Communism

[Jassysworth 1]

And yet it has been locked and so the position that it gives, while disputed, is the most neutral and objective one that the site administrators believes is out there.

AND... it completely makes sense. A Stalinist, and certainly those who supported the Soviet Union and Stalin, would tell you that their method (central planning, heavy-handed socialist state) is the most practical/only practical way to eventually attain statelessness, moneylessness, and classlessness. Whether you agree with this position or not is not relevant to the fact that this formulation is clearly communist in its logic and communist in its objective.

Wikipedia in not always true. And besides, there's... a small, but still is, a difference between Stalinism and Stalin's policies. Also, have you heard of something called Computer Hacking?

There was a difference between theory and practice but that's because on the ground you always have to make political compromises (and in Stalin's case, be a bit harder-edged) and take on-the-ground-factors into account. However, everything he did can be framed as an attempt to reach communism (first strengthen the socialist state to make sure capitalism does not rise again, give the people what they need through central planning until the day comes when the state dies away because it is no longer necessary/we are ready to abolish it). That's certainly the position that a dedicated Stalinist would hold and this is why it's a form of Marxism-Leninism.

Hence when people say the communist ideology was at least partially and largely responsible for the deaths of millions, religious persecution, mass murders, and economic catastrophes in the 21st century they are technically correct because Stalinism, Maoism etc were all part of the Marxist-Leninist umbrella which are all part of the communist movement.

Communism's a flawed theory anyways in that it naively believes that stateless, moneyless, and classlessness is a viable solution to modern problems.

[Nua Corda]

Real Communism has no leader, and no state. Hence the power vacuum.

Except there are various claims as how to reach that final stateless stage. Stalinism being one of them...

All of which are irrelevant to Communism. And Stalinism is not an ideology.

Except that "Stalinism" is a hackneyed term applied in retrospect to the ramblings and depredations of a cynical dictator who believed nothing, and merely claimed to follow "communism" to control people and cultivate a cult of personality. "Stalinism", as a term, would far better describe the ideology that one should trick people and use excessive propaganda to get into power.

As to the concept it proposes to refer to, I'm still gunna say "lolnope" on that one.

• Marx's "vagueness" does not justify anything Stalin did. If I say "People should all get along", and you interpret that to mean that they should be forced to wear pink jumpsuits and meet a quota of nice things said each day or be strapped to a chair and forced to watch MLP for 5 hours straight, it would be absurd to claim that what I said justified that in any way.
• No. "Communism", as it is defined is "a stateless system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed". It is not dictatorship, murder, violence or gulags
• Again, no.
• That's all well and good, but it's not Communism. Communism is the final stage; the goal. How you get there is irrelevant.

I think I need to repeat this because you are misconstruing my position.

I didn't say a real country followed Stalinism and actually REACHED communism... I'm only saying that people who follow Stalinism believe it is the most realistic/practical way to eventually reach communism in the end AND that this position has at least some backing from Marx's quotes while he was alive and from his writings.

And unfortunately, Marx WAS very vague on what he was writing about and how he believed you should get to Communism. And he DOES talk about communists dealing with rebels, confiscating property, and to a great extent centralizing the economy in the transitory stage. And so what Stalin was doing does fit as part of this narrative...

And, I think you need to read my post again. Because you clearly didn't get the point.

[Jassysworth 1]

Except there are various claims as how to reach that final stateless stage. Stalinism being one of them...

All of which are irrelevant to Communism. And Stalinism is not an ideology.

I think I need to repeat this because you are misconstruing my position.



And unfortunately, Marx WAS very vague on what he was writing about and how he believed you should get to Communism. And he DOES talk about communists dealing with rebels, confiscating property, and to a great extent centralizing the economy in the transitory stage. And so what Stalin was doing does fit as part of this narrative...

And, I think you need to read my post again. Because you clearly didn't get the point.

So now we can't use any electronic sources anymore because everything can be hacked? This is your argument? Wikipedia is locked and says that Stalinism is part of Marxism-Leninism but this is not likely to be true because Wikipedia could have been hacked? Even though this position can be fully supported by Marx's writings and quotes?

Stalinism IS an ideology. It's a system of thought with stated goals and methods and certain value judgements...

[Nua Corda]

All of which are irrelevant to Communism. And Stalinism is not an ideology.



And, I think you need to read my post again. Because you clearly didn't get the point.

So now we can't use any electronic sources anymore because everything can be hacked? This is your argument? Wikipedia is locked and says that Stalinism is part of Marxism-Leninism but this is not likely to be true because Wikipedia could have been hacked? Even though this position can be fully supported by Marx's writings and quotes?

Stalinism IS an ideology. It's a system of thought with stated goals and methods and certain value judgements...

Holy strawman... Stop abusing strawmen in public. It's rude.

It's an effort to explain/justify the acts of a nutter.

[Jassysworth 1]

From World English Dictionary...

''Stalinism...the theory and form of government associated with Stalin: a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state''

From Cultural Dictionary...

''The form of Marxism associated with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Stalinism emphasizes the repression of all dissent, often by brutal means; a rigid adherence to government management of economic life; and the domination of all communist movements worldwide by the Soviet Union. In holding to these beliefs, Stalin opposed Leon Trotsky.''


Stalinism, like it or not, is viewed by most people and with backing as part of the communist ideology/camp.

[Nua Corda]

From World English Dictionary...

''Stalinism...the theory and form of government associated with Stalin: a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state''

From Cultural Dictionary...

''The form of Marxism associated with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Stalinism emphasizes the repression of all dissent, often by brutal means; a rigid adherence to government management of economic life; and the domination of all communist movements worldwide by the Soviet Union. In holding to these beliefs, Stalin opposed Leon Trotsky.''


Stalinism, like it or not, is viewed by most people and with backing as part of the communist ideology/camp.

Aye, and slavery was viewed by most people as a valid and justifiable economic system in the 1800s.

Mst ppl thnk s0 =/= argument

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

Stalinism, like it or not, is viewed by most people and with backing as part of the communist ideology/camp.

This argument within itself is entirely flawed. How many of those people have education within Communist thought outside of what they were told back during the Cold War and the continued Red Scare? And who, may I add, is "most people" as all you're citing is articles from Wikipedia and random dictionaries which are not contributed towards by "most people", only a few.

[Vulpae]

Stalinism is a form of communism and so Stalin, the architect of Stalinism was a communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Stalinism is the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology but considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy.

GENERALLY (by most people) Stalinism is considered a form of Marxism-Leninism (which is part of the communist ideology/movement).

Only SOME historians (not all and not most) would consider an alternative position (where it isn't communism).



Plus look on the right of the link at the red box. Stalinism is under the series of articles known as Communism and it is also under the series of Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, my source clearly sees Stalinism as part of the communist movement under the Marxist-Leninist umbrella.



Thus, while you can say the Soviet Union never actually REACHED the final stage of communism, you have to recognize it as a thoroughly communist project that failed miserably. While you can say that Stalinism is a disgrace, what you cannot say is that it is not a part of communism (as it refers to the communist movement/communist theories/communist thought).

And by the way... everything Stalin did could be justified by Marx's writings because that old man was just THAT vague on what he wrote and the book was full of incitements to violence.

A vanguard party overthrowing the existing capitalist state with violence to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat to EVENTUALLY transition to communism or wait for the state to wither away as it practically becomes irrelevant/necessary IS COMMUNISM.

Everything that Stalin fits into that narrative. In fact, the Communist Manifesto talks about strengthening the state before the final hitting of communism.

''Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels (by the state or communist rebels)...Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. ... Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan...''

So yes, Marx himself believed that strengthening a new socialist state first was a realistic way to eventually get to statelessness. Hence where Stalinism fits here...

I see you've made the classic mistake of believing everything you see on Wikipedia.

interisting, thanks for the info!

[Jassysworth 1]

From World English Dictionary...

''Stalinism...the theory and form of government associated with Stalin: a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state''

From Cultural Dictionary...

''The form of Marxism associated with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Stalinism emphasizes the repression of all dissent, often by brutal means; a rigid adherence to government management of economic life; and the domination of all communist movements worldwide by the Soviet Union. In holding to these beliefs, Stalin opposed Leon Trotsky.''


Stalinism, like it or not, is viewed by most people and with backing as part of the communist ideology/camp.

Aye, and slavery was viewed by most people as a valid and justifiable economic system in the 1800s.

Mst ppl thnk s0 =/= argument

Unfortunately when you are dealing with words and language, both of which are democratic mediums, what the majority thinks/believes is what counts.

Plus like I've said, it's in line with Marx's writings (or can be argued to be in line with it because he was so vague). A vanguard party that overthrows the existing capitalist state in order to form a heavy-handed socialist state/dictatorship of the proletariat as an EVENTUAL transition (he never said how fast this transition had to happen) to statelessness, moneylessness, and classlessness IS communist thinking and in line with Marx. Obviously the Soviets felt that the people weren't ready for this final transition and too bad it collapsed too soon eh? But never doubt that what they did was a project motivated and justified by communism and communist thought...

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

Aye, and slavery was viewed by most people as a valid and justifiable economic system in the 1800s.

Mst ppl thnk s0 =/= argument

Unfortunately when you are dealing with words and language, both of which are democratic mediums, what the majority thinks/believes is what counts.

Yes, what the "majority" of people who have not, and will not, study the subject think on something is the all defining characteristic.

[Nua Corda]

Aye, and slavery was viewed by most people as a valid and justifiable economic system in the 1800s.

Mst ppl thnk s0 =/= argument

Unfortunately when you are dealing with words and language, both of which are democratic mediums, what the majority thinks/believes is what counts.

Plus like I've said, it's in line with Marx's writings (or can be argued to be in line with it because he was so vague). A vanguard party that overthrows the existing capitalist state in order to form a heavy-handed socialist state/dictatorship of the proletariat as an EVENTUAL transition (he never said how fast this transition had to happen) to statelessness, moneylessness, and classlessness IS communist thinking and in line with Marx. Obviously the Soviets felt that the people weren't ready for this final transition and too bad it collapsed too soon eh? But never doubt that what they did was a project motivated and justified by communism and communist thought...

I can ignore logical fallacies because words! Yeah, no.

And, as I said...

• Marx's "vagueness" does not justify anything Stalin did. If I say "People should all get along", and you interpret that to mean that they should be forced to wear pink jumpsuits and meet a quota of nice things said each day or be strapped to a chair and forced to watch MLP for 5 hours straight, it would be absurd to claim that what I said justified that in any way.

[Jassysworth 1]

Unfortunately when you are dealing with words and language, both of which are democratic mediums, what the majority thinks/believes is what counts.

Yes, what the "majority" of people who have not, and will not, study the subject think on something is the all defining characteristic.

Especially in a case where most historians and academics also consider Stalinism to be a variant of Marxism-Leninism right?

[Nua Corda]

Yes, what the "majority" of people who have not, and will not, study the subject think on something is the all defining characteristic.

Especially in a case where most historians and academics also consider Stalinism to be a variant of Marxism-Leninism right?

Again...

Aye, and slavery was viewed by most people as a valid and justifiable economic system in the 1800s.

Mst ppl thnk s0 =/= argument

[Jassysworth 1]

Unfortunately when you are dealing with words and language, both of which are democratic mediums, what the majority thinks/believes is what counts.

Plus like I've said, it's in line with Marx's writings (or can be argued to be in line with it because he was so vague). A vanguard party that overthrows the existing capitalist state in order to form a heavy-handed socialist state/dictatorship of the proletariat as an EVENTUAL transition (he never said how fast this transition had to happen) to statelessness, moneylessness, and classlessness IS communist thinking and in line with Marx. Obviously the Soviets felt that the people weren't ready for this final transition and too bad it collapsed too soon eh? But never doubt that what they did was a project motivated and justified by communism and communist thought...

I can ignore logical fallacies because words! Yeah, no.

And, as I said...

• Marx's "vagueness" does not justify anything Stalin did. If I say "People should all get along", and you interpret that to mean that they should be forced to wear pink jumpsuits and meet a quota of nice things said each day or be strapped to a chair and forced to watch MLP for 5 hours straight, it would be absurd to claim that what I said justified that in any way.

Except Marx DOES talk about using violence to overthrow the existing state, forming a transitional socialist state which is stronger than the present capitalist state (see previous posts), crushing rebels and doing some confiscation. ALL OF WHICH... Stalin did in the name of communism.

Again, Marx is vague is enough for some to interpret that this transitional socialist stage should be very short and for others to think it should be a lot longer. Stalinists are part of the latter group...

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

Yes, what the "majority" of people who have not, and will not, study the subject think on something is the all defining characteristic.

Especially in a case where most historians and academics also consider Stalinism to be a variant of Marxism-Leninism right?

Source them, then, since you are so confident. I can claim many things too, and back them up with various dictionaries and Wikipedia articles as well.

[Nua Corda]

I can ignore logical fallacies because words! Yeah, no.

And, as I said...

Except Marx DOES talk about using violence to overthrow the existing state, forming a transitional socialist state which is stronger than the present capitalist state (see previous posts), crushing rebels and doing some confiscation. ALL OF WHICH... Stalin did in the name of communism.

Again, Marx is vague is enough for some to interpret that this transitional socialist stage should be very short and for others to think it should be a lot longer. Stalinists are part of the latter group...

Still not proving me wrong...

Stalin did nothing in the name of communism, or anything else. Everything Stalin did was in the name of Stalin, or possibly one or more of the voices in his head.

[Jassysworth 1]

Especially in a case where most historians and academics also consider Stalinism to be a variant of Marxism-Leninism right?

Source them, then, since you are so confident. I can claim many things too, and back them up with various dictionaries and Wikipedia articles as well.

It was heavily implied in the wikipedia page (... generally considered a form of Marxism-Leninism... some (only some, not most, not all) historians consider (otherwise)).

And take a look at this...

http://www.oocities.org/redcomrades/stal-ml.html

''Stalin remained true to the Marxist ideal of a classless and stateless society until his death in 1953... The notes originate from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society...''

And this is researched.

[Jassysworth 1]

Except Marx DOES talk about using violence to overthrow the existing state, forming a transitional socialist state which is stronger than the present capitalist state (see previous posts), crushing rebels and doing some confiscation. ALL OF WHICH... Stalin did in the name of communism.

Again, Marx is vague is enough for some to interpret that this transitional socialist stage should be very short and for others to think it should be a lot longer. Stalinists are part of the latter group...

Still not proving me wrong...

Stalin did nothing in the name of communism, or anything else. Everything Stalin did was in the name of Stalin, or possibly one or more of the voices in his head.

Everything he did can in some way be justified by Marx's writings... that's why he's a Marxist-Leninist.

He just never felt the Soviet Union was ready for that final stage of abolishing the state, money, and social classes... not his fault really because communist theories are all flawed.

[Nua Corda]

Still not proving me wrong...

Stalin did nothing in the name of communism, or anything else. Everything Stalin did was in the name of Stalin, or possibly one or more of the voices in his head.

Everything he did can in some way be justified by Marx's writings... that's why he's a Marxist-Leninist.

In the same way that lynching gays can be justified by the bible, perhaps.

You're very quickly dropping my other points as is, why not just admit defeat?

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Source them, then, since you are so confident. I can claim many things too, and back them up with various dictionaries and Wikipedia articles as well.

It was heavily implied in the wikipedia page (... generally considered a form of Marxism-Leninism... some (only some, not most, not all) historians consider (otherwise)).

And take a look at this...

http://www.oocities.org/redcomrades/stal-ml.html

''Stalin remained true to the Marxist ideal of a classless and stateless society until his death in 1953... The notes originate from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society...''

And this is researched.

It says that the page is OUTDATED.

[Jassysworth 1]

Everything he did can in some way be justified by Marx's writings... that's why he's a Marxist-Leninist.

In the same way that lynching gays can be justified by the bible, perhaps.

You're very quickly dropping my other points as is, why not just admit defeat?

If the Bible drops enough hints about lynching gays as being acceptable and promoted behavior by God and people went out and did it... I'd be fine with them calling themselves Christians despite what the New Testament said.

This is because every Christian is someone who picks and chooses what to take literally and what to take figuratively.

A similar exercise is at work here with regards to Marx's writings because he was so vague and at times contradictory. Stalinists are just one particular camp of communists with a particular style of interpretation...

[Nua Corda]

In the same way that lynching gays can be justified by the bible, perhaps.

You're very quickly dropping my other points as is, why not just admit defeat?

If the Bible drops enough hints about lynching gays as being acceptable and promoted behavior by God and people went out and did it... I'd be fine with them calling themselves Christians despite what the New Testament said.

This is because every Christian is someone who picks and chooses what to take literally and what to take figuratively.

A similar exercise is at work here with regards to Marx's writings because he was so vague and at times contradictory. Stalinists are just one particular camp of communists with a particular style of interpretation...

I call bull on the lot of this.

[Jassysworth 1]

It was heavily implied in the wikipedia page (... generally considered a form of Marxism-Leninism... some (only some, not most, not all) historians consider (otherwise)).

And take a look at this...

http://www.oocities.org/redcomrades/stal-ml.html

''Stalin remained true to the Marxist ideal of a classless and stateless society until his death in 1953... The notes originate from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society...''

And this is researched.

It says that the page is OUTDATED.

Just because it was published in 2009 does not make it outdated...

Just because it was published in 2009 does not negate the reality that there were ''notes originate (which were) from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society...''

[Jassysworth 1]

If the Bible drops enough hints about lynching gays as being acceptable and promoted behavior by God and people went out and did it... I'd be fine with them calling themselves Christians despite what the New Testament said.

This is because every Christian is someone who picks and chooses what to take literally and what to take figuratively.

A similar exercise is at work here with regards to Marx's writings because he was so vague and at times contradictory. Stalinists are just one particular camp of communists with a particular style of interpretation...

I call bull on the lot of this.

Why?

You can call yourself Christian so long as you can back it up with parts of an authoritative text that at times contradicts itself/is vague enough.

The type of Christian who goes out lynching gays just chooses to interpret more of the OT as literal and the NT as figurative and the type of Christian who condemns such behavior just chooses to interpret more of the NT as literal and more of the OT as figurative.

In the same way, you can call yourself a communist so long as you can back your position and methods with an authoritative text that at times contradicts itself/is vague enough.

Marx told you there should be a vanguard party to overthrow capitalism and then establish a transitional stage lead by a strong socialist government. He didn't say for how long this state should be around for... only that it would eventually get abolished once it becomes unecessary and once we are ready for statelessness, classlessness, and moneylessness.

This leaves the door wide open for the Stalinists, who are part of the Marxist-Leninist camp, to say that this period ought to be pretty long as it applied to countries like the Soviet Union. It also leaves the door open for more liberal far lefties to say that this period ought to be brief...

Who's right? Who's to say? All we can say is that both sides are communist in the way they think and communist in their styles of interpretation because their objectives are communist in nature.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

It says that the page is OUTDATED.

Just because it was published in 2009 does not make it outdated...

Just because it was published in 2009 does not negate the reality that there were ''notes originate (which were) from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society...''

You don't get it. On the top, it says the page is OUTDATED. The publisher of the article - oocites.org, admits it's outdated.