Communist Discussion thread

[Constantinopolis]

We're not judging the guy here. At least he did better than Gorbachev.

Haha, maybe, but come on, that's literally the lowest possible standard you can use for national leaders. I can't imagine how anyone could do worse than Gorbachev.

I don't know why so many people here hate Gorbachev.

He was the worst leader that any superpower in recorded history ever had.

After all, do you know anyone else who took control of a superpower and, within 6 years, managed to lose all his allies, then lose his superpower status, then lose even the country itself? Gorbachev started out as the second most powerful man in the world and led his country to complete destruction, in peacetime.

[Lithuanian Empire]

We're not judging the guy here. At least he did better than Gorbachev.

Haha, maybe, but come on, that's literally the lowest possible standard you can use for national leaders. I can't imagine how anyone could do worse than Gorbachev.

I don't know why so many people here hate Gorbachev.

He was the worst leader that any superpower in recorded history ever had.

After all, do you know anyone else who took control of a superpower and, within 6 years, managed to lose all his allies, then lose his superpower status, then lose even the country itself? Gorbachev started out as the second most powerful man in the world and led his country to complete destruction, in peacetime.

Well, Gorbachev was unlucky to become the Chairman when the nation was already fucked up.
The past leaders made so much debt and political and industrial mistakes, all that was left for Gorbachev was standing and watching the coroded nation to fall.

[Constantinopolis]

Haha, maybe, but come on, that's literally the lowest possible standard you can use for national leaders. I can't imagine how anyone could do worse than Gorbachev.


He was the worst leader that any superpower in recorded history ever had.

After all, do you know anyone else who took control of a superpower and, within 6 years, managed to lose all his allies, then lose his superpower status, then lose even the country itself? Gorbachev started out as the second most powerful man in the world and led his country to complete destruction, in peacetime.

Well, Gorbachev was unlucky to become the Chairman when the nation was already fucked up.
The past leaders made so much debt and political and industrial mistakes, all that was left for Gorbachev was standing and watching the coroded nation to fall.

No. That's no excuse. Of course the USSR had significant problems when Gorbachev took over, but other countries had faced much worse problems in the past, and did not fall. The USSR in 1985 was still doing better than the United States in 1932, for example.

[Lithuanian Empire]

Well, Gorbachev was unlucky to become the Chairman when the nation was already fucked up.
The past leaders made so much debt and political and industrial mistakes, all that was left for Gorbachev was standing and watching the coroded nation to fall.

No. That's no excuse. Of course the USSR had significant problems when Gorbachev took over, but other countries had faced much worse problems in the past, and did not fall. The USSR in 1985 was still doing better than the United States in 1932, for example.

1932 is not even close.
In fact, the Soviet union was slowly declining all the way from 1946, but only in the 1990s it started to hurt.

[Constantinopolis]

No. That's no excuse. Of course the USSR had significant problems when Gorbachev took over, but other countries had faced much worse problems in the past, and did not fall. The USSR in 1985 was still doing better than the United States in 1932, for example.

1932 is not even close.
In fact, the Soviet union was slowly declining all the way from 1946, but only in the 1990s it started to hurt.

Declining? In what way? By pretty much any measure you choose, the 1950s and 60s - and possibly also the very early 70s - were the period when the USSR was at its peak (best economic growth, greatest technological advancements, still-low-but-rapidly-rising living standards, and so on).

The problem faced by the USSR in 1985 was that it had begun to stagnate, with very low economic growth and a very slow pace of progress. By comparison, the United States in 1932 was doing much worse than merely stagnating - its economy was rapidly shrinking.

That's why I said that other countries had faced much worse and survived. The pre-Gorbachev USSR was mostly just standing still. Other countries had periods when they were rapidly moving backwards, which is worse, but they survived.

[Distruzio]

Don't be ridiculous. All nations of the time were relative feudal backwaters. Tsarist Russia was one of the pre-eminent European powers of the time. While her industrial capabilities couldn't yet match those of the German Empire, she certainly had the raw materials available to do so at her leisure. Soviet programs embracing industrialization at the expense of societal needs is no standard of progress. Its quite the opposite. You're confusing pre-Ivan and pre-Catherine times with pre-Soviet times.

You're also confusing stalinism with communism.

Stalinism does not exist. Stalinism is a hoax.

A baseless assertion with no credible root in reality.

Taken from history text books: Industrially backwardness:
By 1855 Britain was producing ten times as much Iron as Russia. Russia's failure to modernize + develop can be attributed to an underdeveloped banking system + and the Servile economy that acted as a brake on the Russian economy.
Development was also prevented by by Russia's backwards communications and transport system, making the transport of raw materials and goods virtually impossible. By 1860 Russia had 1600 km railway compared to Britain's 15000km.
The Tsars had strange beliefs,
Backwards agriculture:
-Peasants used medieval farming techniques/equipment
-Little knowledge of how to farm your land effectively.
-This led to poor harvests and in conjunction with Russia's growing population it also led to severe famines 1891-92.
ature of Tsarist autocratic political system

That's a cute and halfassed copypasta but, regardless, it doesn't appropriately address my contest. I contested your assertion that Tsarist Russia was a backwards feudal state. I did not assert that it could compete industrially with other industrialized nations. This is patently as attempt to distract the actual point of dialog I opened between us - a challenge of your assertions. You answer with irrelevant nonsense copied from someone else without elaborating on the "factoids" offered.

The nature of the Tsarist system meant that in order for the Tsar to rule the country he had to rely upon the nobility and upon smaller governments. There were in total 13 local governments for different regions in Russia and 114 000 administrators. This meant that the Russian political system was very fragmented, leaving the Russian state in only partial control of the country. The nobles who helped to govern Russia saw government service as a way to increase their wealth by bribery.

Once again. This has nothing to do with the meat of my commentary, does it? I have to assume that you had a thought and spun off in a random direction. The structure of the Tsarist government is not at all relevant to either of our comments above. It's an innovation to our dialog. It might have held relevance if you had been attempting to contrast the Tsarist structure of government to the Soviet structure of government... but you didn't. You pretty much just said, "the Tsars sucked because they couldn't even be the absolute autocrats they wanted to be. See? That means they're worse than the Soviets!"

The complete lack of political freedom led to that anyone who opposed the Tsar had to resort to the violence. This is highlighted by the growth of political opposition in the end of the 19th century, and have opposition groups, such as the People's will assassinate Alexander II to achieve political change.

Uh huh. Again... what is it that you're addressing here? Are you suggesting that the lack of political freedom makes a nation "backwards"? If so, then by presenting this as support for your assertion that Tsarist Russia was "backwards" within the same response wherein you attempt to define "backwards" as being restricted to industrial capacity (even though I had already acknowledged the weakness of Russian industry) you confuse your own position and render it unfathomable.

I simply don't understand what you're trying to say or where you're coming from.

The other governments had stable political models with parliaments at the time. If further industrialisation happened, strikes would of increased due to class conscious. The fuedalistic system of the Tsarist system was outdated, there was no way it could survive and I doubt any Tsar could of done the same accomplishments of Stalin in the 5 year plan.

I'd like to take you at face value here but, really, you're just positing counterfactual assertions as though they are common place knowledge. The truth is that no one knows how the Tsarist regimes could have handled modernized industrialization. They were murdered before the Russian infrastructure allowing that process to begin could begin.

Also, I don't think you understand who and what Stalin was.

Perhaps. I'm quite aware that there may be things I'm ignorant about.

[Distruzio]

Don't be ridiculous. All nations of the time were relative feudal backwaters. Tsarist Russia was one of the pre-eminent European powers of the time. While her industrial capabilities couldn't yet match those of the German Empire, she certainly had the raw materials available to do so at her leisure. Soviet programs embracing industrialization at the expense of societal needs is no standard of progress. Its quite the opposite. You're confusing pre-Ivan and pre-Catherine times with pre-Soviet times.

You're also confusing stalinism with communism.

Of course! Everyone remembers how the US and Britain were so intrinsically enclosed in feudalism that--wait a minute...

Someone forgot that slavery existed in both nations and their colonies. Someone also forgets the era we discuss here.

[Liberaxia]

Considering it built a backwater Tsarist feudal state into a superpower that was able to compete with most of the world is an impressive achievement.

Don't be ridiculous. All nations of the time were relative feudal backwaters. Tsarist Russia was one of the pre-eminent European powers of the time. While her industrial capabilities couldn't yet match those of the German Empire, she certainly had the raw materials available to do so at her leisure. Soviet programs embracing industrialization at the expense of societal needs is no standard of progress. Its quite the opposite. You're confusing pre-Ivan and pre-Catherine times with pre-Soviet times.

You're also confusing stalinism with communism.

Stalin had to work hard to make the trains run on time! Don't you know how hard it is to command a factory-prison state nation of millions of slaves proletarians?

[Distruzio]

Don't be ridiculous. All nations of the time were relative feudal backwaters. Tsarist Russia was one of the pre-eminent European powers of the time. While her industrial capabilities couldn't yet match those of the German Empire, she certainly had the raw materials available to do so at her leisure. Soviet programs embracing industrialization at the expense of societal needs is no standard of progress. Its quite the opposite. You're confusing pre-Ivan and pre-Catherine times with pre-Soviet times.

You're also confusing stalinism with communism.

Stalin had to work hard to make the trains run on time! Don't you know how hard it is to command a factory-prison state nation of millions of slaves proletarians?

Oh you!

[The New Sea Territory]

Communism is Satanic!

Please explain how it's satanic. Just reading untrue stuff like this makes me groan.

Because St. Ronnie Gipper fought the ebul commie basturds and Jesus said so.

[Threlizdun]

Don't be ridiculous. All nations of the time were relative feudal backwaters. Tsarist Russia was one of the pre-eminent European powers of the time. While her industrial capabilities couldn't yet match those of the German Empire, she certainly had the raw materials available to do so at her leisure. Soviet programs embracing industrialization at the expense of societal needs is no standard of progress. Its quite the opposite. You're confusing pre-Ivan and pre-Catherine times with pre-Soviet times.

You're also confusing stalinism with communism.

Stalinism does not exist. Stalinism is a hoax.

You. You are what are preventing us from rejecting failed ideology and seeking to establish communism in the modern world. You are giving us a bad name. Stop it.

[Liberaxia]

Stalinism does not exist. Stalinism is a hoax.

You. You are what are preventing us from rejecting failed ideology and seeking to establish communism in the modern world. You are giving us a bad name. Stop it.

You guys really ought to give those guys the boot (up the ass). They're in need of it.

[United Marxist Nations]

Stalinism does not exist. Stalinism is a hoax.

You. You are what are preventing us from rejecting failed ideology and seeking to establish communism in the modern world. You are giving us a bad name. Stop it.

No, you guys are. You think that you can just create communism with no effort; you've said yourself that you think the bourgeois will just hand it over.

[The Liberated Territories]

*holds pillow* commies scare me

[Liberaxia]

You. You are what are preventing us from rejecting failed ideology and seeking to establish communism in the modern world. You are giving us a bad name. Stop it.

No, you guys are. You think that you can just create communism with no effort; you've said yourself that you think the bourgeois will just hand it over.

Meerroowww!! *Hiss!*

[Kumuri]

*holds pillow* commies scare me

Hold on to your pillow, I see a giant factional argument over the horizon and it's coming in two seconds.
All we need now is for someone to say Trotsky, and we've got an all out war.




...Trotsky.

[Threlizdun]

You. You are what are preventing us from rejecting failed ideology and seeking to establish communism in the modern world. You are giving us a bad name. Stop it.

No, you guys are.

Really? Which of our proposals actually led to the creation of communist societies? That would be the libertarian socialists. They've helped ensure there has never been a point in history where communism didn't exist. Now which ideology resulted in the systematic destruction of communism in Spain, Ukraine, and Russia? that would be the Leninists.

You think that you can just create communism with no effort

No, I think it will take tremendous effort; I just don't think totalitarianism and genocide are necessary parts of that effort.

you've said yourself that you think the bourgeois will just hand it over.

No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution. I do not believe your idea of mass death, continued antogonism, the oppression of one class by another, and the empowerment of the very body communism seeks to destroy is beneficial to the establishment of revolutionary society based on the concept that helping others ultimately leads to helping yourself. I do not think the capitalists will abandon their lifestyle easily. Violence absolutely will occur. There are few revolutions that occur without bloodshed. I am saying that we minimize violence and forsake it altogether once it ceases to be necessary.

[Threlizdun]

*holds pillow* commies scare me

Hold on to your pillow, I see a giant factional argument over the horizon and it's coming in two seconds.
All we need now is for someone to say Trotsky, and we've got an all out war.




...Trotsky.

Nah, you don't get many Trotskyists these days. The devision these days are between those still desperately clinging to the ruins of the Soviet Union and those that want it left in the dust.

[Liberaxia]

No, you guys are.

Really? Which of our proposals actually led to the creation of communist societies? That would be the libertarian socialists. They've helped ensure there has never been a point in history where communism didn't exist. Now which ideology resulted in the systematic destruction of communism in Spain, Ukraine, and Russia? that would be the Leninists.

You think that you can just create communism with no effort

No, I think it will take tremendous effort; I just don't think totalitarianism and genocide are necessary parts of that effort.

you've said yourself that you think the bourgeois will just hand it over.

No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution. I do not believe your idea of mass death, continued antogonism, the oppression of one class by another, and the empowerment of the very body communism seeks to destroy is beneficial to the establishment of revolutionary society based on the concept that helping others ultimately leads to helping yourself. I do not think the capitalists will abandon their lifestyle easily. Violence absolutely will occur. There are few revolutions that occur without bloodshed. I am saying that we minimize violence and forsake it altogether once it ceases to be necessary.

Elaborate.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, you guys are.

Really? Which of our proposals actually led to the creation of communist societies? That would be the libertarian socialists. They've helped ensure there has never been a point in history where communism didn't exist. 1) Now which ideology resulted in the systematic destruction of communism in Spain, Ukraine, and Russia? that would be the Leninists.

You think that you can just create communism with no effort

No, I think it will take tremendous effort; I just don't think totalitarianism and genocide are necessary parts of that effort.

you've said yourself that you think the bourgeois will just hand it over.

No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution. I do not believe your idea of mass death, continued antogonism, the oppression of one class by another, and the empowerment of the very body communism seeks to destroy is beneficial to the establishment of revolutionary society based on the concept that helping others ultimately leads to helping yourself. I do not think the capitalists will abandon their lifestyle easily. Violence absolutely will occur. There are few revolutions that occur without bloodshed. I am saying that we minimize violence and forsake it altogether once it ceases to be necessary.

1) If you think that communism should have been created immediately in Russia, then you're simply wrong; the Great powers would have destroyed any communist society. Revolution over the whole world needs to be achieved before progressing to communism.

2) There absolutely must be a use of authority in the revolution, if there is not, then we will simply be destroyed by the bourgeois and their state power.

3) I never said that the bourgeois cannot be treated equally, but must be integrated into the proletariat. The removal of their means of production would be oppressing them, though.

[Kumuri]

Hold on to your pillow, I see a giant factional argument over the horizon and it's coming in two seconds.
All we need now is for someone to say Trotsky, and we've got an all out war.




...Trotsky.

Nah, you don't get many Trotskyists these days. The devision these days are between those still desperately clinging to the ruins of the Soviet Union and those that want it left in the dust.

Wherever I've discussed anything related to communism, it seems Trotskyism always appears at some point in the discussion.

Funny thing is, I've been angrily called both a "Trotskyist" and a "Maoist." I'm neither. I don't even call myself a communist, although it can be said that I support communism.

[Bezombia]

Really? Which of our proposals actually led to the creation of communist societies? That would be the libertarian socialists. They've helped ensure there has never been a point in history where communism didn't exist. Now which ideology resulted in the systematic destruction of communism in Spain, Ukraine, and Russia? that would be the Leninists.
No, I think it will take tremendous effort; I just don't think totalitarianism and genocide are necessary parts of that effort.
No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution. I do not believe your idea of mass death, continued antogonism, the oppression of one class by another, and the empowerment of the very body communism seeks to destroy is beneficial to the establishment of revolutionary society based on the concept that helping others ultimately leads to helping yourself. I do not think the capitalists will abandon their lifestyle easily. Violence absolutely will occur. There are few revolutions that occur without bloodshed. I am saying that we minimize violence and forsake it altogether once it ceases to be necessary.

Elaborate.

The existence of the bourgeois is as necessary as the existence of the proletariat in a capitalistic system.
Where the proletariat are hated by the bourgeois for trying to "take from them", the bourgeois are hated by the proletariat for the same reason.

If you'd read half of Marx's books you'd know this.

[Liberaxia]

Elaborate.

The existence of the bourgeois is as necessary as the existence of the proletariat in a capitalistic system.
Where the proletariat are hated by the bourgeois for trying to "take from them", the bourgeois are hated by the proletariat for the same reason.

If you'd read half of Marx's books you'd know this.

I'm not a follower of Marxism. Now, in what way would the class that is typically said to be oppressing the proletariat be oppressed?

[Threlizdun]

Really? Which of our proposals actually led to the creation of communist societies? That would be the libertarian socialists. They've helped ensure there has never been a point in history where communism didn't exist. Now which ideology resulted in the systematic destruction of communism in Spain, Ukraine, and Russia? that would be the Leninists.
No, I think it will take tremendous effort; I just don't think totalitarianism and genocide are necessary parts of that effort.
No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution. I do not believe your idea of mass death, continued antogonism, the oppression of one class by another, and the empowerment of the very body communism seeks to destroy is beneficial to the establishment of revolutionary society based on the concept that helping others ultimately leads to helping yourself. I do not think the capitalists will abandon their lifestyle easily. Violence absolutely will occur. There are few revolutions that occur without bloodshed. I am saying that we minimize violence and forsake it altogether once it ceases to be necessary.

Elaborate.

The capitalist class is still ultimately subservient to capital, the market, and the state. They exist in a heavily collectivist society that denies the value of the individual and only see value in the capital-producing activity an individual engages in. These social conditions and the disconnect between the natural state of the individual and the overbearing nature of soceity leads to the alienation of the individual. This relation is an inherently oppressive one that must be overcome for humanity to progress. Marx was wrong on looking only to the proletariat to liberate humanity. He believed everyone was alienated but that the proleltariat, as the most alienated, would be the best agents to liberate all of society. He overvemphasized the proletariat. They are essential in liberating humanity, but until we can seek our liberation as a whole there is nothing that will be resolved. The suffering of the capitalist is by no means as extensive as the suffering of the worker, but it is still important. We cannot call ourselves revolutionaries if we do not seek to mitigate all suffering.

[Bezombia]

The existence of the bourgeois is as necessary as the existence of the proletariat in a capitalistic system.
Where the proletariat are hated by the bourgeois for trying to "take from them", the bourgeois are hated by the proletariat for the same reason.

If you'd read half of Marx's books you'd know this.

I'm not a follower of Marxism. Now, in what way would the class that is typically said to be oppressing the proletariat be oppressed?

You don't have to be a follower of Marxism to read Marx's books. In fact many of his later writings (such as Capital) didn't even have to do with Marxism in any way.