Marry me. Immediately.
Do you think Communism should be despised as much as Nazism?
- Thread starter Schwartz
- Start date
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
It was never 'communism' in the first place, aside from the in-name-only monstrosities. There was nothing to 'work' because it's never been tried.
Only when I wore my 'I was drugged by Dr.Death' badge on my last job centre visit.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Total state control. Check.
Extrajudicial execution of opponents. Check.
One party state. Check.
State controlled judiciary. Check.
Communism and fascism are two sides of the same vile coin.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
And what the fuck do you think that Stalin did, in terms of annexing adjacent countries you muppet?
Dear Lord, will no one rid us of this tedious troll?
You clearly have no idea about communism.
Communism doesn’t believe in the existence of a state which will eventually “wither away”.
Not one aspect of communism advocates the “extrajudicial execution of of opponents”.
You don’t have a clue about the political ideologies communism and fascism.
Stalinism is not communism, “you muppet”.
The irony of you describing me as a “troll” when you posted two posts of absolute nonsense and embarrassed yourself as a complete idiot who knows nothing about communism.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
In the 1950s the British people overwhelmingly voted for left-wing ideas.
I think Donald Trump is a buffoon who has damaged the reputation of the Republican Party and the USA for a long time.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
The Withering Away of the State – From Marx to Stalin
www.marxists.org
seventh bullet
sovietwave
Isn't that from what became Second Internationalist orthodoxy? The Bolsheviks reached further back to an earlier position.
You should have linked that website to the clown who posted before you. Then again, he is clearly an ignorant troll.
seventh bullet
sovietwave
Stalin believed in the withering away of the state, just it was to happen in a far flung future.
I meant more, what happened historically. There was a revolution, but what happened afterwards which meant that the transition to the aimed-for classless and stateless communism did not occur?
In Marxist-Leninist communism everything is meant to be nationalised right? From transport to farms to factories. This appeared to happen in the USSR (although not without terrible suffering it seems, and I read about the Holodomor the other day, had never heard of it before). But isn’t what happened actually that if you nationalise everything you give the state incredible power, which it then increasingly ruthlessly exercises to maintain total control over the population and the disappearing and gulags begin.
It is honestly a surprise to me, given the failures of communism in East Europe, USSR, China, North Korea, which have ended in terrifying totalitarian states every time, that people genuinely think this is a good idea
JimW
支那暗杀团
Not sure to be honest, just remember reading the argument made. Can see where they're coming from but I suppose it skips over any conscious agency in the Leninist model.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
When in the 1950s did this occur?
JimW
支那暗杀团
In China they first gave land to the farmers as family units and collectivisation came a little later; lots of landlords died in the initial "land reform" but unlike Russia collectivisation went fairly smoothly. When they broke them up again there were plenty of places that weren't too keen. There was massive state control of course but in certain senses people felt they had a lot more agency than under the old landlords or bosses, read credible accounts of the social dynamic in villages meaning there was popular input and old workers waxing fondly about the way their cadres had to consult with the shop floor before getting things done and not always getting their way, unlike modern boss worker relations. But overall it was top down command and you even had to get approval to be married in some instances.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the British state of course far better and would never send people to labour camps or hold vast swathes of information about its citizens that would put the stasi to shame or have political police or operate death squads to kill dissidents. Oh wait they already haveI meant more, what happened historically. There was a revolution, but what happened afterwards which meant that the transition to the aimed-for classless and stateless communism did not occur?
In Marxist-Leninist communism everything is meant to be nationalised right? From transport to farms to factories. This appeared to happen in the USSR (although not without terrible suffering it seems, and I read about the Holodomor the other day, had never heard of it before). But isn’t what happened actually that if you nationalise everything you give the state incredible power, which it then increasingly ruthlessly exercises to maintain total control over the population and the disappearing and gulags begin.
It is honestly a surprise to me, given the failures of communism in East Europe, USSR, China, North Korea, which have ended in terrifying totalitarian states every time, that people genuinely think this is a good idea
You're clearly trolling.
From 1951 to 1955 when the PM was Comrade Winston
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You're clearly full of excrement
Not forgetting Harry the Red from 57 onwards
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
For a moment I thought you meant auld Harry Politt
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Most of the ‘Euros’ I know/knew took this line. That Marx had envisaged to Revolution starting in England and Germany. Most of them now argue that what we saw in the USSR was an extension of Tsarist policy and strategy with a badge of communism internationally. ( they also point out that the USSR did make huge strides in development at home). They support this argument by pointing that Russian strategy and tactics remain almost unchanged despite the political changes.
The Tankies, of course swear blind there was nothing wrong in the USSR and talks of famine, Gulags and foreign adventures are just attacks on Uncle Joe.
It’s at this point in the conversation I ask either side what they felt about Mao. Then I normally get asked to leave, or the conversation turns to their role as Labour parish councillor...
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
And probably in another galaxy...
seventh bullet
sovietwave
Proletarians only needed to constitute a politically significant portion of the population, it wasn't necessary for the class to be a numerically superior one with 'mature' organisations eventually growing out of it. Leninism didn't break completely with the SI anyway.
Similar threads
