Ask a red

[RedRalph]

Would changing from capitalism to communism involve major changes in any non economic aspects of society? Would it have any affect on language, culture, etc.?

Of course. Pretty hard to imagine The Hills or youporn had we won the cold war. But a lot of people dont realise there were punk and metal bands in the USSR, even in communist Mongolia in fact, so dont be fooled into thinking there was no youth subculture.

Thats pop culture, of course. Art did tend to suffer in the USSR. Now I like socialist realism (basically square jawed steelworkers and hefty maidens) for aesthetic reasons personally, but as art goes it said very little. There was some great architecture, and statues, but soviet art certaintly didnt tend to be as expressive as western art. Thats not to say all communist art is that was, look at Frida Kahlo.

As for language, I really cant say too much, apart from an observation that it did seem to be mainly politically charged words which changed and newly arose in the USSR, rather than the total transformation of language, however there are inherent difficulties in translating any two languages so that could be the reason rather than ideology.

 

[Agent327]

There was some great architecture, and statues, but soviet art certaintly didnt tend to be as expressive as western art. Thats not to say all communist art is that was, look at Frida Kahlo.

I don't know about "great architecture" (most soviet buildings strike me as extremely ugly), but art was, surprisingly, very expressive in the USSR until stalinism set in.

 

[RedRalph]

I don't know about "great architecture" (most soviet buildings strike me as extremely ugly), but art was, surprisingly, very expressive in the USSR until stalinism set in.

I really like some of the gargantuan buildings put up in the Stalin era, such as on Karl Marx See in Berlin, etc.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Perhaps communism may work one day, but why should I risk my life, and my family's life, supporting a communist revolution if there's even a small chance that the new government may be run by the next Stalin or Mao? The track record for Marxist revolts is remarkably bad. I feel like it's too much of a gamble.

First of all, I don't approve of you spamming this thread with corporate drivel. Don't do that ever again.
Secondly, I think it is unhistorical and typical of bourgeois moralism to say that "The track record for Marxist revolts is remarkably bad". I don't agree on that at all.
Thirdly, revolutions are extreme measures. I think in the future the choice will be between fascim or socialism. And then I gladly take a Stalin over a Mussolini or a Reagan any time.

To luceafarul: Christianity has been both an obstacle (The Catholic Church's support of Franco in Spain for example) and a help to (Christian Communist) communism. If you ruled a world-wide communist state, what would you do in reference towards Christianity?

As already stated, I support religious freedom.

Also, which state today is closest to true communism?

I think I answered that also before. But in case my memory plays me a trick, no countries are remotedly close to communism.

Why is it that working class people in the west are damn near always capitalist and most if not all Marxists in the West are affluent or born into affluence?

I don't know if working class people in the West necessarily are so "capitalist", I rather think that a quite of few does indeed share many of their political values with socialists. However,due to the massive propaganda they have been exposed to for decades, they have a twisted image of socialism.
The last claim is a doubtful one. I would like to see it backed up before commenting on it.

What country do you think is in the best state today for implementing a progressive socialist -> communist system?

Norway.

How are food stamps, free housing, and universal college tuition bad?

I can't resist commenting on that even if it was not directed towards me.
I find the idea of food stamps degrading. Needy people should receive money.

Alright, so what is your take on Marx? Like him, love him, hate him?

I reckon him as one of the most influent thinkers ever and a true liberator of mankind whose contribution to socialism can hardly be overestimated. He was also a great historian and a competent journalist.

Or has the majority of "reds" moved beyond marx into post-marxism.

Not those I care about.

My good sir's, what effect has the Soviet Union had on socialism in general. I know the stock answer is to say that it is either a deformed workers state(Trotsky), a state capitalist state(Cliff), or simply a complete bastardization of socialism.

But what are your answers to this?

Apart from the fact that the USSR saved the bourgeois "democracies" in the west, I reckon it as an honourable attempt to create a socialist state in a country not really ready for it. Its internal problems and not least its external weakness compared to the capitalist block prevented it from ever attain real socialism. But it had quite a good run.
The rest will be commented upon a bit later.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What do you think of the Kerensky government? Had they not undertaken their eponymous offensive that summer, do you think they would have done a better or worse job with turning Russia into a Socialist state postwar than the Bolsheviks did? Is that sort of moderately socialist system "acceptable" in such a time of upheaval, or should the more extreme factions warrant support during such unique and advantageous times as Russia was in 1917?

 

[Defiant47]

Was the Soviet Union and Romania back in the 80s communism? How much of a communist society was it?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

What are the comparative merits of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, democratic socialism, and social democracy as forms of socialism?

 

[sp1023]

Do you believe in god, or is it like an atheistic society?

 

[hossam]

why do you hate freedom comrade?

 

[RoboPig]

Do you ever get upset about the negative portrayal of the Russian Revolution in Dr. Zhivago?

 

[Bigfoot3814]

In the early 1600s, by order of the Virginia Company of London, for it's first seven years Virginia Colony in America was to be ruled under a policy that stated "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any persons, remain still in the common stock until the division." Is that socialism?

 

[yesboii]

First of all, I don't approve of you spamming this thread with corporate drivel. Don't do that ever again.
Secondly, I think it is unhistorical and typical of bourgeois moralism to say that "The track record for Marxist revolts is remarkably bad". I don't agree on that at all.
Thirdly, revolutions are extreme measures. I think in the future the choice will be between fascim or socialism. And then I gladly take a Stalin over a Mussolini or a Reagan any time.

Are you serious?

 

[plarq]

Are you serious?

Well, that's quality partisanship--my bad fella is better than your good fella.

 

[plarq]

Of course. Pretty hard to imagine The Hills or youporn had we won the cold war. But a lot of people dont realise there were punk and metal bands in the USSR, even in communist Mongolia in fact, so dont be fooled into thinking there was no youth subculture.

Thats pop culture, of course. Art did tend to suffer in the USSR. Now I like socialist realism (basically square jawed steelworkers and hefty maidens) for aesthetic reasons personally, but as art goes it said very little. There was some great architecture, and statues, but soviet art certaintly didnt tend to be as expressive as western art. Thats not to say all communist art is that was, look at Frida Kahlo.

As for language, I really cant say too much, apart from an observation that it did seem to be mainly politically charged words which changed and newly arose in the USSR, rather than the total transformation of language, however there are inherent difficulties in translating any two languages so that could be the reason rather than ideology.

Soviet art is definitely not inferior--George Bernard Shaw and Charlie Chaplin proved this.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you believe in god, or is it like an atheistic society?

He's answered this question repeated times, as several of us have. We are generally in agreement that religious freedom is the call of the day.

why do you hate freedom comrade?

من فضلك لا هنا صديقي

In the early 1600s, by order of the Virginia Company of London, for it's first seven years Virginia Colony in America was to be ruled under a policy that stated "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any persons, remain still in the common stock until the division." Is that socialism?

It depends on how it is divided. If it is evenly, then it is collectivist, but not really socialist; socialism also requires democratically-run businesses, that's what "workers' control of the means of production" means.

Are you serious?

It's an understandable position; perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but nonetheless an understandable one. if you remove Stalin's purges and labor camp deportations, then his actions were considerably less "bad."

 

[hossam]

من فضلك لا هنا صديقي

no dude I'm serious I'm not trolling or flaming, most if not all communist/socialist governments have been authoritarian and have limited personal freedom, how come the UK or US don't seem to have this problem? and i don't want none of that BS "but those countries weren't really communist"

also, isn't a society inherently freer if they more control of the market? if they are allowed to own land? if they don't have to wait in food lines? if they can fire and hire employees at will? the list goes on and on........

 

[warpus]

It's an understandable position; perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but nonetheless an understandable one. if you remove Stalin's purges and labor camp deportations, then his actions were considerably less "bad."

Yeah, and if you remove the texture, smell, and colour of crap, some people might call it awesome.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A society is also more free if it can kill people whenever it wants, or take whatever it pleases; that does not mean that such a society is better.

As for the authoritarian nature of socialist states thus far, one must remember that revolutions are borne in the people, and what comes out of that revolution is the truest expression of their ideals and political desires. In none of the states that experienced socialist revolutions that were successful was there any history or tradition of what could be termed "Western freedoms," freedom of the press, of speech, or democratic rule. Most of the people in these nations knew only the realities of life as they existed before; there was a Tsar, a secret police, and a severe lack of personal freedom in Imperial Russia; it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the revolution in 1917 kept many of these institutions; the same is true of Vietnam and Cuba. However, in states where there was at least some tradition of these "western" freedoms, they were preserved, as in Germany in 1918, or France during any of its revolutions or restructuring of government; the leftist uprising in Germany is what actually created the Wiemar Republic.

Marx suggested, and it is commonly believed by many Socialists and Communists who are not Marxist-Leninist that Socialism would function best and be most successful by coming about in industrialized, modernized nations; i.e., The West. It is no coincidence that these places are also democratic and grant their citizens many personal freedoms. It would be equally dishonest to assume that a Socialist rise to power in a Western nation would yield a new Stalinist Russia as it is to have expected the United States to have come out of the October Revolution.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah, and if you remove the texture, smell, and colour of crap, some people might call it awesome.

This thread is not for argument, but I will remind you of this point: far more happened during Stalin's long reign that the Purges, the vast majority of them being quite miraculous things, especially considering the horrid shape most of Russia was in following the Civil War. As is typical of history, the horrifically bad things overshadow the good, and the wonderfully good overshadow the bad. We just as easily forget a man's faults for his virtues, and his virtues because of his vices; it is no different of nations. Simple things like literacy and basic medical care became accessible to the entirety of Soviet population; it was under his watch and his programs that the first fully literate generation existed in Russia. His Five-Year Plans brought growth to Soviet industry like nothing the world has ever seen. Under his watch, his nation was transformed from the backwater Imperial Russia into a modern economic powerhouse, and the lives of millions were better because of those things. As I said, had he not been the paranoid, murderous man he was, he would be remembered far more kindly than he is. No, I'm not ignoring what he did, I'm simply presenting both sides of his rule, something that is seemingly quite rare in the West.

 

[plarq]

I'm simply presenting both sides of his rule, something that is seemingly quite rare in the West.

There're many Western intellectuals admiring Stalin as the savior of the people.