What ideal do you hate the most?

[Richard Cribb]

Regrettably, you are both dead wrong. Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism were logical outgrowths of Marxism. Marx's predictions in the manifesto did not play out. When he wrote the manifesto (1847) he predicted an imminent bourgeois capitalist revolution in Germany to be followed immediately or very quickly by the proletarian, or Communist revolution. This, obviously, did not happen. Lenin, in some ways frustrated by the inaccuracy of Marx's predictions, attempted to modify the theory of Marxism by "forcing" this to happen in Russia (following the bourgeois February Revolution with the Communist [but definitely not proletarian] October Revolution).

Regrettably, you don't seem to have read my posts either, but perhaps my signature would have given you a hint that I am not a Marxist and that I am one of those around here that is most opposed to Leninism, which for me has pretty little to do with the communist ideal.
I don't know if it is a rhetorical trick or and sincere lack of knowledge to attribute the idea of communism solely to authoritarian Marxism. Actually Bakunin pretty much predicted the development in the USSR, and similar critics later came from other anarchists and liberal Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, Rocker, Gorter and Pannenkoek who developed the anti-Leninist ideas in the thinking of Marx.
Regarding Marx, I have written my opinion about him something like ten times here. While I basically look upon him as a true revolutionary who can teach us a lot, there are also some authoritarian traits which is ominous. To go from there to suggest to regard Bolshevism as Marxism in praxis is not very convincing, though.

Lenin succeeded here, obviously, but maintained the theory that the only way for the Communist regime to survive was for a Communist revolution to occur in other European countries (esp. Germany and France) and so the resulting Communist countries would support each other. Lenin believed that this was both necessary and inevitable. It did not happen, however. Lenin, because of the preponderance of peasants in Russia, also toyed with the idea of the peasants playing a role in revolution, which Marx completely rejected.
He did not take this idea very far, though.

For all my disgust for Lenin, I grant it that he was no fool.
One of the problems, obviously, is that Marx would probably have rejected the whole Russian experiment. He was convinced that a socialist revolution could only succeed in a developed capitalist country.

Stalin, seeing the failure of Lenin's (and Trotsky's) predictions for imminent worldwide Communist revolution, developed the theory of "Socialism in One Country" which tied in with his Five-Year Plans, Collectivization (and by extension dekulakization) as a way to quickly industrialize Russia and create more efficient agriculture. Industrialization was a success, but the human cost was enormous.

As in the west, right?

Agricultural collectivization was a complete failure, causing millions of death through both famine and repression.

No doubt about that.

Systematized repression is also a logical outgrowth of Marxism. Marx, after all, posited the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and class warfare, and said that after a Communist revolution some repression would be necessary to prevent counter-revolution.

As far as I understand, Marx is only suggesting the obvious here. But there is a huge difference, which you don't mention. In Marx proposition there is no party elite which shall lead the ignorant workers. This idea of a coordinator class is a Leninistic concept which transform the dictatorship of the proletarians to the dictatorship over the proletarians. Please note carefully that I reject both concepts, since I don't believe in violent revolutions, but I still don't fail to see that there is a crucial difference.

Lenin developed this into the idea of "Red terror," advocating the practice of terrorizing the citizenry and eliminating people based on their class background. Stalin's purges were, of course, due in large part to his paranoia, but he was also carrying out Red terror and the elimination of class enemies begun by Lenin.

Keep in mind that also left-opposition was persecuted. Apart from that I have nothing further to add, please note again that I never defended Leninism, Stalinism or Maoism or Marxism itself for that matter, I supported the communist principle and I fail to see that you have falsified that claim of mine which you quoted.
You know what communism is, do you?

 

[colontos]

I don't know if it is a rhetorical trick or and sincere lack of knowledge to attribute the idea of communism solely to authoritarian Marxism. Actually Bakunin pretty much predicted the development in the USSR, and similar critics later came from other anarchists and liberal Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, Rocker, Gorter and Pannenkoek who developed the anti-Leninist ideas in the thinking of Marx.

I think I made it abundantly clear that I am referring to Communism as theorized by Marx and as practiced in various Communist regimes (which have all claimed to be Marxists). It's obvious that I was not discussing anarchism, "liberal" Marxism, etc.

Regarding Marx, I have written my opinion about him something like ten times here. While I basically look upon him as a true revolutionary who can teach us a lot, there are also some authoritarian traits which is ominous. To go from there to suggest to regard Bolshevism as Marxism in praxis is not very convincing, though.

If you could, explain why my argument is not convincing.

As in the west, right?

That's an ingenuous comparison. Bad working conditions do not compare to forced relocation and execution of millions.

As far as I understand, Marx is only suggesting the obvious here. But there is a huge difference, which you don't mention. In Marx proposition there is no party elite which shall lead the ignorant workers. This idea of a coordinator class is a Leninistic concept which transform the dictatorship of the proletarians to the dictatorship over the proletarians.

If you read the Manifesto carefully, you'll notice that Marx posits the need for Communists to organize the workers and lead them toward revolution. He clearly considers the Communists as a separate entity from the workers. He also notes the necessity of small portions of the bourgeoisie to help enlighten the workers. This is only natural, since he and Engels came from the bourgeois class themselves. Lenin's vanguard of the proletariat was not a new idea, he just made it clearer than Marx had.

You know what communism is, do you?

Hahaha, oh yes, my friend, I know what Communism is. What I don't know is what you think it is. If you are positing some Utopian or anarchist idea, good for you, but I'm talking about Marxism here. Marxist Communism, in a short sentence, means that the workers (at first, the workers' state, or the dictatorship of the proletariat) control the means of production, i.e. no capitalist class, no economic hierarchy. Do you know what Communism is?

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I agree that everything is good in theroy and gets corrupted once people become involved. This applies to everything including communism and capitalism. You cannot say that communism is 'worse' than capitalism because the 20th century (where everyone is basing their views) is not a controlled enviornment. Communist leaders were far more corrupt (to the point of marshall law and dictatorship) compared to the capitalist leaders of the West. Hence you cannot say which is better untill you get identical leaders in indentical situations to trial both. Scientific method and simple mathamatical laws of logic go a long way when questioning anything.

Think first - Abuse those who have a different opinion later.

 

[colontos]

I agree that everything is good in theroy and gets corrupted once people become involved. This applies to everything including communism and capitalism.

Everything is good in theory?! Fascism? Nazism? Come on now!

You cannot say that communism is 'worse' than capitalism because the 20th century (where everyone is basing their views) is not a controlled enviornment.

Yes. You can. Yes. You can. If communism can only work in a controlled environment, then IT CAN'T WORK.

Communist leaders were far more corrupt (to the point of marshall law and dictatorship) compared to the capitalist leaders of the West. Hence you cannot say which is better untill you get identical leaders in indentical situations to trial both.

Communist leaders will always be 'corrupt' in the way you are using the word. There will always be dictatorship. That what Marx said! He used the word 'dictatorship.' There is no friendly communism to be had! You will never get identical leaders, because the two systems promote different types of people. Specifically, Communism promotes sadists.

Scientific method and simple mathamatical laws of logic go a long way when questioning anything.

You know, in this case I am going to take your advice. Let's do some math. I'll go with low estimates.

Victims of the USSR: 60 million
Victims of Red China: 30 million
Victims of North Korea: 3 million
Victims of Communist Cambodia: 1.75 million (almost 33% of the population)
Add to these the lesser numbers from Cuba, Romania, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia 1968, Hungary 1956, Angola and a few others.

Number of decent, human-rights respecting, non-murdering Communist regimes in the history of the world: 0

 

[Richard Cribb]

I think I made it abundantly clear that I am referring to Communism as theorized by Marx and as practiced in various Communist regimes (which have all claimed to be Marxists). It's obvious that I was not discussing anarchism, "liberal" Marxism, etc.

In that case you should have made that clear.
I am aware that the ruling elites in those countries used the term communist as did those in the West. I think this was because of objective interests, and it certainly did damage Western socialism. But I see no reason why we should go on with those misperceptions today.

If you could, explain why my argument is not convincing.

I think I did already.

That's an ingenuous comparison. Bad working conditions do not compare to forced relocation and execution of millions.

That must be one of the understatements of the year.
It was not only "bad", but horrible conditions.The exact effects are difficult to measure, even if we are generous enough to leave the colonial system out of it.

If you read the Manifesto carefully, you'll notice that Marx posits the need for Communists to organize the workers and lead them toward revolution. He clearly considers the Communists as a separate entity from the workers. He also notes the necessity of small portions of the bourgeoisie to help enlighten the workers. This is only natural, since he and Engels came from the bourgeois class themselves. Lenin's vanguard of the proletariat was not a new idea, he just made it clearer than Marx had.

Ah, the Manifesto!
First of all, it is not the only thing Marx wrote, and hardly the most important one.
Secondly, those two ideas are very different. What Marx talks about is that those people shall help the workers to get their class consciousness and their education, not that they shall rule as an elite party after the revolution. The difference is quite substantial, as far as I can see.
Actually Marx is rather vague on those things, and if I remember correctly, he writes elsewhere that a peaceful transition to a socialist society should be possible. His prime project seems to have been to understand and critisize capitalism, something he did with mixed success.

Hahaha, oh yes, my friend, I know what Communism is. What I don't know is what you think it is. If you are positing some Utopian or anarchist idea, good for you, but I'm talking about Marxism here. Marxist Communism, in a short sentence, means that the workers (at first, the workers' state, or the dictatorship of the proletariat) control the means of production, i.e. no capitalist class, no economic hierarchy. Do you know what Communism is?

What do you think the thing in my sig means?
And, yes I do. It is a social system based on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", where classes, private property and the state is abolished.
Now you tell me: In those states you mention and call Marxist, were there no social and economic classes, no state and did the workers control the means of production?
And by the way, the stage with the workers state is not communist, but socialist.
EDIT: I just noticed this gem:

Number of decent, human-rights respecting, non-murdering Communist regimes in the history of the world: 0

You have to excuse me, but it is one of the most moronic statements I ever read, and it means that I will have to discontinue any further discussion with you in those topics, and put you on my ignore-list(why, oh why are there no ignorant-list?) for a while.
Capitalist countries (which I assume must be want you meant with this term rather than some hypothetical ones) have and had a very bloody history, and you have quite a lot of work to do to aquire some basic history knowledge. I will certainly not steal any of your precious time in further pointless discussions - I have better things to do.

 

[Eukaryote]

I went with Militarism because it leads to many deaths and costs too much, Theology is a close second because of all of their enslaving women and buring gays stuff, Nationalism is third because it makes you look like a stupid redneck.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

You seem to end the commentary with the gold statue. In a capitalism, someone is hired to make that gold statue, who makes a living, who buys food and goods, and those who make food and goods buy food and goods. The money doesn't end with the rich. It circulates, and that's the beauty of capitalism.

Yes, but the actual benefit of having a gold statue of yourself is far less than the benefit of people without food having more food. Just because it takes as much effort (and that's what money is) to buy a gold statue of yourself as it does to make truckloads of food doesn't mean the statue is just as good.

And no, money stays with the rich because anything they can spend it on would be pure wasteful, because they already have everything they need. Which is why Bill Gates gives to charity: he got no other use for the money.

Of course capitilism is seriously flawed that money controls your life, but their are worse things that can control your life... as the old joke goes: In america, money controls your life. In soviet russia, the party controls your life!

I went with Militarism because it leads to many deaths and costs too much, Theology is a close second because of all of their enslaving women and buring gays stuff, Nationalism is third because it makes you look like a stupid redneck.

the fact that facism isn't on the list scares me.

 

[machia]

I voted other meaning all of the above.

There should be multiple options. And racism should be on the list, IMO.

 

[colontos]

Ah, the Manifesto!
First of all, it is not the only thing Marx wrote, and hardly the most important one.
Secondly, those two ideas are very different. What Marx talks about is that those people shall help the workers to get their class consciousness and their education, not that they shall rule as an elite party after the revolution. The difference is quite substantial, as far as I can see.
Actually Marx is rather vague on those things, and if I remember correctly, he writes elsewhere that a peaceful transition to a socialist society should be possible. His prime project seems to have been to understand and critisize capitalism, something he did with mixed success.

But the vanguard of the proletariat, according to Marx, must lead the proletariat in the right direction not only before but after the revolution. Marx does posit a leadership role for them.

Now you tell me: In those states you mention and call Marxist, were there no social and economic classes, no state and did the workers control the means of production?
And by the way, the stage with the workers state is not communist, but socialist.

No, they were not classless or stateless. But as I mentioned before, they claimed to be classless and claimed to be working toward stateless. Again playing with definitions rather than saying something. My point is that attempts toward a classless or stateless society will always meet with the results that we saw in the 20th century. Argue with that, not with the definitions that I have spelled out a number of times.

You have to excuse me, but it is one of the most moronic statements I ever read, and it means that I will have to discontinue any further discussion with you in those topics, and put you on my ignore-list(why, oh why are there no ignorant-list?) for a while.
Capitalist countries (which I assume must be want you meant with this term rather than some hypothetical ones) have and had a very bloody history, and you have quite a lot of work to do to aquire some basic history knowledge. I will certainly not steal any of your precious time in further pointless discussions - I have better things to do.

Aww, isn't that cute? Did that one offend you too much? You are going to ignore me because of a 'moronic' statement that I notice you did not try to disprove. I did not say that capitalist societies are perfect. But give me ONE example of a non-mass murdering, repressive, unfree Communist society, and you will actually disprove me. Instead, you run away from a debate that you can't handle. Yes, put me on your ignore list, and maybe you'll be able to maintain the fragile ideology that occupies the space between your ears.

You have not disproved a single thing that I said. You have constantly wrangled over definitions, and when I make a statement of fact that bothers you, rather than disprove it, you run away. I think my point is proven.

 

[Perfection]

My top 10:
10. Nudism: put some damn clothes on!
9. Antidisestablishmentarianism: the church needs to get canned, and you need to stop using an obnoxiously long word.
8. Centrism: BOOOOOOOOOOORING!
7. Tetracameralism & Tricameralism: The world needs more politicians... ...MY BUTT!
6. Creationism: LOOK AT THE LINK IN MY SIG! LOOK AT THE LINK IN MY SIG! LOOK AT THE LINK IN MY SIG! LOOK AT THE LINK IN MY SIG!
5. Pointillism: They're freakin' dots! Who cares?
4. Absenteeism: go to work you lazy bastard
3. Foot-fetishism: Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!
2. Brutalism: What a great idea! Let's create an architectual style based on the ideal that buildings should be ugly!

Spoiler :

1. Botulism: My tummy hurts!

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Since everyone is deviating from the relativley political allure of the thread, i should say that i REALLY HATE hedonism. Living for pleasure is not equal to living. If you don't suffer than you can't say that you lived.
'nuff said

 

[Perfection]

Since everyone is deviating from the relativley political allure of the thread, i should say that i REALLY HATE hedonism. Living for pleasure is not equal to living. If you don't suffer than you can't say that you lived.
'nuff said

Well, I think even hedonists suffer

 

[The 777 Hoax]

I hate perfectionism...

 

[Sidhe]

Where is Racism in this whole discussion?

Indeed since it is either the core tennant or used as fuel for the fire of hatred in most of these isms it should be in there. I went with other and racism is it, unlike almost all the others there are no positives in it anywhere.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Everything is good in theory?! Fascism? Nazism? Come on now!



Yes. You can. Yes. You can. If communism can only work in a controlled environment, then IT CAN'T WORK.



Communist leaders will always be 'corrupt' in the way you are using the word. There will always be dictatorship. That what Marx said! He used the word 'dictatorship.' There is no friendly communism to be had! You will never get identical leaders, because the two systems promote different types of people. Specifically, Communism promotes sadists.



You know, in this case I am going to take your advice. Let's do some math. I'll go with low estimates.

Victims of the USSR: 60 million
Victims of Red China: 30 million
Victims of North Korea: 3 million
Victims of Communist Cambodia: 1.75 million (almost 33% of the population)
Add to these the lesser numbers from Cuba, Romania, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia 1968, Hungary 1956, Angola and a few others.

Number of decent, human-rights respecting, non-murdering Communist regimes in the history of the world: 0

Well I think the Nazis are bad in theory as well I guessed that it wasn't required to be said.

I didn't say communism would only work in a controlled enviornment I said you can't say it is worse than any other form of economic system because it wasn't in one.

Everyone will always be corrupt. Communists no more than anyone else. It just so happens they were more corrupt in the 20th century.

Also they are some very nice statistics. They remove any doubt that Stalin, Mao and others were a-holes. It has no relevance on communism whatsoever. Yes they were all communists but just because 3/3 communists are maniacs doesn't mean that the next commo will be one aswell. Next time you try logic....try harder.

 

[carniflex]

No, they were not classless or stateless. But as I mentioned before, they claimed to be classless and claimed to be working toward stateless. Again playing with definitions rather than saying something. My point is that attempts toward a classless or stateless society will always meet with the results that we saw in the 20th century.

I disagree with this last point.

"Attempting toward a classless or stateless society" and "claiming to be classless and claimed to be working toward stateless." are not similar.

"the results that we saw in the 20th century. " is the result of neither classless nor stateless society that claimed to be classless and claimed to be working toward stateless.

But these so called communist countries were certainly not attempting toward a classless or stateless society, despite their propaganda on this subject.

 

[The Tollan]

I would vote for facism, communism, and terrorism if it were possible to cast multiple votes.

Leaving aside the issue of the "'communist' states" (communism is supposed to be stateless so the communist party leaders where often deluded into thinking or attempted to trick others into thinking that they were reaching communism) there are still some problems with Marxism which illicit my opposition to it. The idea of equality is not bad rather there are other components to Marxism that are very problematic.

Mussolini's facism is not impressive. Nazism (which is sometimes considered part of facism) is also quite negative and atrocious in many obvious ways.

The path to terrorism and becoming a terrorist indicates a lack of any morality or an evil version of imagined morality. Unlike facists and communists the tactics known as terrorism cannot be said to have a positive ideological aspect (though communism and facism have negatives which outweigh the positives). Terrorism is different from the terrorist objective so I am talking about the actual use of terrorist tactics and methods.

The word Theocracy is used too often it seems. All because a government is based on religious principle and/or is controlled or partly controlled by religious leaders does not mean that the government is a Theocracy (for example Iran or Saudi Arabia are not Theocracies).

There are other terms that can be used for that type of government.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Number of decent, human-rights respecting, non-murdering Communist regimes in the history of the world: 0

Regime implies that it wont be decent, human right respecting, or non murdering.
Just because a few examples are bad, doesnt mean it MUST be horrible and the worst thing in the world.

 

[Perfection]

Regime implies that it wont be decent, human right respecting, or non murdering.
Just because a few examples are bad, doesnt mean it MUST be horrible and the worst thing in the world.

What if all examples are bad?

Do you have any good ones?

 

[Dann]

Since everyone is deviating from the relativley political allure of the thread, i should say that i REALLY HATE hedonism. Living for pleasure is not equal to living. If you don't suffer than you can't say that you lived.
'nuff said

Well, I think even hedonists suffer

Damn right. I suffer when my masseuse can't make it on time due to traffic. Or when the maid fails to refill my drink once it's already down to 1/3.