Communism: Theory and Practice

[carniflex]

The main thing, though, is that my question really hasn't been addressed. My thesis is that Marxism leads inexorably to the kind of atrocities that occured in the 20th century and continue to occur today. No one has addressed this argument.

I did. (ten char)

2. Marxism itself considered as an ideology does not exist as there are contradictions in Marx' writings. Therefore, it does not mean a lot to say that marxism causes this or that without saying what causes what precisely.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Here's a pro-democracy citation from Lenin:
"Ce serait une erreur capitale de croire que la lutte pour la démocratie est susceptible de détourner le prolétariat de la révolution socialiste ou d’éclipser celle-ci, de l’estomper, etc. Au contraire, de même qu’il est impossible de concevoir un socialisme victorieux qui ne réal:iserait pas la démocratie intégrale, de même le prolétariat ne peut se préparer à la victoire sur la bourgeoisie s’il ne mène pas une lutte générale, systématique et révolutionnaire pour la démocratie", Lénine, La révolution socialiste et le droit des nations à disposer d’elles-mêmes, 1916

I would give many thanks to the CFC-user who would give the good translation in English that I cannot do.

I hope this is satisfactory :
"It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure, or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy, so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy."

This citation, as Marx'one, cannot be understood unless you've understood that there are two "definitions" for democracy:

1. the rightist one, that defines democracy as a representative governement, where the power of the people is mainly restricted to (s)elect what party will rule the country for some years, instead of the people itself. This definition fits with current "western democracies"

2. the leftist one, that is also the etymological one, that defines democracy as the direct and permanent exercice of the power by the people and in the interest of the people. This definition is in contraction with the "exclusive political sway of the bourgeoisie" (Marx). This definition is the one Marx and Lenin refer to.

Excellent point.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Once again, what I actually said is that fascism was a type of capitalism.

Okay, so Stalinism, Pol-Potism, and Maoism are all just "types" of communism.

But in a possibly vain attempt to steer this thread somewhere constructive:

Do any of the more pro-communist posters have any concrete suggestions of particular steps to implement reforms? How would particular aspects of the economic system work? I believe that was more the spirit of the thread. I probably won't agree with you, but this isn't a troll, I would like your sincere thoughts on implementation. Not "destroy the bourgiouse", but rather how specifically do you plan on dissolving the bourgiouse as a class?

 

[colontos]

Once again, what I actually said is that fascism was a type of capitalism.

I know. And... THAT. IS. WRONG. For reasons that I have cited again and again and again and which you have ignored, as they don't suit your purpose.

The bourgeoisie as a class does just disappear the day after the revolution.

No. That's a total joke. Even if the bourgeoisie immediately lose control of the means of production, those individual people are still considered bourgeoisie by the government. Cf. criminal trials in the early Soviet Union for a good example of this phenomenon.

2. Marxism itself considered as an ideology does not exist as there are contradictions in Marx' writings. Therefore, it does not mean a lot to say that marxism causes this or that without saying what causes what precisely.

You did not answer my question. You played word games and quibbled over semantics. I have discussed Marx's philosophy in detail, and your reply is "There's no such thing as Marxism." Real smart. Even if I grant you that point (and I don't), we can still talk about Marxism as it has been espoused and practiced. But if you did that, you would lose the argument. So you don't.

Now then, let's thank Sobieski for some common sense. I would add to his question: if you believe that communism was corrupted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc., how specifically was it corrupted? And how could this be avoided if communism were tried again?

 

[carniflex]

@Luceafarul:
Thanks for your support and translation.

***

Okay, so Stalinism, Pol-Potism, and Maoism are all just "types" of communism.

None of those are types of communism.
Communism is a classless and stateless society.

But in a possibly vain attempt to steer this thread somewhere constructive:

Do any of the more pro-communist posters have any concrete suggestions of particular steps to implement reforms? How would particular aspects of the economic system work? I believe that was more the spirit of the thread. I probably won't agree with you, but this isn't a troll, I would like your sincere thoughts on implementation. Not "destroy the bourgiouse", but rather how specifically do you plan on dissolving the bourgiouse as a class?

This subject is worth another thread.

 

[Commodore]

But in a possibly vain attempt to steer this thread somewhere constructive:

Do any of the more pro-communist posters have any concrete suggestions of particular steps to implement reforms? How would particular aspects of the economic system work? I believe that was more the spirit of the thread. I probably won't agree with you, but this isn't a troll, I would like your sincere thoughts on implementation. Not "destroy the bourgiouse", but rather how specifically do you plan on dissolving the bourgiouse as a class?

Actually, for the past three or four years, I have been working on my own political theory for the practical implementation of Communism. I like to call it Progressive Socialism (don't know if anyone has used that name before, but it's the best I could think of). It's still pretty incomplete and has lots of holes that need to be filled; but I could gather up the info and post it if you really want to see it.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Okay, so Stalinism, Pol-Potism, and Maoism are all just "types" of communism.

How many times do this have to be explained?
None of those are, as should be clear by repeated definitions of communism both in this thread and elsewhere..

But in a possibly vain attempt to steer this thread somewhere constructive:

Do any of the more pro-communist posters have any concrete suggestions of particular steps to implement reforms? How would particular aspects of the economic system work? I believe that was more the spirit of the thread. I probably won't agree with you, but this isn't a troll, I would like your sincere thoughts on implementation. Not "destroy the bourgiouse", but rather how specifically do you plan on dissolving the bourgiouse as a class?

If you want me to elaborate on that, I propose you start a new thread.
Alternatively, the FAQ in my sig contains a lot about it, but is unfortunately quite extensive reading.