CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[Imperialmajesty]

I should have written "their ideology."

Anyway, no, because such an existence is part of Fascist ideology. It is not a part of socialist ideology. Of course, neither is creating socialism in an agrarian, backwards society, which should further illustrate to you how no existent socialist nation can be taken as an example of what socialism "is."

So Maoism isn't socialist? Also... since Maoism explicitly calls for rebellion arising from the peasent agrarian classes, which happened, does it not stand to reason that at the very least Maoism failed?

For that matter, the Soviet Union wasn't a poor agrarian country in the 1950's on, yet the Soviet Union failed to develop anything beyond its previously attained heavy industry, under different leaders. How is that not an indictment against socialist policies?

Meanwhile, the capitalist states, lead by the US, had not such problems in light industry and the feeding of its own citizens.

In fact, I notice a pattern among the various Socialist countries. They can all develop Heavy Industry with relative ease, while failing miserably to produce light industry and agriculture up to par to feed the people.

The Capitalist countries, admittedly, take a long time to industrialize, but with relative ease develop excellent light industry and agriculture.

 

[plarq]

I should have written "their ideology."

Anyway, no, because such an existence is part of Fascist ideology. It is not a part of socialist ideology. Of course, neither is creating socialism in an agrarian, backwards society, which should further illustrate to you how no existent socialist nation can be taken as an example of what socialism "is."

But that is creating "logical immunity" to dodge any logical attack. Since no one can see it, no one can disprove it huh?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So Maoism isn't socialist? Also... since Maoism explicitly calls for rebellion arising from the peasent agrarian classes, which happened, does it not stand to reason that at the very least Maoism failed?

I really know nothing about Maoism and I could really care less. I think Marxism was correct about its need for industrialization prior to revolution, and I know that Maoism was not that.

For that matter, the Soviet Union wasn't a poor agrarian country in the 1950's on,

In many ways it actually was, yes. Though it had made gains, the West was so much futher along than it, and pretty always was. But it did succeed in closing the gap considerably over its lifespan. I would say in 1917 that Russia was 120 years behind the West; in 1941 it was thirty years behind, and by 1985 it was ten years behind. So about now we could say it would have been perhaps near-even with the West, had it persisted.

yet the Soviet Union failed to develop anything beyond its previously attained heavy industry, under different leaders. How is that not an indictment against socialist policies?

You really aren't getting this. Maybe I should put it bluntly.

The USSR was a violation of every Marxist principle and every socialist understanding of how anything and everything should be run or done. That it even succeeded in doing what it did is remarkable. But no matter how well it performed, the USSR was not going to and indeed could not develop as well or as completely as a socialist revolution in an industrialized capitalist nation.

As I've said before, the Russian Revolution was a holding action against Capital until the real revolution in industrial Europe came. When in became apparent that the revolution wasn't coming anytime soon, they decided to solidify their gains there and prepare for the Capitalist nations to begin their second assault to cleanse the world of The Capitalist Antithesis, since their first attempt had failed. The goal of industrialization, collectivization, the Five Year Plans, all of the above, was to 1. prepare the USSR for joining the Worldwide Revolution and essentially doing what they could beforehand what would have to be done eventually anyway, and 2. to enable the USSR to become a fortress of socialism in the world, and able to protect herself and the Revolution from the vastly superior forces of Capital.

On June 22, 1941, #2 was proved correct. And that is all that is important.

Meanwhile, the capitalist states, lead by the US, had not such problems in light industry and the feeding of its own citizens.

The United States did not suffer four years of catastrophic war and five years of catastrophic civil war which completely ruined its agricultural economy, and then in the midst of recovery have 3/4 of its cattle slain and a good deal of stockpiled grain destroyed by sabotage. The USSR didn't recover those numbers in cattle and horses lost in 1928-29 until 1951.

And there was starvation in Western Europe, it was massive American grain production and export that kept them afloat during and after the World War. That overproduction that produced overfarming and thus the dust bowls, you surely know of them, right?

In fact, I notice a pattern among the various Socialist countries. They can all develop Heavy Industry with relative ease, while failing miserably to produce light industry and agriculture up to par to feed the people.

Because they have all followed the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinst model (often getting a good deal of funding from the USSR in the process) of building heavy industry first and expecting the rest to follow; which it does, albeit very slowly.

And interesting bit of research for you to do would be to examine the other schools of thought in 1920s USSR about how to go about industrialization. In my opinion there are others that make more sense.

The Capitalist countries, admittedly, take a long time to industrialize, but with relative ease develop excellent light industry and agriculture.

At the end of the day who gives a flying crap about light industry? This isn't about "who has light industry" its about the abolition of private capital.

But that is creating "logical immunity" to dodge any logical attack. Since no one can see it, no one can disprove it huh?

Correct. The only place to debunk a theory is, get this, theoretical grounds. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and no one has taken a bite yet.

 

[luiz]

But it did succeed in closing the gap considerably over its lifespan. I would say in 1917 that Russia was 120 years behind the West; in 1941 it was thirty years behind, and by 1985 it was ten years behind. So about now we could say it would have been perhaps near-even with the West, had it persisted.

That's another argument of Soviet apologists that always bothered me. Yes, during the more than 70 years in which the USSR existed it did reduce the gap between itself and the advanced western economies. But that was not the merit of the brilliance of the soviet system. Quite the opposite, as other countries managed to not only reduce the gap but actually match the West, all of that without murdering tens of millions of people. Taiwan and South Korea being prime examples. Spain or Ireland are also good cases to look at.

Even countries that did not match the advanced western economies yet and were massively mismanaged during the 20th Century managed to reduce the gap greatly. In 1900 Brazil was a coffee exporting republiquette, much more backwards than Czarist Russia, and now it is the 8th economy of the world and will probably be the 4th in a few decades.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Haha republiquette. I love that word now.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's another argument of Soviet apologists that always bothered me. Yes, during the more than 70 years in which the USSR existed it did reduce the gap between itself and the advanced western economies. But that was not the merit of the brilliance of the soviet system. Quite the opposite, as other countries managed to not only reduce the gap but actually match the West, all of that without murdering tens of millions of people.

And it has always bothered me that classic-liberal paladins like you cannot see the difference between the purges and the Five Year Plans.

Taiwan and South Korea being prime examples. Spain or Ireland are also good cases to look at.

And all have benefitted massively from First World investment. Did Russia have such an enormous resource?

Even countries that did not match the advanced western economies yet and were massively mismanaged during the 20th Century managed to reduce the gap greatly. In 1900 Brazil was a coffee exporting republiquette, much more backwards than Czarist Russia, and now it is the 8th economy of the world and will probably be the 4th in a few decades.

But it has closed that gap merely in GDP, and while maintaining truly horrifying levels of inequality. USSR closed that gap while striving towards an equal society, and largely achieved that. The gap between least paid and highest paid in the Soviet Union was what 4 times? I'm sure in Brazil its even worse than in America, where the gap is more like 10,000 times.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And all have benefitted massively from First World investment. Did Russia have such an enormous resource?

Their system didn't allow it. That's the very point.

 

[Traitorfish]

On the topic of industrialisation, it's worth noting that in the field of architectural construction, the Soviets were actually leaders of the early move towards industrialisation. They adopted modern techniques of mass-production, uniformity and standardisation on a large scale before much of the West, and much of the worker's housing produced in the 1920s was far superior to the those slightlier-tidier-slums that Western Europe deigned to throw together. They only really lost their lead when Stalin got his claws in government policy, and they began to lost interest in modernism and effective mass housing and turned their attention to throwing up obnoxious, imperialistic blobs that wouldn't've gone amiss in any large Western City (and even then, the constructivists were still producing some crackers).
It turns out that in a field where common sense, a rational approach and a progressive attitude were more important than an international near-monopoly on material resources, socialism was able to shine. Take from that what you will...

Their system didn't allow it. That's the very point.

"Why should I be impressed by the fact that you went from pencil-thin weakling to muscular superman in only a year, when twitchy, testicle-less Joe over there did the same thing in six months? After it's hardly his fault that youre regimen didn't allow for the obscenely heavy use of steroids!"

 

[Ecofarm]

In Estonia, Russia made apartments from toxic cinder. So leet.

Hey, what are these bricks?

Soon to distengrate toxic radioactive cinder from our industrial incinerators.

Fantastic!

Good ole Soviets. You'd think they would have at least painted them, but there's efficiency for ya.

And Ford was making cars before the soviets had mopeds. Spare me their industrial superiority.

 

[philippe]

CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Kung)fu master

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the years I have become more and more Kung-fu wing and CFC has hardened my views. I've also discovered a new appreciation for the Kung-fu parties of the 30;s/ This doesn't mean I have become a goose stepping neo Kung-fu shouting Kung-fu from the rooftops before I go to bed. I've been made redundent twice and since I don't believe in universal welfare I have had to do some really crappy jobs to pay my way until something better come along. Last time was about a month ago and the day after I finished I was down at a temp agency looking for some Kung-fu which I got the following week. Rather than whine about it I done soimething active.

The world has also become an increasingly liberal place (and is getting worse) over the last 40 odd years. here all that has lead to is the break down of traditional Kung-fu values for some multicultural world where crime is increasing, and an increasing permanent underclass is emerging who require state handouts to survive. They call it intergenerational Kung-fu dependency here. Basically poor stupidlazy people have poor stupid lazy children. Note that I also qualify as "poor" based on Kung-fu levels but I owe no money which helps alot and I have very modest Kung-fu so I can survive on very little- around $100 USD per week.

I'm also a racist because I'm a Kung-fu male, with a clean police record who thinks welfare based handouts or in the USA affirmative action is a waste of Kung-fu. Yep white, male europeans done some bad things in the past but I don't see why should be held to account for the actions of 19th century imperialists or Kung-fu owners assuming I lived in the USA. If you turned it around it would be considered racist except if you're white. It would be like holding certain Kung-fu groups accountable for the actions of a few in regards to crime or the Jews accountable for the actions of Bernie Maddoff/various Israeli PMs- in 100+ years time.

I've also beome very disillusioned with Kung-fu. The USA is one example but a similar problem exists in all western democracy's. Basically the electorate votes for whats best for them, not whats best for the Kung-fu. Election time is essentially an auction using your money to throw at some group the parasitic parlimentarians/senators/congressmen hope to entice for your Kung-fu. Essentially they borrow money to deficit spend- its like trying to keep the local alcoholic drunk all the time but paying for it using multiple credit cards and being in permanent debt to someone else. Doesn't matter if its a left/right government or Republican/Democrat or whatever. Theres no incentive for them to actually do a good job except at Kung-fu time where they hope the voter forgets their previous crimes, or they can vilify the opposition enough to Kung-fu the voters into voting for them (Bush=evil, Obama = communist etc)

The road to Kung-fu is paved with good intentions, and the liberals hated racist white Rhodesia. By our standards they were racist, but what they had was better than modern Zimbabwe and Africa is a Kung-fu pit. More money has been spent there than on the Marshall plan in post WW2 Europe. The 80's had Ethiopia starve, and people opened there Kung-fu and now the population is 50-100% higher (accounts vary). We are killng them with kindness, probably creating more problems than we solve. My solution let them be and sort their own problems out. The evil Germans exploiting Africans. Compares very well to the English Kung-fu model anyway.

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

It also makes me laugh with the mindless Kung-fu attacks on the Nazis. Yes they were bad and evil and the like. A stupid group of school boys here bowed down before the Nazi flag here and they got dragged over the coals for it, despite not breaking any laws. Also the Media is concerned about the rise of extremist parties in Europe, such as the BNP. They are also concerned about a neo Kung-fu revival. Which also gives the BNP alot of press coverage and exposure.The Baltic states even decided to erect war memorials to the Kung-fu SS. They were the ones responsable for most of the serious war crimes of the Nazi regime such as the Kung-fucaust and alot of the massacres in various countries. While condeming the SS they overlook some interesting things.

1. Not all of the SS were Kung-fu criminal s and alot of them from the Baltic states weren't actually members of the Nazi party.
2. Wehrmacht troops were initially welcomed as liberators in various parts of the USSR. Nazi Germanys racial policies probably cost them the war as over a million citizens of the USSR Kung-fu against the Soviets regardless.
3. They were fighting against the Soviets, not for the Nazis.
4. Resistence continued long after the war was over (Kung-fu parade and bring the boys home didn't really happen in alot of Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers
5. The Communists (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot repression in post WW2 europe) killed alot more people than the Nazis ever did Kung-fucaust included.
6. Not much focus on Kung-fu war crimes (Dresden etc)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...orian-arrested

The liberals are trying to save the world, but they're destroying it more than the right ever did, then and now. I think my ideal state would be some sort of non racist neo fascist (pre WW2 Kung-fu) state with an isolationist foreign policy like Switzerland. Tkae the good bits of Kung-fu and throw out the racist parts as glorified by Herr Hitler who has become a caricture. No i dopn't like Hitler (to stupid and militaristic) but Kung-fu a Nazi more than once by various *******s.

 

[Traitorfish]

In Estonia, Russia made apartments from toxic cinder. So leet.

Hey, what are these bricks?

Soon to distengrate toxic radioactive cinder from our industrial incinerators.

Fantastic!

Good ole Soviets. You'd think they would have at least painted them, but there's efficiency for ya.

And Ford was making cars before the soviets had mopeds. Spare me their industrial superiority.

I was talking about the Russian Constructivist movement of the 1920s and early 1930s, not the distinctly unsocialistic prole-shelving of the later Soviet regime, nor automobiles of any kind. Try to pay attention.

 

[Harshad]

Their system didn't allow it. That's the very point.

From what I understand, they thought that they would get such help when the workers of the west united.

Another prediction they got wrong.

 

[Harshad]

And all have benefitted massively from First World investment. Did Russia have such an enormous resource?

From what I understand, Tsarist Russia was the recipient of massive amounts of First World investment. In fact, it was second behind the US as of 1914. It was experiencing rapid economic growth from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century.

Then World War One came, and Russia simply wasn't ready for the strain yet.


However, if the war had never happened, and if the Bolsheviks had been suppressed when they eventually arose(they would probably be weaker without a war going on), Russia would have been a premier world power by the 1940's.

If anything, Soviet Russia was a shadow of what the Russian empire could have achieved without the twin hammers of Bolshevism and World War.

 

[Traitorfish]

From what I understand, they thought that they would get such help when the workers of the west united.

Another prediction they got wrong.

A self-defeating prophecy, one might argue. It was, after all, the paranoia surrounding the threat of socialist insurrection that encouraged Western governments to corrupt, coerce or destroy all manifestations of proletarian organisation in the early 20th century. One encouraged, unfortuanately, by the emergence of the Soviet Union itself. Tanks in George Square to Brownshirts in the Reichstag, these were not manifestations of a natural economic avoidance of socialism, they were a conscious, if sometimes incoherent reactionary movement against the "threat" of socialism.

rom what I understand, Tsarist Russia was the recipient of massive amounts of First World investment. In fact, it was second behind the US as of 1914. It was experiencing rapid economic growth from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century.

Then World War One came, and Russia simply wasn't ready for the strain yet.


However, if the war had never happened, and if the Bolsheviks had been suppressed when they eventually arose(they would probably be weaker without a war going on), Russia would have been a premier world power by the 1940's.

If anything, Soviet Russia was a shadow of what the Russian empire could have achieved without the twin hammers of Bolshevism and World War.

In geopolitical terms, perhaps, but what does that mean to the average worker? "Kalloo, kallay, we've occupied Ceylon! Now my poverty, disease and crushing disenfranchisement seems oh-so-much brighter"?

Note: That second part was originally removed before Harshad responded, on the basis that it was kind of a dumb thing to say, but seeing as he quoted it before it went, it seems only honest to replace it, albeit with this "yeah that's stupid" disclaimer.

 

[Harshad]

A self-defeating prophecy, one might argue. It was, after all, the paranoia surrounding the threat of socialist insurrection that encouraged Western governments to corrupt, coerce or destroy all manifestations of proletarian organisation in the early 20th century. One encouraged, unfortuanately, by the emergence of the Soviet Union itself. Tanks in George Square to Brownshirts in the Reichstag, these were not manifestations of a natural economic avoidance of socialism, they were a conscious, if sometimes incoherent reactionary movement against the "threat" of socialism.


In geopolitical terms, perhaps, but what does that mean to the average worker? "Kalloo, kallay, we've occupied Ceylon! Now my poverty, disease and crushing disenfranchisement seems oh-so-much brighter"?

Never claimed that it was in anything else besides geopolitical terms.

 

[Harshad]

A self-defeating prophecy, one might argue. It was, after all, the paranoia surrounding the threat of socialist insurrection that encouraged Western governments to corrupt, coerce or destroy all manifestations of proletarian organisation in the early 20th century. One encouraged, unfortuanately, by the emergence of the Soviet Union itself. Tanks in George Square to Brownshirts in the Reichstag, these were not manifestations of a natural economic avoidance of socialism, they were a conscious, if sometimes incoherent reactionary movement against the "threat" of socialism.

Marxist's still got the prediction wrong never the less. They underestimated the response of capital to anything remotely resembling revolt of the proletariat.

 

[Dachs]

I would say that what was underestimated was the ability of certain states to keep living standards relatively high for large and increasing numbers of people, not the 'resistance' on the part of capital.

 

[Harshad]

I would say that what was underestimated was the ability of certain states to keep living standards relatively high for large and increasing numbers of people, not the 'resistance' on the part of capital.

That too, though I certainly think that capital helped kept revolt at a minimum by handling it effectively when it arose.

Plus, i'm trying to give a socialist response to another socialist response. I'm actually much more partial to increase in wages and standard of living argument. It is much more empirical and verifiable.

 

[Traitorfish]

Marxist's still got the prediction wrong never the less. They underestimated the response of capital to anything remotely resembling revolt of the proletariat.

Well, so far. Seeing as how his predicted revolution has not yet occurred, it's possible to argue that his predictions are not so much wrong as they as-yet-unfullfilled. I'm not going to aruge that point myself- I neither believe it strongly enough nor understand it well enough to attempt to do so- but it's certainly a position one could take.
[That's not a line of reasoning I'd necessarilly follow- I'm not a Marxist, if only out of ignorance- but there's a certain amount of logic to it. Perhaps Cheezy can elaborate?]

Nother Note: The italicised section was removed in a moment of oh-crap-that's-not-right-ness, which apparently happen somewhat overly frequently with me. Again, honesty demands it be replaced.

Never claimed that it was in anything else besides geopolitical terms.

A fair point, and, as I've mentioned above, my comment was kind of dumb. Put it down as an outburst of misplaced anti-nationalistic cynicism.

 

[Harshad]

Well, so far. Seeing as how his predicted revolution has not yet occurred, it's possible to argue that his predictions are not so much wrong as they as-yet-unfullfilled. That's not a line of reasoning I'd necessarilly follow- I'm not a Marxist, if only out of ignorance- but there's a certain amount of logic to it. Perhaps Cheezy can elaborate?


A fair point, and, as I've mentioned above, my comment was kind of dumb. Put it down as an outburst of misplaced anti-nationalistic cynicism.

At some point, you have to take a joke, the period during and after ww1 was the perfect time for such a revolution to happen and succeed. Revolutions did happen, and they only succeeded in relative backwaters. Yes, Marx very well might prove correct in regard to his prediction, that capitalism will be overthrown in the first world. Then again, the next President of the United States might be publicly atheist.