invested in more means of production, and part of which is saved privately. In other words, the proletariat works in order to make the bourgeoisie richer.
3. Class struggle - Carefully studying the previous point, we can argue that surplus value is a social covenant inherent to capitalism (aka "supply & demand"). This means that the true source for prosperity is not money (owned by the bourgeoisie) but labour (powered by the proletariat). The proletariat, alienated (feeling 'they don't belong to this society' which uses them for others' profit), becomes class-conscious and begins the fight against bourgeois society and privileges.
4. Dictatorship of the proletariat - The proletariat would theoretically win a class war, being the majority and the bases for capitalistic society. After taking power, means of production have to be nationalized and shared by all the workers. The most logical idea to do this is founding a nation (e.g. the R.S.F.S.R.) where power is not in bourgeois but workers' hands. The profit of labour (point 3: source for prosperity) is obviously shared by the whole population. According to Wikipedia, the term 'dictatorship' does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (working class) would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie (propertied class).

Quote:

My own contribution was (...) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

- Karl Marx (1852)

5. World revolution - Until now, we have been talking about local revolution, but the working class is universal. After proletarians have seized power everywhere and destroyed bourgeois capitalism, it is their duty to rally each other and work to the new classless, stateless society that is Communism.

Quote:
(The Communists) labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848)

6. Communism - Marx or Lenin never described the future Communistic society in detail, this is mainly why Bakunin and further Anarchists have always criticized Communists.

Quote:
Likewise Marx completely ignores a most important element in the historic development of humanity, that is, the temperament and particular character of each race and each people, a temperament and character which are naturally themselves the product of a multitude of ethnographical, climatological, economic, as well as historic causes, but which, once produced, exercise, even apart from and independent of the economic conditions of each country, a considerable influence on its destinies, and even on the development of its economic forces.
(...)
The reasoning of Marx leads to absolutely opposite results. Taking into consideration nothing but the one economic question, he says to himself that the most advanced countries and consequently the most capable of making a social revolution are those in which modern Capitalist production has reached its highest degree of development. It is they that, to the exclusion of all others, are the civilised countries, the only ones called on to initiate and direct this revolution.
(...)
Their ideal is practical in this sense, that its realisation will be much less difficult than that of the Marxian idea, which, besides the poverty of its objective, presents also the grave inconvenience of being absolutely impracticable.
(...)
Is it not astonishing that Marx has believed it possible to graft on this nevertheless so precise declaration, which he probably drafted himself, his scientific Socialism? That is to say, the organisation and the government of the new society by Socialistic scientists and professors--the worst of all despotic government!

- Mikhail Bakunin on Karl Marx

Now, the question remains open today: how to apply Marxism to modern and future social systems.

Capitalism after 1929 is better known as free market. Free market has not raised mans standard of living to its highest point, but increased the gap between the rich and the poor. As a natural successor of Mercantilism, imperialist Capitalism has created what we know now as the "Third World", all of those poor underdeveloped countries which were once (surprise, surprise!) colonies of industrial states. Industrial imperialistic powers (France, United Kingdom, Spain, USA, whatever) have practically been exploiting those lands and people until now, giving minimum wages or nothing (-> slavery) in exchange. Raw materials from these colonies were processed ('manufactured') in industrialized areas, such that the labour cost was higher and the surplus value, thus the accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie, much higher.

Nevertheless, it would be positive for the present discussion to highlight a curiosity: Bismarck's Germany was the first social state. Bismarck was afraid of the Socialists' power (although there was no more than 2 of them in the Parliament!) and felt himself forced to pass some progressive laws ("Sozialgesetzgebung") concerning ill and wounded workers, a primitive form of social security.

Free market or Capitalism is inherently egoistic, imperialistic and oppressive. Its authoritarian form (Fascism) - as in Pinochet's Chile, Francoist Spain, Fascist Italy or Videla's Argentina - is socially regressive (for example: Spanish women lost all of their rights after Franco won the Spanish Civil War, Vichy France passed similar laws, etc.) and extremely reactionary with the population (for example, Operation Condor in Latin America cost thousands of innocent lives in the name of free market). However, its liberal counterpart, Liberal Democracy, is generally accepted. Why? Because it wakes your primary instincts:

- The longing for freedom: You feel free because you can go anywhere, speak your mind, adore any God you want.
- Information: Mass media play a crucial role here. Yellow press and mainstream music try to make your critical thoughts vanish and just accept what you are given, plus TV and newspapers are controlled by capitalists and thus serve their interest.

All right, you feel free, but at what cost? The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Most of the people in this world have no access to proper education, healthcare or even enough food, and they live predominantly in free market societies.

Anyway, as many Metalstormers have stated before me, it is very difficult to make our society evolve to Communism - furthermore, it is difficult for any human society to flourish in Communism. I still think it is possible, but a society must be prepared for Communism before the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. For example, Socialism was a failure in Russia for three reasons: First, Russians were mainly peasants and Russia's industry was very poor. As a consequence, Stalin sacrificed so many lives to forcibly industrialize the Soviet Union; Bolsheviks could nationalise few industries because they had not enough industrial base beforehand. Second, Stalinist egolatry and corruption (which may be explained by human nature). Third and last, the Soviet Union was the first Socialist state ever. They had no practical model to follow or past errors to avoid. Summing up, Russia was prepared for an anti-Tsarist Republic but probably not for Socialism.

Why do I think Communism is still possible, at least in Europe? Marx's theories were written around 1850 and were perfectly applicable to these days: a member of the working class might wake up, go to whatever factory, work there and get back home. Industry in the 19th century was obviously basic: coal, copper and iron mines, steel manufacturing, and so on... such that the means of production could be nationalized and profitted by all the people, producing more without being exploted by the bourgeoisie, in almost any factory.

Such was the situation 150 years ago, but nowadays we live under different circumstances with a broader industry and specialized labour: insurance companies, flying networks, automobiles, telecommunication, etc. Nobody can wake up some day and say: "I am looking for a better job. I've decided to become a pilot and fly a plane today". In consequence, we need to adapt Marxist theories to the modern times. I admire Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez for having the guts to develop "Socialism in the 21st century" (Socialismo del siglo XXI in Spanish) in a liberal democratic world.

Energy determines world economy, not money. I have faith in Latin American leftist movements which tend to nationalize energy in order to achieve a higher standard of living for the people. Perhaps if we stop depending on oil; if Third World countries invest in social welfare and infrastructure and build a solid, yet sustainable industry; if poor people stop suffering under miserable health conditions; if starvation is eradicated, the whole world will be prepared for the world revolution and the world proletariat will wake up and unite.

@K7
Augusto Pinuchet was idiot like duce hitler and stalin too

well im communist too, and i like idea of communism but it's imposible to have that system in reality to work without problems, maybe with some changes in system him self would be better, communism as is once was can't be again

I could give an extremely long post on this topic but I'll keep it as brief and to the point as possible.

I USED to support communism because I "believe" in people, not politicians or money. However, Communism REALLY fucked up my country (Czechoslovakia) long ago and it's fucked up many more. I cannot support a system such as this which has proven to be impossible to implement.

People need competition to drive them - it isn't nice sometimes, but it's human nature. If we don't GET it, we'll CREATE it. Communism should be destroyed - it looks good on paper but it can never work, and there's a lot of proof of this. The kinds of communism that have shown progress are all "impure". The truest form of it was Lenin's period of war communism, and that drove Russia's economy straight down. End of story.

@Avenant
in YUgoslavia worked normaly