Successful Communism

[luiz]

That doesn't make him a "model Marxist" simply because people sang in praise of him. At any rate, his Trotskyist program is evidence enough of his Marxist deviation.

Yeah but virtually all Marxist theorists back then claimed he was following Marxism strictly. Very few people would dare suggest that he was deviating; anyone who did would get kicked out of the many Communist Parties worldwide.

It seems a rather foreign idea to you to that people praised Stalin for defending socialism where all else had failed (meaning the Hungarian SSR and failed European revolutions), not because he was the vision of Marx's wet dreams.

The problem of course is that Stalin did so many evil things that if that is what it took to defend Socialism, than it was not worth defending. Millions killed, mass starvation, slave labor, deportations... I don't see that as praiseworthy.

And by orthodox Marxists around the world.

Like who?
As I said, the very few who did dare to call Stalin a deviant got ostracized by mainstream communists. You know that as well as I do.

It would be strange for the Trotskyists to denounce Stalin for being a Marxist deviant, as theirs was the source of much of that deviancy. Surely you mean a socialist deviant, as they condemned his "irresponsible despotism of the bureaucracy over the people," to borrow the horse's words himself.
I know that Stalinism and Trotskyism are essentially the same, but that never stopped Trotsky from claiming, among other things, that Stalin never understood Marx.

That Stalin's and Trotsky's ideas were so similar was because the latter stole the former's economic program after destroying his name and reputation. Stalin had no program before he got rid of Trotsky, Bukharin, and the others (I mention them because they are the primary sources of most of it). The only parts of his program unique to himself were those carried out by Yezhov and Beria. And they are the defining characteristics of Stalinism. That is why we denounce it so.

I know all of that, and I also know that if Trotsky was in charge we'd have someone very much like Beria as well. Trotsky and Stalin are equivalents.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Communism is still young

Democracy has been around sense Ancient Greece and in history is and 50ist yuor old man but communism is a new form of Gavermant born just over 100 years ago its still young 3 year old and like a 3 year old will try to stange try new thing Democry has a over 1000 year

Well, the Founding Father's of the US HATED and HAD CONTEMPT FOR democracy. Democracy inevitably leads to totalitarian government like Communism.

And that's the problem with America today. If you want to believe in Communism, that is fine, but even if you or almost everyone in America wants it, according to the Rule of Law, Constitutional Republic, you don't get it. Capitalism lives

And, Communism fell, Capitalism lived

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah but virtually all Marxist theorists back then claimed he was following Marxism strictly. Very few people would dare suggest that he was deviating; anyone who did would get kicked out of the many Communist Parties worldwide.

Actually, Trotsky thought he was thinking in the spirit of Marx, but was well aware, as was Lenin, that they were entering uncharted territory by even suggesting that the proletarian revolution could or should proceed in Russia at that time.

The problem of course is that Stalin did so many evil things that if that is what it took to defend Socialism, than it was not worth defending. Millions killed, mass starvation, slave labor, deportations... I don't see that as praiseworthy.

I am not of the belief that everything Stalin did was for the betterment of socialism, and that only he could have performed that colossal job. But some are. Nonetheless, he was the person who did it, which I regard as a good thing, even though he also did so many bad things. But I also realize that he and others were faced with tough decisions. The trouble is that the tough but necessary decisions so often become conflated with the tough but unnecessary decisions into the singular monolith of Correct Stalinist Necessity.

Like who?
As I said, the very few who did dare to call Stalin a deviant got ostracized by mainstream communists. You know that as well as I do.

I dare say most European Marxists. Mandel, Kautsky, Lukacs, Marcuse, Korsch (though I would not call him an orthodox Marxist either), among others. The Franfurtists are especially famous for being critical of the USSR from a non-Trotskyist viewpoint.

I know that Stalinism and Trotskyism are essentially the same, but that never stopped Trotsky from claiming, among other things, that Stalin never understood Marx.

I don't think Stalin did understand Marx as well as Trotsky did.

You might be fond of The Revolution Betrayed.

I know all of that, and I also know that if Trotsky was in charge we'd have someone very much like Beria as well. Trotsky and Stalin are equivalents.

I don't think so. But all that is the realm of hypotheticals anyway.

 

[Jabarto]

Well, the Founding Father's of the US HATED and HAD CONTEMPT FOR democracy. Democracy inevitably leads to totalitarian government like Communism.

You know what else the founding fathers hated? Capitalism.

 

[_random_]

Well, the Founding Father's of the US HATED and HAD CONTEMPT FOR democracy. Democracy inevitably leads to totalitarian government like Communism.

And that's the problem with America today. If you want to believe in Communism, that is fine, but even if you or almost everyone in America wants it, according to the Rule of Law, Constitutional Republic, you don't get it. Capitalism lives

And, Communism fell, Capitalism lived

Face, meet palm.

 

[Yeekim]

Face, meet palm.

Indeed.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Face, meet palm.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You know what else the founding fathers hated? Capitalism.

Jefferson- Society falls when you take from those who do work and give to those who don't.

What are you? Socialist? Communist? Both? Neither? What?

Any way, you obviously don't like capitalism. You and Karalysia would get along

 

[spryllino]

Do you worship God or the founding fathers?

What sort of divine portent would you need to convince you that you were wrong and the other tens of millions of sensible Americans were right? Democracy is there so that you don't need a divine portent to tell you what the just view is.

Quoting people, as you just quoted Jefferson, is no substitute whatever to reasoned argument.

 

[Jabarto]

Jefferson- Society falls when you take from those who do work and give to those who don't.

It's really funny that you mention Jefferson because he is the person I was thinking of when I said that. Seriously, look up his opinions on patents.

What are you? Socialist? Communist? Both? Neither? What?

Democratic Socialist to be precise.

Any way, you obviously don't like capitalism. You and Karalysia would get along

Ya don't say.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you worship God or the founding fathers?

What sort of divine portent would you need to convince you that you were wrong and the other tens of millions of sensible Americans were right? Democracy is there so that you don't need a divine portent to tell you what the just view is.

Quoting people, as you just quoted Jefferson, is no substitute whatever to reasoned argument.

God first of all. Second of all, 10's of millions? You refer to...?

It's really funny that you mention Jefferson because he is the person I was thinking of when I said that. Seriously, look up his opinions on patents.



Democratic Socialist to be precise.



Ya don't say.

Define democratic socialist please.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Jefferson- Society falls when you take from those who do work and give to those who don't.

Its ironic that you would choose this quote to defend capitalism, when it is something that a socialist would say. Capitalism delivers wealth created by hard-working people to the capitalists, who themselves perform no labor in the process, or very little.

Socialism, on the other hand, promises equal reward for equal work. No work, no benefits from the products of that work. Obvious omissions aside, like the young, elderly, and disabled.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Its ironic that you would choose this quote to defend capitalism, when it is something that a socialist would say. Capitalism delivers wealth created by hard-working people to the capitalists, who themselves perform no labor in the process, or very little.

Socialism, on the other hand, promises equal reward for equal work. No work, no benefits from the products of that work. Obvious omissions aside, like the young, elderly, and disabled.

No, any redistribution scheme makes the rich richer, in socialism/communism its the state, who handles the redistribution and takes a huge cut.

That aside, the capitalist way says that if someone is smart enough to set up a profitable business, he should reward from it. Capitalism is sweet Equal opportunity, not equal result.

 

[Jabarto]

God first of all. Second of all, 10's of millions? You refer to...?



Define democratic socialist please.

From page 1 of this very thread - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9157650&postcount=18

 

[spryllino]

God first of all. Second of all, 10's of millions? You refer to...?

The tens of millions are all those people, mostly in the north of the country, who might vote for a party that might want to change the USA so that it no longer follows capitalism so avidly. Those tens of millions are the people whose views seem irrelevant to you if they go against the constitution.

My point with God was this: if it became obvious to you that, although this may be against your own interests, God was at odds with the Founding Fathers, would you thereupon find fault with the Founding Fathers? Do the Founding Fathers' views, the views of a load of pompous 18th century aristocrats, deserve to outweigh the voice of millions of modern-day Americans? Whose opinion outweighs theirs? What about when they were at odds with each other? How much does it take to outweigh the opinion of one Founding Father? If you, personally, disagreed with the Founding Fathers, would that make you wrong even if there was no apparent logic to what the Founding Fathers' argument in that case?

Your perspective is outrageous and somewhat élitist. But if you must have an élite selection of politicians or aristocrats as role models, why the Founding Fathers? Yes, they helped decide the terms on which the USA would become a nation, but maybe they could have done it better. Maybe someone else would have done it better. No-one can know how they could have done it better, but there is no reason to think not.

There are therefore, intrinsically, as with any nation, flaws in America's constitution that must be addressed by future generations. Equally, the world changes, and so America must adapt, just like Rome, which the Founding Fathers were consciously emulating. The Founding Fathers recognised that they might be wrong or the world might change, and so they allowed amendments to the constitution, and instated a Congress to make laws as they saw fit, and brought in Democracy, so that the people could choose the Congress.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, any redistribution scheme makes the rich richer, in socialism/communism its the state, who handles the redistribution and takes a huge cut.

You seem to think that "redistribution" means everyone in the country puts into a giant bowl, and then the state gives out the money itself. This is a huge strawman.

You also seem to think that this redistribution is akin to the peasants storming the lord's manor house and divvying up his gold stash, emptying a huge Scrooge McDuck-like vault. This is also untrue.

Redistribution means, first and foremost, of future incomes, by means of the equalization of wages within companies, or trends in that direction. Secondly, it refers to land, but this more so in more agrarian societies. The former is effected by the state only in the most general sense; ultimately, it is up to the workers of the businesses themselves to decide how profits are divided. The latter is simply not an issue in the United States, except maybe with some of the ultra-rich's myriad mansions and other wasteful opulence. Like mansions for their doggies.

That aside, the capitalist way says that if someone is smart enough to set up a profitable business, he should reward from it.

Socialists think no differently. The problem is that capitalists don't merely think that he should be rewarded, but rather that he should be rewarded to the detriment of other people. It is from there that the injustice springs.

 

[_random_]

Equal opportunity, not equal result.

Then shouldn't we at least try to establish equal opportunity within a capitalist framework?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The tens of millions are all those people, mostly in the north of the country, who might vote for a party that might want to change the USA so that it no longer follows capitalism so avidly. Those tens of millions are the people whose views seem irrelevant to you if they go against the constitution.

My point with God was this: if it became obvious to you that, although this may be against your own interests, God was at odds with the Founding Fathers, would you thereupon find fault with the Founding Fathers? Do the Founding Fathers' views, the views of a load of pompous 18th century aristocrats, deserve to outweigh the voice of millions of modern-day Americans? Whose opinion outweighs theirs? What about when they were at odds with each other? How much does it take to outweigh the opinion of one Founding Father? If you, personally, disagreed with the Founding Fathers, would that make you wrong even if there was no apparent logic to what the Founding Fathers' argument in that case?

Your perspective is outrageous and somewhat élitist. But if you must have an élite selection of politicians or aristocrats as role models, why the Founding Fathers? Yes, they helped decide the terms on which the USA would become a nation, but maybe they could have done it better. Maybe someone else would have done it better. No-one can know how they could have done it better, but there is no reason to think not.

There are therefore, intrinsically, as with any nation, flaws in America's constitution that must be addressed by future generations. Equally, the world changes, and so America must adapt, just like Rome, which the Founding Fathers were consciously emulating. The Founding Fathers recognised that they might be wrong or the world might change, and so they allowed amendments to the constitution, and instated a Congress to make laws as they saw fit, and brought in Democracy, so that the people could choose the Congress.

God was not at odds with the Founding Fathers in any way.

Now, in their Christian walks, they weren't always great. Thomas Jefferson took bits and pieces out of the Bible. But, to an extent, religion and politics are separate. However, they cannot be completely separated either, like the atheists want. In fact, atheism is also a religion, requiring one to believe, through no scientific process, the world was made with no God.

 

[aelf]

While all this talk is happening, a great breakthrough has been made:

Now who wouldn't want that?

I declare great success.

 

[spryllino]

Have you never heard of weak atheism, the belief that one, in the absense of proof, would be more logical to assume that God did not exist?

What about all those other points I made? Do you tacitly acknowledge their validity? I took a good 20 minutes to write all that, you know.

How do you know that God and the Founding Fathers were never at odds? Prove it.