ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
Americans celebrate 1776, not 1781 or 1783, as the year of our independence.
And, just 'cause I love this wallpaper:
The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
Americans celebrate 1776, not 1781 or 1783, as the year of our independence.
And, just 'cause I love this wallpaper:
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
Nah, you should share it with the folks here. Educate us on the history of communism in Poland.
Natan35
Mayor of St. Natansburg
OK, I'm new to this thread, but if i remember right, Poland fought against the USSR, without getting captured (before WW2), but eventually became part of the soviet puppet states after it.
KevinLancaster
Prince
So when are you Reds going to have a proper revolution again? In another thread Cheezy and Traitorfish were discussing the problems of the communism of the Soviet Union and China and I suppose it was annoying to me to see these as apparently the only solid historical points of reference brought up again and again by everyone. I also realized that they were both in Scotland, and since Scotland is about to hold a referendum on independence (and because I am an idiot) I was wondering if a communist Scotland would be nice.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
The only folks who constantly bring up China and USSR as solid historical points of reference for a revolution anywhere but China or the USSR are people trying to debunk socialism as a "failure." Russia was the first Proletairan revolution and that went 74 years. Wouldn;t call that a failure. Those principles (and principals, apparently -- CP is #2 party in Russia) still exist. The Wright Brothers (and Charlie Tayler -- I am an Ohio native, can;t leave out Charlie Taylor) first powered flight was 12 seconds. Would you consider "flight" a failure, since those principles are still used in modern flight?
Likewise. China, the most populous nation to have a revolution (so far!) has had to deal wtih educating a billion-point-three people to socialist victory -- and that ain't easy when you're poor. So, they are bringing capital in and paying the price for it (with Capital comes capitalists) and have begun a long and arduous corrective course to bring the people back to socialism. It ain't easy, either.
I am an American "Revolutionary," that is, in the US, I actively work 24/7 without pay in organizing the elements necessary to commit a revolution in the USA (building organizations of workers, doctors, lawyers, and garnering support of professionals, students, small businesses, etc.) while my organizations (because one is never enough, unless you are the PLA, and that was not enough, either) have made connections with people "of like mind" all over the world. Some of those people are members of parties in power, some are not.
We ARE making the revolution -- it's a process, not an event.
When we in the US win, then I can start the criticism of the practices of parties in power. Until then, I get bizzay!
NB: I also use Cuba as an example. Look for some of my other posts on Cuba, they are an awesome example of a socialist nation building a communist society.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
When we get off our hippie butts, take showers, and get jobs
CFC needs a "Like" button!
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
When we get off our hippie butts, take showers, and get jobs
How's that job hunt going?
plarq
Crazy forever
Somehow the machine is not moving at all... Or you may claim other political movement's victory as a necessary step of your political movement's success. Not happening.
I would not call USSR's political "experiment" a failure per se, however, its legacy is quickly fading in the Russia Federation. The #2 CP is only an indication of Putin's success in preventing other more damaging political forces from rising on Russian political horizon. When Russian Communist Party was still a credible force last time, they failed to stop Yeltsin's 1993 coup, and from that time on, the communist party only resembles a relic of the past glory of a defunct great country.
Using your Wright brother's analogy, the CP of Russia is a WWII airplane, while Putin regime is the fighter jet.
The China part is even more paradoxical. For this part, you have to invoke the sects in communist (read Marxist-Leninist). My analogy here is Orthodox-Catholic-Protestant, or Sunni-Shiite rivalry. Here we have Stalin-Trotsky rivalry. The Chinese version here, is that PRC from 1949-1966 followed a Stalinist policy, while from 1966-1976 followed a Trotskyist and Syndicalist policy. After that even more paradoxes rise up: when it was socialist it was poor, when it is no longer poor it is no longer socialist. And somehow, somewhat, the People's Republic of Capitalist we have seen today, had all its political and social structural foundation back to its "real" socialist era (be it 1949-1966 or 1966-1976). Talking about political dialectic materialism!
And of course, the government that rules 1.3 billion people is no longer socialist (and the socialist government did not have 1.3 billion people). Please read William Hinton's "Fan Shen" and "Great Reversal" for comments from American communist and expatriate to PRC.
Cuba is fine, and check Chavez's Venezuela for a twist. However, by the same logic, I think Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a better place. (The rule of the day: economical success based on natural resource is usually a poor evidence of the advances of the system)
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,962
Aint no party like a Communist Party, 'cause a Communist Party don't stop.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
What machine?
If you are referring to the movement of which I am a part, then you have no basis to make that statement. My primary job is to coordinate training programs for our full and part-time organizers, and this is my busiest year, we have recruites three times the number of organizers in the first 3/4 of this year than all of last year.
On top of that, these organizations have acquired property and gained adherents from all sectors of the population, including the 1%. We are even at the UN, and the UN comes to us.
Progress is relative. As I stated in my post, we are accumulating the revolutionary elements. It is not enough, but no one else is as close.
NB: in regards to Russia. Stay tuned. All is not as it seems. Putin's jet plane is heading in the right direction. They know which side of history is correct, as evidenced by their willingness to divide themselves from the US and EU and cut deals with Cuba, China and South America.
As for China, I have read Fan Shen, and I am familiar with the history you present. I reserve my criticism as CPC is a party in power. I think even you can admit to that.
Better than fine. It is an island of ass-kicking Reds.
The only things the BRV and Saudi Arabia have in common is oil, and that neither is a socialist nation under a communist party.
After that, Saudi Arabia is a friggin' monarchy...
And Venezuela is diversifying its economy. They are trying to build 21st Century Socialism, and they are not doing such a bad job. But no "revolution" that came in by the vote stayed in power by the vote.
They will have to build a DOP.
Damn straight!
plarq
Crazy forever
The machine's barometer reading here is that communism is less relevant in US politics than it was before the McCarthyism Red Scare. I would rather hear a different story that communism, defined as Marxism-Leninism, have larger political assets and followers after those 60 years. I highly doubted that.
As I am also in a minority fringe group (Baha'i Faith), I could clearly see this "statistical fluctuation" both in membership numbers, and conceptual understanding of the facts. (I could call it "number induced radicalization", that when a political or religious group is sufficiently small, the central limit theorem does not apply, thus the ideas inside the group are more radically distributed, even comparing to other peers inside the group)
Basically, the smaller your groups are, the less relevance is statistical history of your size. Unless you break some threshold and becomes significant minority. The CPUSA had its better days following the Great Depression, and in WWII when US and Soviets were allied. The haydays were over, unfortunately, with the triumph of McCarthyism.
I regard the statistics of my faith group with a grain of salt. I hope you also keep that in mind for your group's statistics. Do not try to extrapolate for the trend.
For Russia: in global politics, the multilateral development against the US-centric political hegemony, is not necessarily socialism. With China and Russia, two major players, are definitely not socialist. The trend against US hegemony can hardly be assessed as a socialist or even communist trend. We're now in a debating circles. Something against US is not always socialism or communism, and the burden of proof of socialist trend, lies on the very nature of China and Russia leaderships. So far, Putin keeps CPR at bay, using Soviet Union only as nationalistic symbol rather than a socialist symbol; and China, for obvious reason, is not socialistic either.
For China: The reservation you have is the exact dilemma I observed through the rise and fall of "left opposition" in People's Republic of China. I read through "Chinese Utopia" website through its rise and fall, which harbored unorthodox view of contemporary Chinese Communist Party ideologies. The dilemma is the Party by keeping "Communist" in its name greatly deprived left opposition of its ideological weapon of criticism. Basically, it is so hard to call a crusade against the Pope!
In these "left opposition" reviews, we could always trace a cliche. As the policies carried out are obviously capitalistic, however, the Party leadership will, magically, not condone the deviation of socialist roads, that it must be a conspiracy among a smaller cabal inside the Party who are "capitalist roaders". It is criticism of the Party's policies, but it doesn't dare to raise the flag of Maoism against the Party. Not only because of its political persecution consequences, but also the unwillingness for the left opposition to admit that the Party have indeed abandoned M-L. Nonetheless, the website was still shut down by Chinese government following the downfall of Bo Xilai, who was viewed as savior of the Party by the left oppositions. Oh man, the shattered dream!
Basically, there're four de jure commies: China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, only Cuba is also de facto; North Korea is de facto, but not de jure (de jure ideology is Juche replacing M-L in the 90s). How could this situation inspire any commie sympathizer thinking they're triumphing?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Successful, actually. Guess I'd better take a shower then.
Just because it isn't moving things doesn't mean it isn't running. The dissolution of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, the retreats in China and Vietnam, and the rotation into full-on Songun have placed the radical left in a crisis over the past 20 years. Despite rare victories, as in Nepal, Venezuela, and Bolivia, we have struggled to reorganize and assert ourselves.
But that does not mean that nothing is happening. After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, republicanism seemed defeated. The only republic in Europe had its monarchy restored, and for thirty years the republicans were in chaos. Not even the 1848 revolutions properly set it on track again. Yet today we consider its success a foregone conclusion, and almost forget that such a huge hiccup between 1799 and 1848 (1871?) even happened.
So I have not lost hope that "history is at an end," regardless of the lecturing anticommunists love to give out.
First, you give Trotskyism faaaaar too much credit. They haven't been relevant anywhere since the 1930s (although Chavez insisted that he was a Trot, I do not consider the Bolivarian project to be a Trotskyist one - if it is, it's definitely old-school Trotskyism and not 4th Internationalism).
Second, there is far far more to communism than simply worshiping the idols and crying at the graves of the USSR and Maoist-era PRC. People who waste their time with that are treading water; they're communist fanbois, not people honestly interested in a revolutionary movement against capitalism today. The conversation today is critical of both regimes as well as the schools of thought which led to them. But do not mistake criticism for wholesale rejection; there are lessons to be learned, both good and bad, and I promise you we are learning them. The crisis of the radical left since 1991 has been in some cases severe, but it has also created huge opportunities for trying new ideas, and has liberated us from the rigidity of emulating "actually existing socialism" simply because it exists and is what's working at the moment.
The wheel never stops turning, Badger. And that matters to everyone on board, not just those on the rim.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
@plarq: just so ya know, IRL, I never use "communism" or "socialism" to describe what I am doing to participants in organizations that we build that are open to the general public. So, just because you don't see a lot of red flags in America, don't mean nothing.
That fact that de facto and de jure CPs in and out of power know and cooperate with us is a good litmus test for me.
But my daily study and practice are more than enough to see the correctness in what I do. I am 46 and have not earned a wage or salary in 22 years. An organization that can sustain its cadre indefinitely through its public contact is unprecedented in the US.
You'll see those red flags soon enough.
RE: Russia: I never said Russia is socialist. The world is not black and white. I am saying they know what direction history is moving -- just like the millionaires who support us. It doesn't make them socialists.
RE: China: I have no interest in discussing dissention in internal CPC party politics in public. Why do the enemy's work?
I did take a ceremonious piss on I Wei-wei's art exhibit at The Brooklyn Museum. Best night in jail of my life.*
That fact that de facto and de jure CPs in and out of power know and cooperate with us is a good litmus test for me.
But my daily study and practice are more than enough to see the correctness in what I do. I am 46 and have not earned a wage or salary in 22 years. An organization that can sustain its cadre indefinitely through its public contact is unprecedented in the US.
You'll see those red flags soon enough.
RE: Russia: I never said Russia is socialist. The world is not black and white. I am saying they know what direction history is moving -- just like the millionaires who support us. It doesn't make them socialists.
RE: China: I have no interest in discussing dissention in internal CPC party politics in public. Why do the enemy's work?
I did take a ceremonious piss on I Wei-wei's art exhibit at The Brooklyn Museum. Best night in jail of my life.*
Spoiler :
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,962
And, you will hasten to add, have not lived off the public dole, or inherited wealth, or from begging, or criminal activity.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
Absolutely, thank you.
It is not hard for people to support full-time volunteers, if they see the necessity. It has its American history dating to the 19th Century labor movement.
We are totally connected to the people, and could not survive without them.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Even if he had, this is neither a crime nor a sin, nor does inheriting wealth preclude one from revolutionary activity. Grigory Chicherin, an Old Bolshevik who went on to become the Soviet foreign minister for 12 years, inherited a vast sum of wealth in his youth. He used it all to fund revolutionary activities.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,962
Deriving his livelihood from any of the sources I mentioned would weaken his boast that he'd not earned a salary or a wage in 22 years. Neither has Donald Trump, for instance, and I dare say you don't admire that in him.
But RT confirms that people have paid him for his volunteerism.
The laborer is worth his, er, wages. We'll have to revise that one a little.
But RT confirms that people have paid him for his volunteerism.
The laborer is worth his, er, wages. We'll have to revise that one a little.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
Question for hardcore communists here: Why opt for communism instead of a socialist model with heavy amount of wealth distribution? Why equalize the compensation of competent and incompetent individuals?
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
1. No one has ever paid me to volunteer. I get donated housing, clothes and food. I don't go shopping, and money we raise from supporters goes directly into maintaining the program -- paying for things we don't get donated (car insurance, utilities, etc). My family pays for trips to visit them.
2. I come from two old money Southern families on my Mom's side -- and, like all old money, tied to land we don't have, and all but gone. But that does not disqualify me from revolutionary credentials at all. The poor will always be on the side of our movement, but it takes some real organizing to get a Type A spoiled rich brat like me to throw his life, his fortune and his sacred honor in with the revolution, and that's what I do.
1. Because most of those socialist models rely on a bribed sector of the workforce at home, and an exploited workforce abroad. They are not run by workers.
2. Because the wealthy can't survive without ruthless exploitation, and as long as there are classes, somebody has to wield state power. A socialist system run by a proletarian goverment will enact policies that will redistribute wealth, but based on the principle "if you work, you eat" (i.e., your accumulation of consumer commodities is based on your labor output. Those unable to work, of course, will be taken care of.)
3. I don't "opt" for Communism, Communism is the stage of human social development that follows after socialism, where class distinctions disappear and the socialist state withers away.
Thank you for the question.
