NationStates

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Perhaps. We'll never know now. We could have at least maintained the republic led primarily by the democratic socialist and narodnik parties the people actually wanted in power rather than the Bolshevik coup.

What state? That would cease to exist following the revolution.

They wouldn't have it removed; they would just have an equal role in it as everyone else. You have called for the disenfranchisement of the former capitalists before, and I believe you have also called for their extermination.

1) The people didn't want them to remain in power; they were very opposed to them because those parties continued the Great War. Why do you think the Red Army had more than the White?

The republic was not popular, but allowed a mechanism to remove it democratically. The Bolsheviks had the support of the industrial working class, but the vast majority of the agrarian workers still were deeply connected to Narodnik ideals. It is little wonder that the White reaction was composed of such weakened forces. They had already been weakened after being driven out during the revolution, had lost much of their leadership, and had to deal with other forces such as the Greens and Blacks that were opposed to the Bolsheviks but also opposed to the Whites. The Bolsheviks were easily the most well-organized party at the time and were able to establish connections to combatant forces they needed to instate their rule. Their popularity with the industrial working class allowed them control over the dimunitive industrial arm Russia had at the time, easily allowing them to have the most readily accessible supplies of the forces. No, the Bolsheviks did not succede in their coup and the brutal suppression of opposition because of popularity, but because they were the most prepared to act in such a situation.

2) If we are not willing to create a state dominated by the proletariat, then the bourgeois will just subvert with capital to create a new one.

What capital? Capital has been eradicated in the revolution. It would cease to have any value once society no longer recognizes its value. The capitalist class have control now despite being an extreme minority because they have control over the means of production, the flow of capital, and the state. Following the revolution the means of production would be socially owned, capital wouldn't exist, and the state wouldn't exist. The capitalists don't pose any threat now. You are panicking over the man with the spear after we have invented the gun. The former capitalist would be nothing but a minority with the same power as everyone else. Fearing them at that point is completely irrational.

3) I have never called for their extermination. They would have their private ownership of it removed, which they would resent immensely.

Which is why we help explain to them how this is actually beneficial for them as well. We can't befriend those we are oppressing.

Constantinopolis wrote:

Threlizdun wrote: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.

Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. I see you are very noble and just and honourable.

But you know what happens to people like that, right?

Which is why Germany and Japan are both wish to kill all the former Allied forces right? No wait, both of them are allies with their former conquerors now because they didn't punish them and instead helped them rebuild their society.

Constantinopolis wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
You see, all the ones that tried to kill us would be dealt with during the revolution

Fair enough. So we may just be arguing semantics about what point in time is defined as "after the revolution". If "after the revolution" is defined as "after the former capitalists no longer pose any threat", then of course at that point they are (by definition) no longer a problem, and should be treated equally.

But I understood Threlizdun's suggestion as saying that we should extend a general amnesty and ignore past wrongs as soon as armed conflict has ceased.

They should recieve counseling about why what they did was wrong, and if their actions actually resulted in injury or death during the revolution then they absolutely should cared for until they can be confrirmed to be in a mental state allowing reintegration into society. Other than that though, I can't see why we'd have any problems with them. Punitive "justice" has no place in such a society.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Treat people equally --> They kill you.
Therefore, the bourgoise cannot be treated equally.

It's a good thing unequal treatment doesn't spawn resentment and violence.

See above. I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about the former capitalists immediately after they have been overthrown. I'm pretty sure that they will have plenty of resentment against the new socialist government no matter what we do.

Part of my whole point is that if you are a communist and achieve any measure of political success, the capitalists will hate you and try to destroy you. There is NOTHING you can do to make them stop hating you or stop trying to crush you. All you can do is defeat them when they inevitably try to crush you.

This is something we know to be objectively wrong in relation to the vast majority of human beings. Most people absolutely are capable of forgiving those they feel wronged them or even coming to agree with their point of view. Another thing we know is that the best way to do this is to treat them with compassion.

Thafoo wrote:Much too idealistic. Easily corruptible.

If you even mentioned Idealism on Revleft they'd have torn you apart. They despise that word.

If what the experts predict is true and China and India overtake US as the superpower...won't that mean the superpower stand-off will be between communism and capitalism again?

Ballycolumbia wrote:If what the experts predict is true and China and India overtake US as the superpower...won't that mean the superpower stand-off will be between communism and capitalism again?

China isn't communist, so no.

Bezombia wrote:

Ballycolumbia wrote:If what the experts predict is true and China and India overtake US as the superpower...won't that mean the superpower stand-off will be between communism and capitalism again?

China isn't communist, so no.

If you want to be technical, then it's Socialist.
It's led by a Communist party and is dedicated to Marxist ideals adapted for Chinese situation, so it's governed by Communist ideology.

Ballycolumbia wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
China isn't communist, so no.

If you want to be technical, then it's Socialist.
It's led by a Communist party and is dedicated to Marxist ideals adapted for Chinese situation, so it's governed by Communist ideology.

1: No it isn't, it's state capitalist and it always has been.
2: Nazi Germany was led by the National Socialist Party but it wasn't socialist.
3: China's flavor of state capitalism draws practically nothing from Marxism.
4: It isn't governed by communist ideology at all.

Bezombia wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:Fair enough. So we may just be arguing semantics about what point in time is defined as "after the revolution". If "after the revolution" is defined as "after the former capitalists no longer pose any threat", then of course at that point they are (by definition) no longer a problem, and should be treated equally.

But I understood Threlizdun's suggestion as saying that we should extend a general amnesty and ignore past wrongs as soon as armed conflict has ceased.

Here's the part that I don't think you're getting.
The revolution? It's carried out by the bourgeois, not the proletariat. As Marx said it would happen, the bourgeois would react violently to the proletariat trying to take away their power and money. The revolution would have to be shut down by the proletariat in order for a communist society to truly take hold.

What? Isn't the revolution carried out when the proletariat expropriates the bourgeois property monopoly? This would mean that violent reaction by the bourgeoisie constitutes counter-revolution.

Duvniask wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
Here's the part that I don't think you're getting.
The revolution? It's carried out by the bourgeois, not the proletariat. As Marx said it would happen, the bourgeois would react violently to the proletariat trying to take away their power and money. The revolution would have to be shut down by the proletariat in order for a communist society to truly take hold.

What? Isn't the revolution carried out when the proletariat expropriates the bourgeois property monopoly? This would mean that violent reaction by the bourgeoisie constitutes counter-revolution.

No, the proletariat takes away the bourgeois's property/capital through the means of the state once they've democratically taken control of the government.

Bezombia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:What? Isn't the revolution carried out when the proletariat expropriates the bourgeois property monopoly? This would mean that violent reaction by the bourgeoisie constitutes counter-revolution.

No, the proletariat takes away the bourgeois's property/capital through the means of the state once they've democratically taken control of the government.

Same thing, with my point still remaining. It is not the bourgeoisie that initiate the revolution.

Duvniask wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
No, the proletariat takes away the bourgeois's property/capital through the means of the state once they've democratically taken control of the government.

Same thing, with my point still remaining. It is not the bourgeoisie that initiate the revolution.

No, it isn't the same thing at all. It's entirely possible for the bourgeoisie to give up their capital to the state peacefully.

Bezombia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Same thing, with my point still remaining. It is not the bourgeoisie that initiate the revolution.

No, it isn't the same thing at all. It's entirely possible for the bourgeoisie to give up their capital to the state peacefully.

That's not what we're discussing. "The proletariat taking away the bourgeois's property/capital through the means of the state" is the exact same thing as expropriation, peacefully or not.

You essentially argued that revolution occurs at the point of violent reaction by the bourgeoisie, and that's just false. That was the entire point.

Do you think it can work?

Revolutionarily wrote:Do you think it can work?

I "think" it'll work as much as I "think" dogs are real.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Bolnoa wrote:While discussing Communism I know this infamous character may turn a few heads but why not! Let us discuss this guy!

(Image)

Personally he's one of my personal inspirations for self-liberation as well as a small dose of Titoism in my life, Plus he's the last WW2 Allied leader to do. May he rest in peace.

Traitor to king and country.

This is where I know my political heart is taking over my mind.

While the monarcy basically sold out Yugoslavia. Titos liberation forces had to clean up with the monarchy couldn't do.

Revolutionarily wrote:Do you think it can work?

Certainly, through time.

Bolnoa wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:Traitor to king and country.

This is where I know my political heart is taking over my mind.

While the monarcy basically sold out Yugoslavia. Titos liberation forces had to clean up with the monarchy couldn't do.

"Sold out?" As soon as he came of age, King Peter II engineered a coup against the Prince Regent's Nazi-aligned government to remove fascism from Yugoslavia. He then chose to form an alliance with the communists, despite their ideological differences, in order to liberate Yugoslavia from Axis occupation. Yet as soon as the war ended, the communists deposed the King, declared their illegitimate republic and embarked on building a brutal dictatorship that is today praised by naïve and ill-informed Westerners simply because it wasn't as bad as most self-styled communist regimes.

Revolutionarily wrote:Do you think it can work?

No, I do not.

Revolutionarily wrote:Do you think it can work?

No it does not work.
Unless you want to turn your nation in to a shit-hole.
Then communism works just fine.

Old Tyrannia wrote:"Sold out?" As soon as he came of age, King Peter II engineered a coup against the Prince Regent's Nazi-aligned government to remove fascism from Yugoslavia. He then chose to form an alliance with the communists, despite their ideological differences, in order to liberate Yugoslavia from Axis occupation. Yet as soon as the war ended, the communists deposed the King, declared their illegitimate republic and embarked on building a brutal dictatorship that is today praised by naïve and ill-informed Westerners simply because it wasn't as bad as most self-styled communist regimes.

Like many monarchy/democratic forces in WW2 such as Ethiopia and like the Chinese army or couldn't fight them off well, they couldn't fight off the foreign invaders. It was clear the Communists were fighting. Let alone the king ran away from the nation only to return once the battle was over. Abandoning all of his people. Like many invaded nations of WW2 were the leaders fled but once fled, they had to look for a leader who was involved in the combat. Josip Tito was the one who emerged the victor.

New acardia wrote:

Revolutionarily wrote:Do you think it can work?

No it does not work.
Unless you want to turn your nation in to a shit-hole.
Then communism works just fine.

As has been pointed out several times before in this thread, the vast majority of communist governments made their nations better, not worse. As in, they were better when communist rule ended compared to when it began. Far better, in some cases.

No one in their right mind would dispute the fact that Russia was better in 1991 than in 1917, for example, or that most of Eastern Europe was better in 1989 than in 1945. Of course they were better. Of course living standards improved during that time.

The only question that is up for debate is whether living standards improved enough - in other words, if the communist governments did as good a job as they could have/should have.

This whole false notion that "communism makes countries poor" is a symptom of a more general disease - people looking at (relatively) poor countries, noticing that life there sucks, and blaming that state of affairs on the type of government or economic system that the countries in question have right now.

This is a childish mistake. Countries don't become rich or poor overnight, or even in the space of a few decades. Countries are rich or poor for historical reasons stretching back one or two centuries in most cases.

Broadly speaking, today's list of richest countries is the same as it was 150-200 years ago - it's a list dominated by Western Europe and North America. This is because Western Europe and North America had a head start in the development game, and it has proven extremely difficult to catch up to them. All the countries that have successfully caught up over the past 200 years are either (a) tiny or (b) had massive help from the West, or (c) Japan.

Consider the fact that China has had incredible record-breaking growth for thirty years and living standards there are STILL far behind the West. Catching up is damn hard. So the fact that a country's living standards have not caught up to the West is NOT evidence that its government or economy are necessarily doing badly.

Constantinopolis wrote:

New acardia wrote:No it does not work.
Unless you want to turn your nation in to a shit-hole.
Then communism works just fine.

As has been pointed out several times before in this thread, the vast majority of communist governments made their nations better, not worse. As in, they were better when communist rule ended compared to when it began. Far better, in some cases.

No one in their right mind would dispute the fact that Russia was better in 1991 than in 1917, for example, or that most of Eastern Europe was better in 1989 than in 1945. Of course they were better. Of course living standards improved during that time.

The only question that is up for debate is whether living standards improved enough - in other words, if the communist governments did as good a job as they could have/should have.

Why do you persist to perpetuate the myth that that the Soviet Union was a communist society?

Threlizdun wrote:Why do you persist to perpetuate the myth that that the Soviet Union was a communist society?

Well, I don't - at least not intentionally. But arguing that point every time someone brings up the USSR gets tiresome after a while, and is counter-productive, since it's basically just arguing semantics and leads to the discussion going nowhere.

So I've started using the widespread terms "communist government" and "communist rule" even though they are inaccurate. In my head, I'm using them as shorthand for "a government run by a Communist Party". And I am careful never to use the word "communism" itself, or "communist society", to refer to Soviet-style arrangements.

But you're right, it's not good to perpetuate the inaccuracy. So from now on I will use the more accurate terms "Marxist-Leninist government" and "Marxist-Leninist rule" instead.

Possibly the only thing good about Marx was his kick-ass beard.

Constantinopolis wrote:Well, I don't - at least not intentionally. But arguing that point every time someone brings up the USSR gets tiresome after a while, and is counter-productive, since it's basically just arguing semantics and leads to the discussion going nowhere.

When it comes to Communist Discussion USSR is easily mentioned. While when people bring it up to me, I drift it to Somalia quite quickly since knowledge is power!

So I've started using the widespread terms "communist government" and "communist rule" even though they are inaccurate. In my head, I'm using them as shorthand for "a government run by a Communist Party". And I am careful never to use the word "communism" itself, or "communist society", to refer to Soviet-style arrangements.

CCCP, never forget always remember.

But you're right, it's not good to perpetuate the inaccuracy. So from now on I will use the more accurate terms "Marxist-Leninist government" and "Marxist-Leninist rule" instead.

I can get along with that, it's a very modern term.

Constantinopolis wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Why do you persist to perpetuate the myth that that the Soviet Union was a communist society?

Well, I don't - at least not intentionally. But arguing that point every time someone brings up the USSR gets tiresome after a while, and is counter-productive, since it's basically just arguing semantics and leads to the discussion going nowhere.

So I've started using the widespread terms "communist government" and "communist rule" even though they are inaccurate. In my head, I'm using them as shorthand for "a government run by a Communist Party". And I am careful never to use the word "communism" itself, or "communist society", to refer to Soviet-style arrangements.

But you're right, it's not good to perpetuate the inaccuracy. So from now on I will use the more accurate terms "Marxist-Leninist government" and "Marxist-Leninist rule" instead.

Why not just use "deformed worker's state" or "proletarian state"?