No Truth in Socialism: Why the 'Crisis of Marxism' Matters

[Soupnazi630]

They have dictators. There has never been a socialist or communism country, except Israel.

Fidel Castro's Amassed A Massive Fortune In Communist Cuba​

There have been many communist countries the USSR and CHina among them.

Dictatords are part and parcel of the revolution

 

[Senter]

Sure.
Everyone is wrong about something.
The way to truth, is dialectic.
You learn from arguing.

Okay. Let's go ahead.

Marx's whole game was analysis of class society. Some of what he wrote was adopted from other thinkers. Some was altogether new. And he compiled it all into a cohesive and logical analysis.

He used a few terms that can confuse us today because we are familiar with other terms for the same things. Examples: Lower Communism = "socialist society".

Higher Communism = "communist society".

Marx's Definitions:
Proletariat = "The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour... (Glossary of Terms: Pr)

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" = All you could want to know here. And: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (Ed: that period is referred to as "socialism"). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. (From "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Part IV)

"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence." (Found here and taken from V.I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Chapter. 5: "The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State")


So the history is that communist revolutionaries overthrew the existing economic order (Marx envisioned that being capitalism) and established what we call "socialism" (Marx referred to "socialism" too) as a means of transitioning to a very distant society he called "communist society" attained as classes and the state machinery "withered away".

That's enough for now.

 

[Rigby5]

Tell that to the more than 200 million killed by Stalin his henchmen, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Castro and Chavez/Maduro..

Stalin, Mao, Kim Jun Il, etc. were all profit motivated, so were capitalists.
If you had a real communist, then there would be equality of income.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

Capitalism is protected private property rights and voluntary peaceful exchange which leads to greater profit.

Socialism fails which si why our public schools and roads suck

No capitalism is not protected private property rights and voluntary peaceful exchange.
Historically capitalism is just pure greed, in any way possible, including murder, extortion, theft, monopolies, etc.
It is only under socialism that you have common resources like police and government to prevent capitalist abuses.

If we did not have public schools and roads, then we would not have any schools or roads for most people.

 

[Rigby5]

I am correct and you are wrong.

About capitalism and stalin who was a hardcore communist.

Stalin was a bank robber, not an intellectual, and he was NEVER a communist.
Robbing banks is pure capitalism.
Russia under Stalin was not at all cooperative, collective, or communal.
Nothing remotely communist about it.

 

[Rigby5]

They have dictators. There has never been a socialist or communism country, except Israel.

Fidel Castro's Amassed A Massive Fortune In Communist Cuba​

Good point, the Israeli Kibbutzim are communist.

 

[initforme]

There is no socialism here so the OP is a waste of time. Socialism will never gain a foothold here.

 

[Rigby5]

There have been many communist countries the USSR and CHina among them.

Dictatords are part and parcel of the revolution

I what way could the profit motive for the rich Russian and Chinese oligarchs, remotely be called "communism"?

 

[Rigby5]

Okay. Let's go ahead.

Marx's whole game was analysis of class society. Some of what he wrote was adopted from other thinkers. Some was altogether new. And he compiled it all into a cohesive and logical analysis.

He used a few terms that can confuse us today because we are familiar with other terms for the same things. Examples: Lower Communism = "socialist society".

Higher Communism = "communist society".

Marx's Definitions:
Proletariat = "The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour... (Glossary of Terms: Pr)

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" = All you could want to know here. And: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other (Ed: that period is referred to as "socialism"). Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. (From "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Part IV)

"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence." (Found here and taken from V.I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Chapter. 5: "The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State")


So the history is that communist revolutionaries overthrew the existing economic order (Marx envisioned that being capitalism) and established what we call "socialism" (Marx referred to "socialism" too) as a means of transitioning to a very distant society he called "communist society" attained as classes and the state machinery "withered away".

That's enough for now.

Yes, the idea being that during the violent revolution, one could not implement pure communism because the corrupt aristocracy would abuse that to harm the revolution.

But socialism should still be totally democratic and egalitarian, and it was Lenin who prevented that.
He used the excuse of the counter-revolutionary threat, but the reality is he never wanted communism, but instead simply wanted to create a new wealthy ruling class for himself and his elite followers.
Which is capitalism, NOT communism.
Lenin never wanted communism at all, and Stalin was even worse, reverting back to the greed and corruption of his bank robber history.
They kept saying that any day now the coercive state can "wither away", but of course they never had the slightest intention of that, because they never wanted anything remotely like real communism.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no socialism here so the OP is a waste of time. Socialism will never gain a foothold here.

Where is "here", because the US has socialism in public roads, schools, museums, harbors, water and sewer utilities, etc.

 

[Doc7505]

Stalin, Mao, Kim Jun Il, etc. were all profit motivated, so were capitalists.
If you had a real communist, then there would be equality of income.

You left out Castro,

Yes, the idea being that during the violent revolution, one could not implement pure communism because the corrupt aristocracy would abuse that to harm the revolution.

But socialism should still be totally democratic and egalitarian, and it was Lenin who prevented that.
He used the excuse of the counter-revolutionary threat, but the reality is he never wanted communism, but instead simply wanted to create a new wealthy ruling class for himself and his elite followers.
Which is capitalism, NOT communism.
Lenin never wanted communism at all, and Stalin was even worse, reverting back to the greed and corruption of his bank robber history.
They kept saying that any day now the coercive state can "wither away", but of course they never had the slightest intention of that, because they never wanted anything remotely like real communism.

~~~~~~

Lenin and the Comintern by Karl Korsch

**********​

Zinoviev and the Stalinist degeneration of the Comintern | History & Theory

The Third (Communist) International rose out of the ashes of the Second (Socialist) International, forged in the fire of the Russian Revolution. Within a year of its founding, it was the most powerful international proletarian organisation ever created. The capitalists of the globe were put on...

www.marxist.com

**********​

What were the main goals of Stalin's Communism?

What were the main goals of Stalin's Communism? Stalin desired to remove and replace any policies created under the New...

psichologyanswers.com

 

[Doc7505]

Socialism and communism is where people decide to pool their resource to create their own means of production.
The difference between socialism and communism is that with socialism you allow capitalists to also try to create their own means of production, and with communism, there is less capitalism allowed.

Communism Vs. Socialism​

In both communism and socialism, the people own the factors of economic production. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

Differences Between Communism and Socialism

Find out the difference between communism and socialism, two related but distinct political theories and systems.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Rigby5]

You left out Castro,

~~~~~~

Lenin and the Comintern by Karl Korsch

**********​

Zinoviev and the Stalinist degeneration of the Comintern | History & Theory

The Third (Communist) International rose out of the ashes of the Second (Socialist) International, forged in the fire of the Russian Revolution. Within a year of its founding, it was the most powerful international proletarian organisation ever created. The capitalists of the globe were put on...

www.marxist.com

**********​

What were the main goals of Stalin's Communism?

What were the main goals of Stalin's Communism? Stalin desired to remove and replace any policies created under the New...

psichologyanswers.com

I actually don't know much about Castro.
He did improve education and health standards.

 

[Rigby5]

Communism Vs. Socialism​

In both communism and socialism, the people own the factors of economic production. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

Differences Between Communism and Socialism

Find out the difference between communism and socialism, two related but distinct political theories and systems.

www.thoughtco.com

Socialism actually allows for all means of production to be privately owned, as long as heavily restricted by legislation to prevent abuses.
So it is reasonable to consider communism as more extreme than socialism.

 

[Senter]

Yes, the idea being that during the violent revolution, one could not implement pure communism because the corrupt aristocracy would abuse that to harm the revolution.

But socialism should still be totally democratic and egalitarian, and it was Lenin who prevented that.
He used the excuse of the counter-revolutionary threat, but the reality is he never wanted communism, but instead simply wanted to create a new wealthy ruling class for himself and his elite followers.
Which is capitalism, NOT communism.
Lenin never wanted communism at all, and Stalin was even worse, reverting back to the greed and corruption of his bank robber history.
They kept saying that any day now the coercive state can "wither away", but of course they never had the slightest intention of that, because they never wanted anything remotely like real communism.

WHERE did you get this shit?!! It's all an attempt to sow confusion!

 

[Soupnazi630]

I what way could the profit motive for the rich Russian and Chinese oligarchs, remotely be called "communism"?

Because they followed the program for a cmmunist revolution.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I actually don't know much about Castro.
He did improve education and health standards.

No he did not.

Both were destroyed by his regime

 

[Soupnazi630]

Stalin was a bank robber, not an intellectual, and he was NEVER a communist.
Robbing banks is pure capitalism.
Russia under Stalin was not at all cooperative, collective, or communal.
Nothing remotely communist about it.

He was a communist and a pure one.

Robbing banks is not capitalism it is pure communism which is siezing the means of production.

Communism is not copperative or communal it is always sllavery and tyranny by design.

Absolutely communist from start to finish and you know it

 

[Soupnazi630]

No capitalism is not protected private property rights and voluntary peaceful exchange.
Historically capitalism is just pure greed, in any way possible, including murder, extortion, theft, monopolies, etc.
It is only under socialism that you have common resources like police and government to prevent capitalist abuses.

If we did not have public schools and roads, then we would not have any schools or roads for most people.

Yes capitalism is property rights and voluntary peaceful exchange,

It is not pure greed.

Under socialism you have destitution and increased pobverty.

 

[Doc7505]

I actually don't know much about Castro.
He did improve education and health standards.

~~~~~~
And Mussolini made the trains run on time and gave Italy compulsory education. So what?