The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Lexicus]

A. You mean the founding fathers had a mandate from the majority of colonists? I think NOT. Source?

No, I mean the founding fathers were not trying to overthrow a class system and have the government be taken over by another class, as reading what they thought of the revolution would make clear.

B. Social democracy hasn't alleviated anything. Maybe in the Eurozone, but at the expense of the developing world. Not so obvious. So, strike two.

See, this is what I mean. Obviously it has.

I save 9 lives a year just being here. That does not include the years I've added to people's lives organizing doctors and distributing fppd.


Plus, Agenda for Sustainable Development -- which we are promotinh.

What are YOU doing to make the wprld a better place?

I can't match you, but I do research for a labor union, so I help them maintain workers with good working conditions and higher wages. Without the union, its members would clearly be worse off - and so you're clearly wrong that social democracy has never 'alleviated anything.' Indeed, even today you can compare the death and accident rates of nonunionized workers with union workers and see which is greater. You can compare what happens in places where regulations are not followed, with what happens in places where they are and see which is better.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If those famines, such as one in 1770, are to be taken as some sort of critique about the immorality of British rule in India then why isn't the famine of 1933 taken as a similar critique of Soviet economic planning. A natural famine caused by the inherent problems in pre-industrial agriculture is exacerbated by the decisions made by those in charge. Not that the British were any worse than the Mughals as rulers - the peasants still starved during famines until the Green Revolution introduced modern agriculture.

Because the British caused those famines. The Soviets didn't cause the 1932-3 famine. Not really a hard question.

I'm still trying to figure out how you can be so blasé about Stalin's icepicking of Trotsky. I legitimately don't see how icepicking someone you drove into exile over political differences is in any way a valid response to their criticisms, however baseless said criticisms may be.

Trotsky was ejected by the Party, not by Stalin, for breaking rules the Party made, and which he supported the creation of. He was assassinated by the NKVD, not by Stalin, and only after a decade of agitation against and betrayal of the Soviet Union to its enemies (nobody cared to execute him in Kazakhstan, or assassinate him while he lived in Turkey, now did they?). Also Stalin didn't singularly run the USSR, The USSR and the 170-odd-million people in it didn't, exist and function according to Stalin's whim and will, and not everything that happened concerning the USSR while he was alive is his fault or his doing. To be quite honest you engage in a far larger "cult of personality" toward him when you make such attributions than you would probably ever accuse me of doing.

Stalin's just not that important as an individual. Nobody is. Too bad that lesson missed your College Marxist phase.

 

[Ajidica]

Because the British caused those famines. The Soviets didn't cause the 1932-3 famine. Not really a hard question.

Let's look at the Wikipedia articles you linked to.

A partial shortfall in crops, considered nothing out of the ordinary, occurred in 1768 and was followed in late 1769 by more severe conditions. By September 1769 there was a severe drought, and alarming reports were coming in of rural distress.
...
Later in 1770 good rainfall resulted in a good harvest and the famine abated. However, other shortfalls occurred in the following years, raising the total death toll.

The Chalisa famine of 1783–84 in Southern India followed unusual El Niño events that began in 1780 and caused droughts throughout the region.

The Doji bara famine (also, Skull famine) of 1791-92 in South Asia was brought on by a major El Niño event lasting from 1789 CE to 1795 CE and producing prolonged droughts.
...
The resulting famine, which was severe, caused widespread mortality in Hyderabad, Southern Maratha Kingdom, Deccan, Gujarat, and Marwar (then all ruled by Indian rulers).[3] In regions like the Madras Presidency (governed by the East India Company), where the famine was less severe,[3] and where records were kept, half the population perished in some districts, such as in the Northern Circars.[4] In other areas, such as Bijapur, although no records were kept, both the famine and the year 1791 came to be known in folklore as the Doji bara (also Doĝi Bar) or the "skull famine," on account, it was said, of the "bones of the victims which lay unburied whitening the roads and the fields."

In part, the Great Famine may have been caused by an intense drought resulting in crop failure in the Deccan Plateau.[2] However, the commodification of grain, and the cultivation of alternate cash crops also may have played a role,[3] as could have the export of grain by the colonial government; during the famine the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight (320,000 ton) of wheat.

Excepting the Bengal Famine for which there were extenuating circumstances outside of British control (not that I'm excusing them in the slightest for it!) all of the famines you mentioned were caused due to weather which is a massive problem for all non-modernized agriculture in which the East India Company, Princely States, or the British Raj remained at best indifferent to the starvation.
Unless if Perfidious Albion managed to summon Merlin and control the Monsoons, I cannot see how you can honestly call the British (and presumably the Princely States) responsible for the Indian famines while absolving the Soviets of blame for the 1933 Famine.

Trotsky was ejected by the Party, not by Stalin, for breaking rules the Party made, and which he supported the creation of. He was assassinated by the NKVD, not by Stalin, and only after a decade of agitation against and betrayal of the Soviet Union to its enemies (nobody cared to execute him in Kazakhstan, or assassinate him while he lived in Turkey, now did they?). Also Stalin didn't singularly run the USSR, The USSR and the 170-odd-million people in it didn't, exist and function according to Stalin's whim and will, and not everything that happened concerning the USSR while he was alive is his fault or his doing. To be quite honest you engage in a far larger "cult of personality" toward him when you make such attributions than you would probably ever accuse me of doing.

Trotsky certainly considered Stalin responsible for his death.

According to James P. Cannon, the secretary of the Socialist Workers Party (USA), Trotsky's last words were "I will not survive this attack. Stalin has finally accomplished the task he attempted unsuccessfully before."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky#Assassination
But let's break it down. Who ordered the NKVD to assassinate Trotsky? In what moral universe is assassinating someone a proper response to criticism, however poorly founded?
If Kerensky had ordered Lenin assassinated because Lenin wasn't making valid critiques of the Provisional Government and was breaking the rules by setting up a parallel state issuing orders he had no legal authority to issue; you would be screaming that Kerensky was a fascist who strangled communism in its bed. Yet the assassination of Trotsky is okay when carried out under the auspices of Great Comrade Stalin?

 

[W|M]

tbh killing Lenin at that point would have been good for communism, the USSR set back workers' struggles throughout the world for nearly a century

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Excepting the Bengal Famine for which there were extenuating circumstances outside of British control (not that I'm excusing them in the slightest for it!) all of the famines you mentioned were caused due to weather which is a massive problem for all non-modernized agriculture in which the East India Company, Princely States, or the British Raj remained at best indifferent to the starvation.
Unless if Perfidious Albion managed to summon Merlin and control the Monsoons, I cannot see how you can honestly call the British (and presumably the Princely States) responsible for the Indian famines while absolving the Soviets of blame for the 1933 Famine.

As I said previously, Britain destroyed the subcontinent's ability to feed itself. Did you miss the part where they were growing opium to sell to China to forward imperial ambitions there? Or how the village system was destroyed and the paid-in-kind distribution system introduced, forcing peasants to pay for grain with wages instead of the traditional exchange systems or communal supplies? Or how they literally exported food to Britain?

Trotsky certainly considered Stalin responsible for his death.

Who cares.

But let's break it down. Who ordered the NKVD to assassinate Trotsky? In what moral universe is assassinating someone a proper response to criticism, however poorly founded?

In what world is it possible for someone to so thoroughly ignore the other person's points, but still keep up the airs of holding a debate?

I've explained what the problem with Trotsky was. And since you have such powerful Googling skills, I'll leave it to you to fill in the gaps of just what exactly he did.

If Kerensky had ordered Lenin assassinated because Lenin wasn't making valid critiques of the Provisional Government and was breaking the rules by setting up a parallel state issuing orders he had no legal authority to issue; you would be screaming that Kerensky was a fascist who strangled communism in its bed. Yet the assassination of Trotsky is okay when carried out under the auspices of Great Comrade Stalin?

I laugh at the idea that these are comparable in the slightest. Git gud, kid.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Hoodwinking good natured people into thinking you are a "community organizer" looking after everyone's interests while straight up lying about your organizational aims isn't helping anyone. The martyr complex you have is just so over the top.

Join a real organization that helps people if that is truly your aim.

You are quick to judge. I am a member of a real organization that really helps people. This is trolling.

 

[Lexicus]

As I said previously, Britain destroyed the subcontinent's ability to feed itself

Sure, because as we know India had never experienced a famine due to failure of the monsoon before the British showed up

 

[ReindeerThistle]

.
I can't match you, but I do research for a labor union, so I help them maintain workers with good working conditions and higher wages. Without the union, its members would clearly be worse off - and so you're clearly wrong that social democracy has never 'alleviated anything.' Indeed, even today you can compare the death and accident rates of nonunionized workers with union workers and see which is greater. You can compare what happens in places where regulations are not followed, with what happens in places where they are and see which is better.

I am not asking anyone to match me. This is not contest. I was asking a legitimate question, and you answered. Thank you.

I appreciate the work of unions and labor organizations -- not only do I work with workers excluded from the benefits of NLRA, but I support every strike, labor action, boycott called by labor -- and that means resources, housing for touring organizers, walking picket lines, etc.

I am not saying people and organizations can't make a difference. I was contesting your allegation that Social Democracy has done a better job than Leninism of alleviating the problems. China -- avowedly marxist-leninist -- has lifted almost all of its poorest out of poverty, while the US simply re-calculated what poverty WAS. Cuba is a poor NATION, but what they have they distribute as equitably as they can. Two examples. I gave others of the problems of capitalism and its effects.

I participate in organizations that are not communist organizations (by definition -- because their aims are NOT socialism, and the vast majority of their members are not communists) because people need to live, need health care, housing NOW, not some pie-in-the-sky afterwards. Workers need MORE organization, not less.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sure, because as we know India had never experienced a famine due to failure of the monsoon before the British showed up

You people have the memory of goldfish. I covered this detail previously.

 

[Narz]

I asked you who you accept as entitled to criticise the Bolsheviks, and you called me a smug hypocrite. If you're going to demand that people come to this thread in a sincere spirit of education, you might want to consider leading by example.

Ahaha, just seeing the light now? I wouldn't hold your breath.

One thing CFC (and the internet in general) has helped me learn is that you learn alot more about the validity of people's beliefs just by seeing how they handle criticism. It works with politicians too. It saves alot of time reading thru alot of nonsense too.

 

[Narz]

Stalin's just not that important as an individual. Nobody is. Too bad that lesson missed your College Marxist phase.

Do you really believe that? I mean I know you believe a lot of stupid crap but that's extreme even for you.

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Agent327]

But let's break it down. Who ordered the NKVD to assassinate Trotsky? In what moral universe is assassinating someone a proper response to criticism, however poorly founded?
If Kerensky had ordered Lenin assassinated because Lenin wasn't making valid critiques of the Provisional Government and was breaking the rules by setting up a parallel state issuing orders he had no legal authority to issue; you would be screaming that Kerensky was a fascist who strangled communism in its bed. Yet the assassination of Trotsky is okay when carried out under the auspices of Great Comrade Stalin?

It's pointless to argue with someone who will accept no criticism on Communism except by Communists. To such people, facts don't matter, doctrine is everything. And if reality doesn't comply with doctrine, obviously reality is wrong. And morality is irrelevant.

Moderator Action: If you think posting here is pointless, then don't post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lexicus]

I am not saying people and organizations can't make a difference. I was contesting your allegation that Social Democracy has done a better job than Leninism of alleviating the problems. China -- avowedly marxist-leninist -- has lifted almost all of its poorest out of poverty, while the US simply re-calculated what poverty WAS. Cuba is a poor NATION, but what they have they distribute as equitably as they can. Two examples. I gave others of the problems of capitalism and its effects.

I know about Cuba - I admire some things about Castro's regime, while greatly disliking lots of other things. But that isn't really the point - the point is, social democracy is better. And while you may claim that the West only enjoys a higher standard of living than elsewhere due to imperialism, while there is some truth to that it's also somewhat undermined by the fact that, as you point out, the rest of the world is also seeing vast improvements in living standards. While China is "avowedly Marxist-Leninist" the thrust of their development at least since the late '70s has been market-driven, with an eye toward attracting foreign direct investment.
Not exactly a Leninist development strategy, at least as far as I understand Leninism.

I participate in organizations that are not communist organizations (by definition -- because their aims are NOT socialism, and the vast majority of their members are not communists) because people need to live, need health care, housing NOW, not some pie-in-the-sky afterwards. Workers need MORE organization, not less.

Well, here we're in perfect agreement. The basic problem with the Leninist approach, as I see it, is that it basically says the intellectuals have to decide what the working class' interests and needs are, rather than trusting the working class to work these things out for itself (because, you know, if they don't become revolutionary communists then they've just been brainwashed by Ideological State Apparatuses).

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: Several infractions handed out for trolling. There is an RD on this thread and it applies to both sides - you are expected to debate without insulting each other. Frankly, this should not be much to ask.

I have also issued several warnings for posts which were needlessly snide, hostile or provocative. From now on, similar posts will be infracted. I can see that there are several people enjoying this thread, and am trying to keep it open, but I cannot justify doing that if the present level of aggression, trolling and flaming persists. Everybody needs to make an effort to redress that if they want to keep the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I know about Cuba - I admire some things about Castro's regime, while greatly disliking lots of other things. But that isn't really the point - the point is, social democracy is better. And while you may claim that the West only enjoys a higher standard of living than elsewhere due to imperialism, while there is some truth to that it's also somewhat undermined by the fact that, as you point out, the rest of the world is also seeing vast improvements in living standards. While China is "avowedly Marxist-Leninist" the thrust of their development at least since the late '70s has been market-driven, with an eye toward attracting foreign direct investment.

1. China's improvements MAY be market driven, the decisions are made socially through the thousands of local, county, regional and provincial bodies, which are run by the Communist Party, in concert with 7 other national organizations, thousands of civil societies, et al. It is the most responsive socialist system outside of Cuba, imho.

The Chinese, and I and my like-minded colleagues know many at all levels of government, as well as civilians, know what entertaining capitalism brings. But, as you said, there are many economic modes in any nation, China's is predominantly socialist -- especially in resolving contradictions in favor of workers.

Not exactly a Leninist development strategy, at least as far as I understand Leninism.

Well, actually, it is. Lenin used what worked. Even a broken clay pot can be bound together for some limited use.

Well, here we're in perfect agreement. The basic problem with the Leninist approach, as I see it, is that it basically says the intellectuals have to decide what the working class' interests and needs are, rather than trusting the working class to work these things out for itself (because, you know, if they don't become revolutionary communists then they've just been brainwashed by Ideological State Apparatuses).

Well, I say that the working class knows what it needs as a result. Organizers simply provide the education, example and training.

I regret using the term "brainwash."

 

[red_elk]

Anyone is interested in Soviet cultural stuff, I'm occasionally posting here?
Vysotsky (whose song I posted in the previous page), for instance, was remarkable and immensely popular poet in the USSR

Just would like to know whether it's worth to continue.

 

[W|M]

the rest of the world is also seeing vast improvements in living standards. While China is "avowedly Marxist-Leninist" the thrust of their development at least since the late '70s has been market-driven, with an eye toward attracting foreign direct investment.

Not all of the world is seeing an improvement in living standards, and neoliberals are pushing back at every opportunity. China is a capitalist country and does not have good living conditions for its working class.

Not exactly a Leninist development strategy, at least as far as I understand Leninism.

Looks consistent with what Leninists do to me

Well, here we're in perfect agreement. The basic problem with the Leninist approach, as I see it, is that it basically says the intellectuals have to decide what the working class' interests and needs are, rather than trusting the working class to work these things out for itself (because, you know, if they don't become revolutionary communists then they've just been brainwashed by Ideological State Apparatuses).

Even Maoists have a thing about following the ''mass line'', Leninists just want intellectuals to patronizingly lead the working class. The cultural hegemony thing is real, though (Zizek has a great video on this); if you have a right-wing mass media constantly spouting a right-wing narrative, you're going to get a lot of right-wingers spouting right-wing narratives, in the same way that someone who grows up in the Catholic church will most likely be a Catholic later in life, or at least follow Catholic traditions.

 

[Lexicus]

1. China's improvements MAY be market driven, the decisions are made socially through the thousands of local, county, regional and provincial bodies, which are run by the Communist Party, in concert with 7 other national organizations, thousands of civil societies, et al. It is the most responsive socialist system outside of Cuba, imho.

So what? In the West, many decisions are also made socially. Like, we have central banks, economic regulation, labor standards, etc. That is all socialization of resources.

The Chinese, and I and my like-minded colleagues know many at all levels of government, as well as civilians, know what entertaining capitalism brings. But, as you said, there are many economic modes in any nation, China's is predominantly socialist -- especially in resolving contradictions in favor of workers.

I don't think that's true at all. China's entire economic model is based on the deferment of consumption to increase investment (and purchase armaments), just as the Soviets did. They are intentionally running an economy where the working class can't come close to consuming what it produces.
My whole point is that I think the countries with political freedom are far better at 'resolving contradictions in favor of workers' than authoritarian countries like Cuba or China. Despite the economic crisis in the West, its working class is still consuming far more economic output, both proportionally and absolutely, than China's working class.

Even Maoists have a thing about following the ''mass line'', Leninists just want intellectuals to patronizingly lead the working class. The cultural hegemony thing is real, though (Zizek has a great video on this); if you have a right-wing mass media constantly spouting a right-wing narrative, you're going to get a lot of right-wingers spouting right-wing narratives, in the same way that someone who grows up in the Catholic church will most likely be a Catholic later in life, or at least follow Catholic traditions.

Well, imo one of the major reasons the Communists won the civil war in China was that they actually created a broad-based, sustained organization of the peasantry.

I get cultural hegemony, I'm a fan of Gramsci. My issue is not with the concept as such but when it is conveniently presented as a reason why there is not mass support for Marxist-Leninist vanguardism. It's just too easy to say that you have to seize power by undemocratic means because the working class is all suffering from false consciousness. That leads to the subordination of the working class, not its liberation.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Lexicus: I disagree that central banks in the west are socially controlled. Also, labor regulations have been whithered away since 1947 and the advent of Taft-Hartley and the resulting "right to work" push. Texas a "right to work" state has one iron worker local that offers $18 an hour, while Wisconsin (now a right to work state thanks to Gov. White Walker) offered $33 an hour, plus $22 an hour in benefits.

I also deal with wage theft all the time. Also, temp workers doing formerly union work.

As for political freedom, I will argue that there is MORE in China and Cuba than the US. China may not have national elections, but the voices of the people are heard.

Cuba does have elections. 94% participate. It is the most democratic in this hemisphere.

The US, with only 56% of the electorate voting, means the president does not have a mandate. Plus, congress has a 9% approval rating.

Marxism-Leninism is not "popular," but it has to be credible. That is why I do material things and build organization.

 

[Narz]

More political freedom in China? Come on, we're trying to reduce the trolling but comments like that make it hard.