communism

bloggs

Nearly every weekend, there seems to be a communist/marxist rally out side the GPO in Dublin. Every time, they use the same old reteric 'down with capitalism, support the unions' etc. First of all don't these people ever read a history book and find out what communism was like? Just talk a look at the old USSR, where there was no decomracy, where you had varity, as long as it was what the government gave, you would say what you like, as long as it agreed with the communist government, and god forbid if you didn't you would be arrested by the secret police and never seen again.

People love communist countries so much that they were willing to be shot to escape them (East Germany, Cuba, USSR, North Korea). Also, if people like the Socialist Works Party got into power and turned the place into a communist state, surely they would have to get rid of decomracy, because as soon as people got sick of the situation, the country would be in a complete mess when converting back to capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't seem perfect, but it seems to be way better than anything communism can offer.

gom

Bloggs don't start just making personal observations without even creating a discussion.

The Communism Vs Capitalism themed discussion is the most flamer attracting topic on these boards.

I call on the mods to close this thread before the usual degrading and unimproving Flame war begins...

And Bloggs.

Post this to a blogg ... Its just plain thinking out loud with no imputis to discuse...

bloggs

Whoops and there was me thinking this was a political discussion board?

bonkey

It is, but I see little in teh way of discussion material in what you've just added.

You could sum up your entire first post in 5 words :

"I think Communism is crap"

or

"Capitalism seems better than Communism",

I wouldn't close the thread just yet, but don't seriously expect anyone to get involved in a real discussion with such well-formed and well-argued opinions.

jc

bloggs

Ok then. Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism. Communism appears to be the protectionist soceity where freedom of speech and expression are suppressed, where democracy of the one party rules, and descent often results in inprisionment or death. The great rules of modern communism (Stalin, Mao) oppressed and murdered their own people, along while existing ones (Castro and Saddam (who's Baath party is based on socialism) are well known for their suppression of other parties and descent.

Many look to America with both fondness and anger, it's extreme (in some people's mind) capitalism is hurting the world. But it only seems to have become so powerful as a counter weight to communism. Many who hate the West, have to at least agree that it provides democracy to allow change, the West also allow people to better themselves, through working hard, although some communists will regard working hard for money as wrong.

The history of communism, along with it's infamous leaders surely are it's death, as not many would like to be run like the USSR. Where to speak out against the government would end up being taken away by the secret police, and never seen again.

Why is it, that people will stand under the red banner of communism or it's akas, and wish this country to join it?

My belief is that even if we were to come a communist state, surely democracy wouldn't exist, because as soon as people voted for another pary, the entire communist framework would collapse, resulting in economic and social destruction.

Hairy Homer

OK so you don't like Loony Lefties. I was never too gone on them myself, but they're not the problem now.

Today, we have to contend with the Nutty Neocons who want to pervert every freedom they say we should be fighting for, wherever Uncle Sam wants us to do so, whenever they see fit.

Prisoners held without trial (but they're terrorists!)
Civilians attacked with rockets (but they're terrorists!)
Cities bombed to rubble (but they're terrorists!)
Journalists who are critical of their actions and ideologies villified (but they're talking about terrorists!)
Insane arbitrary rules of admission for the US now (but you might be a terrorist!)
Even the Sunday Indo got angry yesterday about the hassle involved in trying to get basic visa information out of the US embassy. It's now as difficult to get into America as it is to gain entrance to a Dublin pub wearing trainers. (see other posts)

You know what's really eerie? Many of the Loony Lefties of the 1970s (Conor Cruise O'Brien, Eoghan Harris (to name but two of the more vociferous local ones) are prominent Nutty Neocons today. I believe a similar trend is evident in the US, with many of Bush's keenest supporters having radical leftie backgrounds—by US standards.

bloggs

I fully agree with you, Bush's raping and pillaging, would make the Vikings look like pussy cats. No offence to any Danish people

We seem to be going back to the Cold war where we had the two extremes, and instead of Russia, we now have Bush and Rumsfeld the brothers grim.

But you don't need to be pro-communist to be anti-Bush. Why people can't have a decent moderate left wing/conservative party is beyond me.

gom

Backing up Hairy Homer...

Look to the US and read this post also "BACK IN THE USSR"


To be honest Blogg. If your talking about Freedoms. Then talk about them. Some Communists(Women espically) in the USSR had more freedoms than little old Ireland in the 60s.

The Old Communism Vs Capitalism Arguement is defunct...

Communism was applied to the worlds most suppressed peoples.
China wasn't a very nice place before Mao but it was worse under him I will admit... However, Russia under the Reds was (for a time - i.e. pre Stalin and post Stalin) more free than Tsarist Russia... IF Communism was applied to a modern Industrial power such as Germany(as Marx was talking about in 'Das Capital') it would have worked back in the late 19th century...

Again I'll get back to why you should be arguing Freedom under Capitalism Vs Freedom under Communism...
The Baathist PArty is not a communist or even socialist party... Baathists are National Sociatists(That would be the NAZI party)

Freedom is a scarce thing under Capitalism and Communism.

The arguments about which system is more economically desirable is a very subjective question also.
I know I am better off under a Capitalist system economically. BUt the egalitarian inside of me says that something closer to communism would be preferable given the right destribution of wealth...

Communism I think is an excellent idea for a household(communes). I have serveral friends who have grown up in communes. 2 in dublin and 1 in waterford.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bloggs
Ok then. Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism.

TBH, communism realistically became a spent force in 1989. A handful of communist nations remain, many of which are realistically communist in name only (e.g. China).

The twenty-first century has retuned us to the politics of the nineteenth century rather than the ideologically charged twentieth century. We’re back to the politics of nation states that Bismarck, Cavour or Disraeli would have been familiar with. The ideologically motivated have once more been relegated to the fringes, as they were a century ago.

As such a discussion on ‘Capitalism versus Communism’ is academic, and fairly irrelevant to the World we live in today.

bonkey

Originally posted by bloggs
I fully agree with you, Bush's raping and pillaging, would make the Vikings look like pussy cats.

And therein is the flaw in your stance.

You look at communism and say "but the implementations were flawed, so why would anyone choose it over democracy".

Then you discuss the most powerful democracy in the world and more or less admit that, well, its full of bad stuff too.

Virtually no-one who supports communism, or communistic/socialistic principles wants a USSR, Chinese, or similar model. They want one which works, and they believe that the fundemantal concept is workable.

Similarly, those who support democracy would usually not choose to emulate a democracy such as Liberia, or even (for many) the US. Again - they want one which works, and they believe that the fundamental concept is viable.

This is always the problem...advocates of democracy point at the USSR or China and say "but look how bad communism was/is - why would anyone want communism". Of course, thats like pointing at the devestation caused by a flood and saying "look how bad rain is - why would anyone want rain?".

The communist/socialist supporters are no better, pointing at the US and saying pretty much exactly the same thing : "but look how coirrupt that is".

Either compare like with like (implementation against implementation or theory against theory), but holding the ideal of one against the implementation of the other (as both sides are wont to do) is a pointless exercise in nothing but spin.

jc

shotamoose

Every time this debate comes around it's asserted that, for example,

Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism

and the argument is then illustrated using the few extreme examples of both. In fact, the 20th century was most notable for the emergence of social democracy as a common and generally successful type of society that managed to avoid killing people in their millions.

I think it's likely that people would have had better experiences under both communism and capitalism if the two 20th century superpowers hadn't made the destruction of the other their number one priority. Not that it makes much difference now.

The ideologically motivated have once more been relegated to the fringes, as they were a century ago.

If the fringes include the White House.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
if the two 20th century superpowers hadn't made the destruction of the other their number one priority.

Is there any evidence that The Great Communist Conspiracy ever existed - that the communists really were out to destroy the west?

I'm undecided either way....but there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing that all they ever did was accept the willing into their fold....whereas the west were the ones on a crusade to destroy the great threatening evil Communism.

So was it actually true, or was it another piece of western-power spin?

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
Is there any evidence that The Great Communist Conspiracy ever existed - that the communists really were out to destroy the west?

Well, the USSR, Eastern Bloc and other communist countries certainly spent a very large proportion of very scarce resources on military accumulation. Arguably this was purely in response to a threat from the West, though, but still it all worked out the same in the end. I may well be wrong in saying that they were 'just as bad' as the West in this respect.

Éomer of Rohan

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GIVE ME BACK BIFFA BACON OVER THIS TWADDLE.

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
Is there any evidence that The Great Communist Conspiracy ever existed - that the communists really were out to destroy the west?

I'm undecided either way....but there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing that all they ever did was accept the willing into their fold....whereas the west were the ones on a crusade to destroy the great threatening evil Communism.

So was it actually true, or was it another piece of western-power spin?

jc

My understanding of it is that Stalins policies set the two superpowers on a slippery slope which had to eventually lead to one collapsing. After stalins period in power where he isolated the USSR from the west, the soviets were mainly intrested in keeping pace with percieved technological developments by nato. NATO was in turn intrested in trying to catch up with a percieved gap in numbers and technology that never infact existed.

This was most evident in Kennedys election campaign when he argued heavily for the US to increase nuclear research, development and production to close the percieved 'missile gap' between the US and the USSR. At the time, the US had something like 5,000 deployable nuclear weapons, with a few hundred ICBMs. Only when the cold war ended did the west realise that the 'missile gap' was a complete fantasy, the soviets at the time had 10-15 deployable long range missiles and another 10 or so devices that could be delivered by long-range bombers in their entire inventory.

The soviets were peppering by the time kennedy was elected, by which time the americans were starting to deploy MRBMs in turkey. NATO could strike with nuclear weapons to any point in the soviet union, but the soviets had almost nothing to respond with. This was the main reason behind the soviets deploying missiles in cuba and its worth noting that for backing down, the soviets got the americans to remove the missile sites from turkey.

The vast majority of arms expenditure during the cold war can be brought back to a warped 'keeping up with the Jones'', neither side wanting to appear weaker or less prepared for war than the other.

Éomer of Rohan

Ok, my despair has passed, so Bloggs, just you and me, let's have this discussion; people, this a public board feel free to jump in but I am going to be dealing almost exclusively with what Bloogs has posted and I ask him to do the same with me.

On the Russian Revolution

People criticise Lenin's war communism and Stalin and generally put both down to the flaws of communism - I would like to clear this up.

The mass revolution in Russia was a revolution in a politically and economically backward nation where the serfs had been tied to the land since the edict of Peter the Great lending them little of the autonomy that saw middle classes created in western Europe and saw the first capitalist revolution in France in 1792.

Marx's dictum predicted that socialist revolution would fail unless it took place in one of the more developed countries of the world; at that time, Britain or Bismarck's Germany. The reason for this was that the 'petit bourgeois' would begin by demanding further autonomy from the autocratic classes; then it would be the turn of the working class, which to steer the revolution away from 'social democracy' which was just a new cage with gilt bars, would make use of it's trade unions and the 'communist vanguard.'

In Russia, the country was not industrialised enough to have proper trade unions; these began to properly take shape barely two or three years before the revolutions of February 1917 began to shake the foundations of the autocratic state. Due to the lack of a solid working class trade union foundation, the Communist Party found itself alone in trying to change the course of the revolution - something which has led to criticism as 'elitist' from some of my historian colleagues. In reality, it was predicted by Marx himself and of course the cry of 'All Power to the Soviets' which was the Bolshevik motto was really meaningless since these Soviets had a large proportion of the middle class - the only properly industrially integrated class - controlling them. Thus the decision was taken by many good communists, in good faith, to transfer the state power to the party rather than to the original soviets, and basically new soviets were constituted on the spot. From this all sorts of problems arose such as nepotism, appointment to posts and so forth - which are fundamentally against the nature of a socialist revolution - which is precisely how JVS manipulated his way into power following Lenin's death. None of this was meant to happen in the revolution and these generally explain why they did - and why they would not be repeated in the revolution of a more developed nation.

On the USSR and the Eastern Bloc

The Soviet Union was socialist in some respects but absolutely totalitarian in others - and I say this because some believe that socialism and totalitarianism are synonymous, which they are not.

In so far as personal liberties went, the USSR was not great, and as a communist, even I can see this. The Cheka, later NKVD, later OGPU, later KGB made damn sure that the Party remained in power; hell it was the motto of the KGB, the Sword and Shield of the Party. That this came about was wrong BUT at the same time, in terms of a socialist economy, regardless of the ignonminious nature of it's collapse, the early post stalinist socialist era was better than anyone could have foreseen; within a few years, Russia had reconstructed itself, rebuilding cities which had once held over a million people, Stalingrad, Kharkov, Rostov, Kiev, Leningrad, Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn and of course healing the scars on itself throughout European Russia. Everyone had a job. Everyone had access to free education and free health care - the state provided everything that was necessary.

Understanding Historical Imperatives

On it's treatment of Eastern Europe, one must consider that Russia had just lost 30 million people in war; the most casualties ever sustained by a nation in two centuries previously never mind in four years. It was frightened - and to add to this, the United States possessed the atomic bomb and was growing less friendly as hostilities between themselves and Japan and Germany drew to a close. That Hungary, Romania, East Germany, the Baltic States and Bulgaria had partaken in the 'crusade' to free Europe from the 'Judeo-Bolshevik' menace probably had something to do with it as well.

Collectivisation and it's failure so too lend themselves to social analysis. They failed because the major agricultural regions were controlled by a culture alien to that of the industrial centres - ie, the Cossacks of the Russian Steppe, the Ukraine and Kazachstan. Trotsky himself wrote in his 'History of the Russian Revolution' that the Cossacks should have been allied to the workers instead of opposing them since the Communists should have ensured that their program was flexible; in reality, what failed here was that Marx and Engels banked on a western european revolution where the farmers were more productive in co-ops already rather than a revolution of an asiatic people.

I do not condone the actions of Soviet Russia and her dictatorship but some aspects of that society are enviable and admirable compared to ours; it is generally obscured to those who see only the choking bureaucracy and collapse of the USSR as opposed to the fact that even after maintaining the second largest standing army on Earth, after winning the space race, after rebuilding a country shattered beyond even my imagination and after donating billions of roubles in third world aid (some in good faith, some as realpolitik admittedly), the Soviet Union still provided her people with a better standard of living than many across the capitalist world. That they were not free in the way that the propaganda was state based rather than corporate based and that the economy was not democratic as Engels had envisioned was the downfall - but that took nearly forty years from the end of WWII and the introduction of the world wide rape that was free market capitalism to accomplish - and even now, after capitalist plutocracy has failed in Russia, people there hark back to the Communists who 'failed' and see light.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Bloggs
Nearly every weekend, there seems to be a communist/marxist rally out side the GPO in Dublin. Every time, they use the same old reteric 'down with capitalism, support the unions' etc. First of all don't these people ever read a history book and find out what communism was like? Just talk a look at the old USSR, where there was no decomracy, where you had varity, as long as it was what the government gave, you would say what you like, as long as it agreed with the communist government, and god forbid if you didn't you would be arrested by the secret police and never seen again.

Bloggs, I do not mean offence when I say that we socialists (I am a member of the Socialist Party and a representative of the Committee that is elected to run our activities in Northern Ireland) read a lot more history than the average person - myself more so since I am a historian.

But more importantly, open your ears and listen to what these people say (well maybe not the socialist workers party, but the SP) - Marx' Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are all about true democracy, which the western capitalist nations do not have - in fact, what they have is called a plutocracy in my opinion, a government of wealth. Someone once satirised this by saying 'European elections are rigged; the government always wins' - that is to say that partisan politics coupled with a dependence on corporate support remove the freedom of any government and that the government generally consists of the Debsian ruling class doesn't help matters.

Quoted from Bloggs
People love communist countries so much that they were willing to be shot to escape them (East Germany, Cuba, USSR, North Korea). Also, if people like the Socialist Works Party got into power and turned the place into a communist state, surely they would have to get rid of decomracy, because as soon as people got sick of the situation, the country would be in a complete mess when converting back to capitalism

None of these countries had a successful revolution - I have oft been accused of simply using this as an excuse but above I have given a fair amount of depth on the unavoidable failure of the Russian Revolution - and given that subsequent revolutions were based not on the will of the working class but on the desire of an elite autocracy to themselves take power, we have the reason for the failure of the Chinese, Cuban, North Korean and various third world 'revolutions' - in fact if you read history, and Manach will back me up here if he reads this - there is an excellent analogy between the attitude of the city states of Greece caught between the two superpowers of Sparta and Athens to the present day, a host of nation states caught between the two superpowers of the USSR and the USA; and so we see that historical narrative shows what happens when there are such polarisations. Opportunism happens. That this opportunism had a window (ie the already partially corrupted organs of the state of the USSR) allowed it to grow and so the failure of Russia meant the failure of every nation relying on Russia.

For the record, Cuba was never a communist revolution; it only adopted communism after the Americans supported the descendents of the United Fruit Company and Batista over the need for genuine social reform in Cuba; ie it was a way of sucking up to a nation from whence Cuba could recieve vital aid.

Victor

Originally posted by bloggs
Ok then. Since the early 1900s, the world has been divided between two great forces, communism and capitalism.

Shouldn't you read up on your history? What about Imperialism and the rise of Nationalism (which was largely sponsored by communism)? The rise and fall of Facism? The rise of Democracy? The perpetuation of opporession, authoritarianism and warlords? And what of those "wonderful" Capitalist countries like South Vietnam (1954-1975), The Phillipines(19??-198?), South Africa (1948-1994) and all those other places where democracy hasn't quite caught on. At least communism changed it self.

And remember no established democracy has fallen to communism (exception Czechoslovakia c.1948 which was a democracy for 3 years).

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The twenty-first century has retuned us to the politics of the nineteenth century rather than the ideologically charged twentieth century. We’re back to the politics of nation states that Bismarck, Cavour or Disraeli would have been familiar with.

In many ways yes, however it is on a fundamentally different basis. Germany became a single state out of aggression. Likewise imperialism was on the rise - it is now largely gone. Today's power blocks have largely developed out of a spirit of cooperation, not force.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Victor
What about Imperialism and the rise of Nationalism (which was largely sponsored by communism)?

Sorry must have missed that part of history - since when was the Rise of Nationalism a communist induced or sponsored idea?

Quoted from Victor
And remember no established democracy has fallen to communism (exception Czechoslovakia c.1948 which was a democracy for 3 years)

Neither has any supposed communism fallen to communism. See my monologue on the Russian Revolution please.

Quoted from Corinthian
The twenty-first century has retuned us to the politics of the nineteenth century rather than the ideologically charged twentieth century. We’re back to the politics of nation states that Bismarck, Cavour or Disraeli would have been familiar with.

I think, to address Victor that Corinthian is right, though I know his view of C19th politics and mine differ slightly. There is once again the onslaught of the capitalist ruling class on the free health, education and social services of the working class, which were provided more to pacify said class into social democracy, a bribe to prevent them falling into the ways of socialism (eg 1944-1948 Welfare Acts of the Labour government in the UK). The C19th was just as ideologically fraught as C20th but in the C19th, the politics were at ground level and meant life or death for the working class; now that free market laissez faire economics is removing the gilt edges on the cage of the working class, we may see that the battle to save public services and so on turns into a fight to save ourselves - turns into class struggle in fact just as it did at the turn on the century - the debates and protests are removed from the domain of parliament and are set back on the streets.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Sorry must have missed that part of history - since when was the Rise of Nationalism a communist induced or sponsored idea?

Insofar as the USSR took the side of financially and militarily sponsoring indepedence movements, especially in Africa, as an anti-imperialist / anti-capitalist measure, with the added benefit of adding those countries to their "camp".

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Everyone had a job.

Having a job and having a meaningful job with prospects are two different things.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Victor
Insofar as the USSR took the side of financially sponsoring indepedence movements, especially in Africa, as an anti-imperialist / anti-capitalist measure,w ith teh added benefit of adding those countries to their "camp".

Well, both sides are guilty of that crime but I misunderstood you; the Rise of Nationalism is officially the years from the unification of Germany and her first victory in 1871 (Franco-Prussian War) until the end of the First World War and I thought that it was that you referred to.

As for the reference to having a meaningful job with prospects; the point in a communist society was to differ the centre of ones life from work to extra-curricular activities but in the USSR I can't see why most people wouldn't have had such a job with good prospects given that they were promoted in the same way as their capitalist counterparts and generally just had different titles, more socialist sounding ones.

The only different was that there were few insurance outfits and so on as in a developed capitalist state, the agriculture industry was bigger and the civil service was much bigger (technically everyone was civil service since they were employed by the state but I'm sure you know what I mean).

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As for the reference to having a meaningful job with prospects; the point in a communist society was to differ the centre of ones life from work to extra-curricular activities but in the USSR I can't see why most people wouldn't have had such a job with good prospects given that they were promoted in the same way as their capitalist counterparts and generally just had different titles, more socialist sounding ones.

However, because of the corruption in the system, not everyone got the promotions (or firing) they deserved.

Quality control was fundamentally flawed (in part due to the high average education, but low higher education). In 1990 the USSR was 11 years ahead of the USA in military R&D - they just couldn't produce it at any reasonable quantity.

The quota system also loaned itself towards corruption. In the nuclear industry, material was keep off the books if it was in excess of quota and kept for when there was a shortfall. Having enriched uranium off the books is not a good idea.

Also most peop[le were employed by state entreprises, not the state itself.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Victor
However, because of the corruption in the system, not everyone got the promotions (or firing) they deserved.

Quality control was fundamentally flawed (in part due to the high average education, but low higher education). In 1990 the USSR was 11 years ahead of the USA in military R&D - they just couldn't produce it at any reasonable quantity.

The quota system also loaned itself towards corruption. In the nuclear industry, material was keep off the books if it was in excess of quota and kept for when there was a shortfall. Having enriched uranium off the books is not a good idea.

I absolutely agree with everything there - but at the same time, this system, fundamentally flawed as you call it, held it's own against a power with a hundred and twenty million more people.
Nepotism and it's related diseases were an endemic problem in the USSR and this stemmed from the bias in the way the state was constructed, with the Party at the centre - and I have explained this and how it led to the fall of the USSR. This problem is not inherent in a communist system; the same with the quota system - in the USSR, it was to please Party Apparatchiks that things like depleted uranium was kept to one side - for a rainy day. Those Party Apparatchiks were like god to the average worker and this again was a problem exclusive to Russia and her dependents, not to communism. Which, at it's base, is what this argument is all about.

And yes I know that most people were employed by the state enterprises, but since everthing was answerable to the Supreme Praesidium, it was basically the state, no?

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I absolutely agree with everything there - but at the same time, this system, fundamentally flawed as you call it, held it's own against a power with a hundred and twenty million more people.

If you are comparing USSR -v- USA, the USSR had a bigger population.

mike65

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

If you are comparing USSR -v- USA, the USSR had a bigger population

I'm not sure that it was and I would like some stats to back that up BUT I have no figures from say, 1961 when the USSR was at the height of it's power.

Russia's current population is 144 million and that of the US is pushing 290 million - to be fair, if one was contrasting the USSR and the USA, it should more likely be the USSR and the USA PLUS Western Europe since the USSR was 15 seperate countries - but backtracking to say 1965 and using rough figures, say add half a million for each year since Russia has been in a downward spiral, so that is 40 years times 500,000 - which is 20 million so say Russia had a population of 164 million. The US has been in an up spiral, though that has just leveled off this year according to www.infoplease.com so take away, at a reasonable estimate, 90 million people - and still the USA has a population of 200 million - over 40 million more than Russia.

Éomer of Rohan

Oh and Mike, can we please leave out the useless sarcastic comments?

PS, Bloggs, if you read this, why aren't you continuing your argument?

Liquorice

I believe in the ideals of communism(equal rights for all, everyone works for the state etc.), and therefore consider myself a commusnist. But I accept that history has proven to us that communism will never work, as long as people have human flaws such as selfishness and greediness. Also, I would like to point out the obvious in saying that so-called 'communist' countries that are also dictatorships, are not communist countries because dictatorships go against the ideals of communism. On the capitalism-communism debate, I don't approve of capitalism, I believe it ridiculous that all the power and wealth of the country should go to a select few, but it looks like we're stuck with this system for now.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Scarlett
But I accept that history has proven to us that communism will never work, as long as people have human flaws such as selfishness and greediness

It's a pity that you 'accept' the percieved lesson of history. Communism in Russia would have worked had the same thing happened in Germany or Britain; the dictatorships COULDN'T have arisen in such areas where there were undeniably great swathes of the population who were fully class aware.

The greatest pity is that people see Russia rather than Marxism whenever it was Marxism that first predicted a Russian Soviet revolution would ultimately fail. People now have closed minds - so Scarlett, I recommend that you read what I wrote on page one; some might be of interest if you believe yourself to be a communist.

Turnip

Originally posted by Victor
Having a job and having a meaningful job with prospects are two different things.

I suppose that now Russia is a capitalist democracy, everyone has a meaningful job with prospects? Like working in McDonalds or a call centre?

Eomer, how can you be a member of a political party and be an objective historian?

What do you think of the suppression of the Ukrainian anarchist Makhnovist movement and the rebellion at Kronstadt? And I read somewhere that the soviets didn't actually want the republican side to win the Spanish civil war because if Spain had gone communist, the capitalist democracies would have felt threatened enough to go to war and the soviets weren't ready for it. Is that right?

mike65

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Oh and Mike, can we please leave out the useless sarcastic comments?

At least it was a short sarcastic comment.... this rather sad thread has the dusty, dimmly-lit feel of a upper sixth late night "debate".

Mike.