Political Crossfire Forums

[BobbyO]

Quote: Yes, of course that is the base defense that any government is going to offer on behalf of a dictatorship: to have a constantly changing figurehead would make the country weak and therefore potentially victim to some unbelievably great, evil superpower, either from within or from without. I don't see how Soviet Russia could be HINDERED from Socialism,

The problem for socialism is whether it can have a constantly changing government. Can there be a socialist community where there are still capitalist enterprises? Contemporary socialism says "yes," but not all socialists are happy with the results. So The Social Democrats in Germany and the Labor Party in the UK are under siege by those who claim they have sold out. The existence of anti-socialists or socialists of other persuasions is a real problem in developing a socialist community, a problem which has to be addressed. If the solution to the problem is not as the Communists proposed, another solution is needed.

[mathurin]

interesting

i hear people saying that the ruling class is big evil and owns the gov, true in some instances (note, a good propaganda tactic, believing they fighting against impossible odds often brings out the fire in people, even if the information is fabricated)

so in most instances those evil rulers must be removed, by force, but their place is soon taken by those who removed them, who are often more brutal having gotten their position by force in the first place

to fight this perception i hear communists now saying that the fight should be in a democratic system, which of course would imply that the gov isnt controlled by a "ruling class" but by the people who in reality want nothing to do with you

[Punkerslut]

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is a term, borrowing from very old philosophical and political theories. Democracy means making every citizen an equal, in what some would call "making every citizen a king." Marx's term "dictatorship of the proletarita" implied that every person was a dictator as much as they were an equal citizen. It might be important to note that Marx actually talks about revolutionaries like Lenin in his own day...

"From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals." -- Marx ["The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune," First published: in Der Volksstaat, No.73, 26 June 1874.]

[hobobahk]

Soviet Communism and Marxism is in reality quite a strech.
Marx never said anything about organizations like the OGPU

[mathurin]

no, but still my assertion stands

communism requires trust
trust is betrayed


prove to me that communism doesnt require trust in a countries leaders

[hobobahk]

I didnt say that it didnt require trust. im saying in pre-gorbachev USSR there wasn't any. how could there be? it was a police state.

thats why i say Soviet communism is a frankenstein of Marxism

[mathurin]

i agree, but usually when someone makes that statement its because they are trying to distance themselves from the spectre of the soviet union and say that while the soviets were brutal and nasty they werent communists and didnt prove that communism is crap
but they proved more, they proved that communism just plain cannot exist, it will be taken over by opportunistic ****, often before it even gets decent footing, its a great idea, but will never be more since reality will always intrude

[hobobahk]

therefore: Marxism...or liberal society even with government regulations, cannon stand on its own.

[mathurin]

in a way, its about finding a balance between capitalism and socialism, between gov forcing of equality and personal liberty

[hobobahk]

well put :clap:

[Alula]

so basically political parties are divisions of what is the base of our
Executive System..The Executive System .. politics as they say are at home.
thats not my point though its that the political parties act as our basic
governance system I base that on Veto's within Congress and the House.

[Dongfanghong]

That is foolish. Neither the initial USSR nor the People's Republic of China were founded as state-Capitalism. Communism is not Socialism, Communism is a stage after Socialism and neither the PRC nor USSR ever claimed to have reached Communism. Capitalism is any system that is the dictatorship of the bourgeois, that is run by and benefits the bourgeois where Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat where the proletariat own the means of production and are benefited. I will say that the USSR experianced a counter-revolution in 1953 and became Capitalist. But the PRC has always remained a strong vanguard of world Socialism. Chairman Mao Zedong adapted Marxism-Leninism to the Chinese conditions and lead the Revolution and the Revolution was a Socialist one. Marx could not predict the rise of Imperialism and hence, he was wrong in only a few areas, but this needed to be, and was addressed by Lenin. Yes, China today is Marxist-Leninist and are Socialist, on the path to Communism. Their neighbours Vietnam and Laos are the same.

[mathurin]

Dongfanghong wrote: That is foolish. Neither the initial USSR nor the People's Republic of China were founded as state-Capitalism. Communism is not Socialism, Communism is a stage after Socialism and neither the PRC nor USSR ever claimed to have reached Communism. Capitalism is any system that is the dictatorship of the bourgeois, that is run by and benefits the bourgeois where Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat where the proletariat own the means of production and are benefited. I will say that the USSR experianced a counter-revolution in 1953 and became Capitalist. But the PRC has always remained a strong vanguard of world Socialism. Chairman Mao Zedong adapted Marxism-Leninism to the Chinese conditions and lead the Revolution and the Revolution was a Socialist one. Marx could not predict the rise of Imperialism and hence, he was wrong in only a few areas, but this needed to be, and was addressed by Lenin. Yes, China today is Marxist-Leninist and are Socialist, on the path to Communism. Their neighbours Vietnam and Laos are the same.

wow, they are feeding you alot of crap there in the PRC
is that how they justify the draconion anti-freedom measures

are you currently in america, if not then how did you get past the filters china puts on the internet? maybe your in hong kong

how about this for you, people working on government farms produced food, yield was low, not too long ago, in both factories and farms, the gov allowed the people to keep and/or sell any amount above a certain quota
production skyrocketed

people just arent geared to work for the common good
soon enough china will fall, communism kills initiators (figuratively speaking) so that when the original initiators fall there arent many to replace them, so the country stagnates

[Alula]

If we are in good international relationships with other countries that our in our trade power we will be fine. Just maintaining good relationships depends on good input and output China is a fine country and extremely productive and communist although we are Democratic we trade with them internationally. Embargo's, treaties, NAFTA. mostly good communication.

[mathurin]

its easier to nudge friends in the right direction than sworn enemies

china will slowly go dem/free market

but folks claiming that communism is good need to explain to me why people have to die
not in war
most every land "redistribution" or whatever they call it, kills the landlords, or, as the history books put it "liquidates" them, i have rarely heard a more descriptive term

[Alula]

is your point that the system will ultimately fail on its own? Or is it that its a waste of time trying to change a system that won't.

[mathurin]

the system will change, everything changes, its just going to take a very long time to do it without revolution or war of some kind, which will probably happen anyway

ill let you in on a secret, most of the former soviet union is run and controlled by the same guys who ran it when it was communist, in the lessor countries the leaders have little interest in actually being democratic, and ten years ago there was no chance of near change because everybody there had grown up in the toxic environment of communism, they didnt know how to think for themselves, and its not their fault
lately almost all of them are welcoming US and other westerners wishing to extract their resources, as well as help them in other ways, this is how i was able to travel to kazakhstan, a government grant which our organization got because of the work we were to do.

but now something important is happening, the westerners dont just bring money and stability, they bring ideas, western media and visitors are slowly changing the people, mostly young adults, and moving them more towards ideas of freedom and democracy, soon these ideas will become mainstream and the leaders will be forced to change or face civil war, the change happened in kyrgistan (not that many people in the west ever heard about it) began, and was brutally put down in uzbekistan, lately suffered a blow in kazakhstan as the minister of the interior was found murdered
but they cant stop it, they can only delay it
turkmenistan will prolly delay it the longest, they want 0 western visitors, but they will change eventually, even now they have students in america, i know one personally, i feel bad for her, the world she must be going back to eventually


there is no way to stop it, so i suppose you could say the system will fail on its own, but we do need to help it along

[Dongfanghong]

China is not Capitalist at all. They are merely using market measures in the initial stage of Socialism, which is fully supported by the transitions of history and Lenin did the same in the USSR. The Post-1958 USSR leadership was not Socialist, the Party became one of corruption and Imperialism. They abandoned Socialism and all it was in the 20th Party Congress when Khruschev denounced Comrade Stalin.

Markets are not inherently Capitalistic. There were markets in Feudalism, there were markets in Capitalism and there will be markets in Socialism. The market economy is not what decides Capitalism or Socialism. Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeois, where the bourgeois rule and own the means of production and Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the proletariat own the means of production and rule. Any system devoted towards Communism that is the latter is Socialist. China is in the primary phase of Socialism and they need to industrialize, they are industrializing using Market Socialism and there is nothing wrong with this. Eventually, this will become a more advanced form of Socialism as the proletariat grows in size and becomes larger than the peasantry.

[Alula]

I realize they are not.. I only wasn't in school that long. I wanted to know about it and I thank you very much I totally believe strongly that non violence
is the best. That is what I learned as a child in the US. So I know it can't be
bad to teach others the same things. I watched alot of PBS.

[Alula]

I knew they weren't capatalist.