Communism

Auto-Summary

The US aimed to destroy deformed Stalinist states, despite their perceived affinity for such regimes. Stalin's betrayal of workers and his "peaceful co-existence" with imperialists were seen as betrayals. While some Marxist ideologies have beneficial policies, the economic output in communist countries was lower due to lack of incentive. Post-revolutionary communist states often turned into totalitarian regimes, and their existence posed a threat to capitalism. The author argues against extreme liberalism and advocates for socialism as the only way to end exploitation.

You may be surprised, but the US and its imperialist friends actually
perferred Stalinism, over trotskyism. Though nonetheless they still
aimed at smashing the deformed stalinist states.

You stress that totalitarian communist countries are "deformed",
yet you still seem to have an affinity for them. It's hilarious
how you repeatedly stress the supposed "imperialist" actions of
capitalist countries, but ignore the outright evil actions of
communist countries.

America aimed at smashing them because they made efforts to smash us.
That is called self-defense.

Stalin did his job for the imperialists by betraying the workers of
the world, with his ideology of "socialism in one country" and
"peaceful co-existance" with the imperialists.

Peaceful co-existence?? Don't make me laugh. The only reason Stalin
allied himself with the capitalist democracies in World War II was
out of necessity. In fact, there is a rule of negotiation that Lenin
espoused(if you have read Lenin extensively, you should recognize it).
He said that sometimes it is necessary to make deals with a capitalist
country, even though they were the enemy. These deals are only made
to obtain breathing room, or to serve some other temporary necessity.
When the agreement has served its purpose, and it is in the best
interest to end the agreement, you then proceed to break or ignore it.

Once World War II was over, the communists proceeded to try to
undermine America(and America tried to do the same thing to them).
Stalin was not advocating "peaceful co-existence" when he built
up the Soviet arsenal or when he instructed the KGB to infiltrate
the American government.

You obviously have a side however, against the working people.

Oh please...spare me the "defender of the proletariat" crap.
The polarization of people and their beliefs(the mentality
that either you are with us or against us), unwavering biases,
and fondness for outright falsehoods, are symptoms of Leninism
and communist ideology in general.

Either that or you just have the wrong understanding of marxism.

I understand Marxism perfectly. If you had thoroughly read my
former posts, you would see why it doesn't work in real life.

The working class is NOT lazy. They work their asses off to survive,

I never said they were. I have been a member of the "working class"
before(I worked in a warehouse, factory, grocery store, etc..).
Nowadays, I have my own business.

and a lot of them would continue to do so in a socialist society

I disagree. You have yet to address my main point; if everything
that everyone produced was taken away from them and given to the
community, you would eliminate the incentive for individuals to
strive and achieve. If individuals did not put forth as much
of an effort, there would be less economic output. This low
economic output would be spread evenly among the population,
resulting in an equal but low standard of living.

if it meant the betterment of their living conditions,

The betterment of their living conditions?? Have you ever read about
the living conditions in communist countries? They are FAR below
what the living conditions are in capitalist countries.

something that is NOT true in a capitalist country where wages are
constantly dropped in the interests of capital.

That is nothing but extreme left-wing garbage and communist hyberpole.
Don't let yourself be so blinded by ideologies, that you refuse to
see reality. Wages are not being "constantly dropped". What people
are paid is usually proportional to the skill, talent, and effort
they expend. If the employee doesn't feel as if he is being
compensated well enough, he is free to leave.

In Russia, which was a backward impoverished country from
the beginning, socialism started off in a bad position, and the
Bolsheviks recognized that it would not survive for long unless a
revolution happened in an advanced industrial country, in order to
supply it with resouces, technology, industries...etc.

Is "revolution in another country" a euphemism for "taking over
another country so that Russia could steal it's resources"?
Communist Russia had an extensive history of taking over other
countries.

A revolution in Germany would have changed history
dramaticly, most importantly it would have prevented the rise of
fascism

I shudder to think that European history might have been even more
grim that it is, if Germany had turned into a communist state.
You say it would have prevented the rise of fascism? Yet, EVERY
SINGLE COUNTRY that is and has been communist, has descended into
fascism.

The USSR, even being in an impoverished backward country, despite the
beurcratic deformities, were able to industrilize faster then the
advanced capitalist states.

The economic output of the Soviet Union was pathetic compared
to the United States. Why is that? Because, there is an incentive
to achieve in a capitalist economy, while in a communist economy there
isn't. Therefore people try harder and produce more, which leads
to a higher standard of living.

Let me add, that even though our economic output far exceeded
theirs, they were still a massive threat to us, considering that
they had nuclear weapons, tried to spread their ideology everywhere
(often at gunpoint), and made every attempt to infiltrate and damage
America.

A revolution in an advanced country....lets say...the United States
for example, would have enormous prospects for the future of
communism, and a liberating effect on the world.

In order to make the world into what you think it should be, are you
willing to ignore the will of most of the world's citizens? If
you answer yes, then you are no better than any idea-obsessed
power-hungry dictator.

Liberation is the last word that should be used to describe what
you are advocating.

You talk about communism being a utopian ideal, yet at the same time
you deny there were any gains made in these historic revolutions.

Some valuable policies have originated from "progressive" political
movements. But, I don't think anything was gained from any of the
communist revolutions.

Your indifference to these working class victories does not change
the fact that these revolutions did have popular support

How can you say that these revolutions were "working class victories",
when all that resulted from them were ruthless totalitarian states?

These revolutions had popular support because they occurred in
countries that were ruled by unpopular regimes. And, the communists,
who were experts at propaganda, influenced and outright brainwashed
the general public into supporting their cause. Once they gained
control, they saturated the public with communist ideology and allowed
no independent thinking or dissent to take place.

My indifference? What about your indifference to the fact that MOST
people do not want to live under this system that you love so much.

That is utter bullshit. If you were to take a poll right now, and
ask the people of this world what kind of economy they wanted to
live under, the vast majority would resoundingly pick regulated
capitalism.

we nonetheless defend the deformed workers states (Cuba, China..etc)
AGAINST capitalist restoration, while at the same time calling upon the
workers of these states to overthrow their leaders in a political
revolution and return to the road of proletariet internationalism,
and democratic centralism.

I'm sure they would love to do that. The only thing in their way
is those pesky totalitarian governments that seem to not respect the
rights of individuals. These governments have no problem mowing down
defenseless demonstrators with tanks and machine guns to protect
their power.

Socialism is the only way to end this system where the interests of
the exploiting class are looked after, against the exploited which
constitute the majority.

All the buildings in the US, the technology
you use, the car you drive, they are made from the blood and sweat of
working people of this world. Without the workers, capitalism cannot
survive. Until a revolution comes, it is the duty of trotskyists like
myself to educate workers of their historic task, their victories,
their defeats, and how to win.

The interests of the workers and the bourgeoisie, are counterposed,
and thus irreconcillable.

I am going to post part of an essay called "Liberalism" that I wrote.
I posted an earlier version of it in this forum about two months ago.
I have updated it however, and I believe part of it can be used to
effectively counter these claims that you have. To anybody who
has seen these paragraphs before, I apologize for the redundancy:

Of all of the forms of liberalism, I think I am most qualified to
talk about extreme liberalism, because I used to be heavily
influenced and controlled by it. To put it bluntly; I was young,
naive, and I didn't thoroughly question the tenets that I excitedly
embraced. Nowadays, this brand of liberalism merits the most scorn
from me.

As someone gets more towards extreme liberal beliefs, they have a
tendency to impose what I call the "Oppression Dialectic" on their
observations of the world.

The extreme liberals utilize the "Oppression Dialectic" in a very
shrill and audacious way. They examine a situation and seperate the
participants into two parties; the power-hungry oppressors who
sadistically and tyrannically pursue and wield absolute control,
and the victimized and oppressed group, who have to live under
such humiliating and inhumane circumstances. They always
disapprove of the people they view as the oppressors and
use every chance they have to discredit them. They exaggerate every
mistake, shortcoming, and failure of the oppressors. They always
side with the perceived underdog, and oftentimes sympathize with,
attempt to justify, or outright ignore, any innappropriate behaviour
of the members of the perceived oppressed community. They also
exaggerate every hardship endured by, and every accomplishment of,
the oppressed. Extreme liberalism can be summarized as a militant,
warped, and misguided egalitarianism that is brought about by
disaffected cynicism. It is a belief system that is almost always
confined to young people, because the impetuousness and irrationality
that taint it are also common symptoms of youth. On a certain level,
I can admire and appreciate the energy, rigor, and determination of
extreme liberalism. But, it is hard to ignore the lack of wisdom and
open-mindedness that mark it.

The more extreme a liberal gets, the more pronounced their
simultaneous acerbic pessimism and hopeless idealism is. They
distrust any institution that they deem as having power and influence,
whether it be a government, organized religion, a corporation, or
anything else. They are almost always viciously disdainful of
religious ideas of any type. They view them as backward fairy tales
that keep the masses brainwashed and confined to a certain way of
thinking, which serves the people who are in power. They preach a
sanctimonious tolerance for everything and everyone, but are often
possessed by an arrogant elitism. They have a tendency to view
their fellow humans(especially people who happen to not hold their
beliefs) in a condescending manner, yet they have undying hopes and
dreams for humanity. These hopes and dreams usually translate into
obsessive utopian yearnings for Mankind. As with all extremists,
they think that only they know what ails the world, and only their
beliefs provide relief for it. Their unrealistic assessments of the
world are followed by unrealistic prescriptions for its improvement.
They think that if only the institutions, attitudes, and policies that
they deem are self-serving, exploitative, and ignorant would melt
away, the world would magically become happy, free, and idyllic.
This will never happen and the following paragraph explains why:

For a society to work, you need a majority of participants who agree
to live their lives in a certain way. In a utopian society where
there is no hunger, everyone recieves a basic level of material
sustenance(even those that are not physically or mentally capable
of producing anything), and there is no greed or vice, people would
need to put forth a remarkable effort and sacrifice personal interest.
This will never happen. No matter what system people live under, no
matter what they strive for, and no matter what they think the world
should be like, they will never be able to live up to these
unattainable dreams for humanity. Mankind is not capable of making
a perfect world. There has never been an idea that originated from
Man that was able to lift the human race completely out of it's
depravity, and there never will be. Human beings are too enslaved
by their whims. People will always exhibit every possible emotion
and motive, from the most caring empathy to the most despicable
selfishness. It has happened since the beginning of time and will
happen until the end of time. No amount of "enlightenment" will ever
change the fickleness and unpredictability of Man's behavior.

Of course, we must strive to make things as tolerable and as much
to our liking as is possible. But, it is pointless to ignore reality
and to attempt the impossible; especially if you are armed with
something as pathetic as a hopelessly idealistic philosophy. It is
like trying to leap up to the top of a mountain in one jump. But,
extreme liberals who think that their beliefs contain the answer for
mankind, attempt it again and again. How can perfection arise
from, or be expressed by, such an imperfect creature as Man?
Extreme liberals never have an answer for that simple question,
and as a result, their efforts and rantings are nothing but
dogmatic exercises in futility.

The only way to ensure the complete safety, equality, tolerance,
tranquility, and "enlightenment" that extreme liberals crave, would
be to control Mankind mercilessly(which ironically is something that
they claim to abhor). I would rather eat dirt and live in my own
filth, than to live under a system or a mandatory communal attitude
that dictated what I should think, how I should act, and what I
should be.

RandalFlagg

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Memorial Planned For Victims Of Communism ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )	lonestar2004	6,234	132	11/18/05 09:09 PM by bukkake
marxism. ( 1 2 all )	Anonymous	3,113	37	02/04/04 07:53 PM by Tao
Communism / socialism ( 1 2 3 all )	overgrower	5,465	58	12/18/04 08:04 AM by vampirism
Artificial Desire ( 1 2 3 all )	Sclorch	3,639	48	01/08/04 10:56 PM by phreakyzen
Karl Marx was wrong ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )	Sclorch	8,554	122	08/17/03 05:43 PM by d33p
Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism	lonestar2004	1,356	10	07/28/06 01:40 PM by Vvellum
communism vs. socialism vs. the welfare state	Anonymous	1,489	12	08/31/03 02:35 AM by Malachi
Soviet Union/Downfall of Communism/Actions in the Middle Eas	TrueBrode	833	10	11/07/03 04:43 AM by zeronio