This has been bothering me for a while. Judgin from what I learned in school, all those many years ago, I never was under the impression that neither Russia nor China really changed their system and mererly switched out names- The Czar became the Premier, the Emperor the Chairman. The system still seemed just as oppresive before and after the implied change. So am I under a wrong impression here or am I just missing some pieces of information here?
Communism/socialism is really no different from the tyrannies that came before it. They just changed the rhetoric.
So who decides which tyranny gets CIA support and which don't?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 23, 2009, 09:38:30 AM
So who decides which tyranny gets CIA support and which don't?
The CIA.
I like you Virgil, you're so much funnier than Dante. ;D
What's with the "were"? You have doubts about them being communist in the past?
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 23, 2009, 07:41:05 AM
Communism/socialism is really no different from the tyrannies that came before it. They just changed the rhetoric.
Does that mean that socialism is oppresive by default or that if it had'nt been emloyed through such oppressive means that it could have worked or worked better? And if you say "If it were free it would be capitalism" I reserve the right to say "I saw that comming."
It's oppressive by its very nature. You're talking about forcing people into particular roles in society and then not letting them keep the fruits of their own labor. How long do you think that's going to last completely voluntarily?
Could'nt you say the same thing about any factory worker anywhere, no matter the system?
No, because in a free market they have the choice of where to work, they can negotiate their own wage, and they can keep the fruits of their labor.
By fruits of labor you mean the wages of course and not the finished product that the workers helped assemble? Otherwise I might be tempted to make some posts going "HAHA! UR seyn a factry wurker ken kep de carse he meiks."
Yes, the wages. The workers generally don't care what they're making or what it's used for. That's how it works best.
Yes...
For some reason that statement grates me all the wrong ways. I mean it's alright as long as the product in question are such things as cars, TVs or refridgerators. But when it comes to stuff like guns...I don't know but I did hear rumors that those can be used to kill people and I'd really, really feel a bit down if I knew that the harvest of my sweat should be used to blow out someone's brain somewhere. But that's probably just my little leftist heart screaming in agony as I smother it with my bare hands. :'(
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 24, 2009, 12:07:29 PM
Yes...
For some reason that statement grates me all the wrong ways. I mean it's alright as long as the product in question are such things as cars, TVs or refridgerators.
In my country, about 0,5 % of the population dies in car accidents every year... Just because a car is not specifically build to kill people, doesn't mean that it can't be just as deadly.
Only 0.5?
In the US, 40,000 die in car accidents every year, which ends up being .013%. So .5% is rather high!
Amateurs. I bet could singlehandeldy rise that figure to 45 percent.
I can't speak for the Chinese, but I can for the Soviets. I study the Cold War, and am forced to immerse myself in Leninist/Marxist philosophy. The Soviets called themselves Communists politically, believed in Communism, and ran a government controlled by Communists, but they would and did argue that they were not living in a Communist society.
Marx predicted that society would go into several phases, each progressively transitioning into the next. First you have feudalism, then capitalism, then a violent proletariat revolution followed by what Lenin called a dictatorship of the people, then Communism. The dictatorship of the people was meant to be a socialist state in which the last trappings of capitalism would disappear, and state power, which had previously been all-consuming, would gradually fall away society transitioned into the so-called "new men," basically individuals who lived for the community and were free of self-interest or individualism. The state would be ruled by enlightened leaders who would pave the way for their own demise.
Unfortunately for the Soviets, Marx really ended his analysis at the fall of capitalism. He never explained how society would transition from socialist dictatorship to communist utopia, or how changing an economic system would fundamentally alter human nature. The Soviets had no idea either, so they instead talked about a constant "Socialist Project." Lenin's idea was basically to use brute force to shape people into the Communist idea through any means necessary. It was a very millennial concept. Basically we all sacrifice now, the Russians were told, so that our children will live in the utopia, never mind that we have no idea how to get there, it will just naturally happen, after all, Marx said it would and he was clearly right about the Revolution. So they had to keep making excuses. They began by torturing and imprisoning large portions of their own population. Then they argued that outside influence had to be stamped out in the form of either global Communist revolution, or censorship. Finally, after 1968 it became abundantly clear that the USSR was just a crack pot dictatorship, and by the late 70s, 80s few Soviets actually bought the line. Furthermore, any Russian or member of the Warsaw Pact who had access to the West, could clearly see that, while the East was continuing to rot and stagnate, Western standards of living were steadily increasing.
So in 1991 when the Soviet Union finally fell in on itself you get this interesting paradox. From the outside everyone saw this massive military complex and believed it would last forever, and yet, everyone was so convinced that Soviet Communism was intellectually bankrupt that no one was actually shocked when it died.
Quote from: AHPMB on January 05, 2010, 03:59:04 PMI can't speak for the Chinese, but I can for the Soviets. I study the Cold War, and am forced to immerse myself in Leninist/Marxist philosophy. The Soviets called themselves Communists politically, believed in Communism, and ran a government controlled by Communists, but they would and did argue that they were not living in a Communist society.
Hence many of their constant whining of "Oh well TRUE Communism has never been tried". Just like when a Christan says, "But the Crusaders weren't TRUE Christians!!!"
Quote from: AHPMB on January 05, 2010, 03:59:04 PMMarx predicted that society would go into several phases, each progressively transitioning into the next. First you have feudalism, then capitalism, then a violent proletariat revolution followed by what Lenin called a dictatorship of the people, then Communism. The dictatorship of the people was meant to be a socialist state in which the last trappings of capitalism would disappear, and state power, which had previously been all-consuming, would gradually fall away society transitioned into the so-called "new men," basically individuals who lived for the community and were free of self-interest or individualism. The state would be ruled by enlightened leaders who would pave the way for their own demise.
So basically, it's a fantasy.
Quote from: AHPMB on January 05, 2010, 03:59:04 PMUnfortunately for the Soviets, Marx really ended his analysis at the fall of capitalism. He never explained how society would transition from socialist dictatorship to communist utopia, or how changing an economic system would fundamentally alter human nature. The Soviets had no idea either, so they instead talked about a constant "Socialist Project." Lenin's idea was basically to use brute force to shape people into the Communist idea through any means necessary. It was a very millennial concept. Basically we all sacrifice now, the Russians were told, so that our children will live in the utopia, never mind that we have no idea how to get there, it will just naturally happen, after all, Marx said it would and he was clearly right about the Revolution. So they had to keep making excuses. They began by torturing and imprisoning large portions of their own population. Then they argued that outside influence had to be stamped out in the form of either global Communist revolution, or censorship. Finally, after 1968 it became abundantly clear that the USSR was just a crack pot dictatorship, and by the late 70s, 80s few Soviets actually bought the line. Furthermore, any Russian or member of the Warsaw Pact who had access to the West, could clearly see that, while the East was continuing to rot and stagnate, Western standards of living were steadily increasing.
In short, they propose a system with zero freedom, and through some unspecified miracle, it transforms into a paradise of freedom and happiness. It's a religious/cult belief. Nothing more.
I've had this problem with Anarcho Communism/Socialism/Syndicalism; long before I ever even became an Anarcho Capitalist.
Quote from: AHPMB on January 05, 2010, 03:59:04 PMSo in 1991 when the Soviet Union finally fell in on itself you get this interesting paradox. From the outside everyone saw this massive military complex and believed it would last forever, and yet, everyone was so convinced that Soviet Communism was intellectually bankrupt that no one was actually shocked when it died.
Well, The latter (ones who weren't surprised it failed) have Mises' book "Socialism" to thank on the intellectual part, whether they're aware of it or not. :P
That, and the fact that the regime had to be constantly propped up by the West in order to even maintain itself (according to Dr. Mary J. Ruwart's book "Healing our World")
QuoteHence many of their constant whining of "Oh well TRUE Communism has never been tried". Just like when a Christan says, "But the Crusaders weren't TRUE Christians!!!"
Well it's absolutely true that "true communism" has never been tried, but only because it's utterly inconsistent with reality. But again, I would challenge any Communist to explain the process of going from a proletarian socialist dictatorship to "true communism" as Marx describes. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh all talked a great game, but every single one that's tried to pull it off has failed miserably. Of course when you mention this, they always fall back on their patron saints like Allende.
QuoteWell, The latter (ones who weren't surprised it failed) have Mises' book "Socialism" to thank on the intellectual part, whether they're aware of it or not.
They weren't the only ones. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was predicting the fall of the Soviet Union decades before it actually collapsed. Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn ended up on the wrong side of the political spectrum of most Western intellectuals so he was lampooned out of academic circles not long after
Gulag Archipelago came out in print.
Quote from: AHPMB on January 06, 2010, 12:13:16 AMUnfortunately, Solzhenitsyn ended up on the wrong side of the political spectrum of most Western intellectuals so he was lampooned out of academic circles not long after Gulag Archipelago came out in print.
What do you mean, "Wrong side of the political spectrum"?
Solzhenitsyn became big right around the time Reagan took office. He managed to get Gulag published and was going on speaking tours around America and Europe, even bought a house in Vermont. He was absolutely uncompromising about the fact that the Soviet Union was an evil blight that needed to be pushed into collapse sooner rather than later, and he argued that any power that would compromise with evil of their caliber was demonstrating moral weakness. This made him very popular with the Reagan administration, especially after Reagan walked out of the Reykjavik Talks. Western intellectuals circles during the 80s was dominated by a resurgent neo-liberalism and they treated any encouragement of Reagan, even though Solzhenitsyn never endorsed Reagan's policies as basically advocating for nuclear war.
Quote from: AHPMB on January 06, 2010, 12:23:04 AM
Solzhenitsyn became big right around the time Reagan took office. He managed to get Gulag published and was going on speaking tours around America and Europe, even bought a house in Vermont. He was absolutely uncompromising about the fact that the Soviet Union was an evil blight that needed to be pushed into collapse sooner rather than later, and he argued that any power that would compromise with evil of their caliber was demonstrating moral weakness. This made him very popular with the Reagan administration, especially after Reagan walked out of the Reykjavik Talks. Western intellectuals circles during the 80s was dominated by a resurgent neo-liberalism and they treated any encouragement of Reagan, even though Solzhenitsyn never endorsed Reagan's policies as basically advocating for nuclear war.
So basically, he was an interventionist who played lip service to the free market and wanted a much bigger government. :(
What was his reason for why communism wouldn't work?
Not enough hair care products. It definatly would lead to my collapse.
Not really no. He didn't argue that the West had a duty to intervene directly in Soviet affairs, but he saw detente and the SALT talks as essentially a form of pandering to evil for the sake of security. Solzhenitsyn would have rather the U.S. refused to even have those discussions. Discussing disarmament with a power that was essentially holding half of Europe captive, he argued legitimized their power and upheld the status quo. The Russians it turns out agreed with that. Jeremi Suri has argued, using some of Brezhnev's paper's that after Prague Spring, the Soviets kept reaching out to the West because they saw high level diplomatic talks as a way to prop their public image up. Solzhenitsyn was absolutely scathing about intervention in his essays, especially with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or any form of Empire building.
And actually Solzhenitsyn argued for a much smaller government. He said that the only legitimate form of government was on a face to face municipal level, since that was the only way to keep leaders invested in their people and that in contests between national and local power, local power should always win. Small local governments would protect ethnic and religious minorities. This made him extremely unpopular in the East after the fall of the Communists as all those former KGB agents began scooping up government contracts and setting up their own little mafias with the tacit blessings of the Yeltsin government.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on January 06, 2010, 12:30:21 AM
What was his reason for why communism wouldn't work?
Basically that the Soviet Union was based on a bankrupt idea. He tended to argue it more from a moralistic perspective than the free market economists. He spent years in a Soviet Gulag because he happened to write the wrong thing in a letter home, and his writing tend to be broken up into these great little parables where he used a story from the camps to make his point. What made Solzhenitsyn's work ground breaking, at least in the West, was that he took on Lenin as well as Stalin. A lot of western intellectuals at the time made, and still make the tired old canard that, "well Stalin just screwed up Lenin's vision. He was evil, the idea was good." Solzhenitsyn demonstrated conclusively that Stalin's actions were merely the logical conclusions of Lenin's ideas, and that far from being a self-interested dictator, as he's commonly portrayed, Stalin was actually trying to bring about the Communist ideal in the only way he knew how, by killing everyone that didn't conform to the impossible dream.
So Ludwig von Mises in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (first published in 1922 according to Wikipedia) gave the entire idea of collectivism (not just socialism/communism, but also corporatism and syndicalism) a thorough debunking, while Solzhenitsyn specifically showed that the case in the Soviet union was also bogus (as you've stated).
Nice. :)
Exactly. I can't recommend reading Gulag Archipelago enough, it is without a doubt the most amazing book a Russian has ever written, and that's counting Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Chekov. It is the most scathing denunciation of collectivism ever written from a guy who has been there, and it's actually captivating to read (unlike Ayn Rand IMO). I recommend you get the new abridged version though as the full thing weighs in at 3 volumes and about 15,000 pages.
Quote from: AHPMB on January 06, 2010, 12:13:16 AMWell it's absolutely true that "true communism" has never been tried, but only because it's utterly inconsistent with reality. But again, I would challenge any Communist to explain the process of going from a proletarian socialist dictatorship to "true communism" as Marx describes. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh all talked a great game, but every single one that's tried to pull it off has failed miserably. Of course when you mention this, they always fall back on their patron saints like Allende.
Reminds me of the crap thrown out by gmanos007 on this video: Captain Capitalism: Nightmare of Red Xmas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqSzbrtTao)
I would read the rest of the comments he posted, but sadly, my eyes started bleeding and I thought I should stop.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 23, 2009, 07:23:10 AMThis has been bothering me for a while. Judgin from what I learned in school, all those many years ago, I never was under the impression that neither Russia nor China really changed their system and mererly switched out names- The Czar became the Premier, the Emperor the Chairman. The system still seemed just as oppresive before and after the implied change. So am I under a wrong impression here or am I just missing some pieces of information here?
I can't speak for China, but as for Russia, it was made worse, according to Ruwart in
Healing Our World.
They went from being the biggest exporter of food to the biggest importer because of communism for example.
Yes it was because of the collectivist farm movement. Stalin was telling everyone that it would vastly increase food production, but in actuality it led to the starvation of millions of people. He basically stripped farmers of their possessions, and forced them to move onto massive plantation farms where they were supposed to forget about little things like subsistence and instead work for the glory of the system. This was after Stalin purged thousands of Kulaks (farmers who were wealthy enough to be able to support themselves and sell crops on the market) just for being a threat to the system. Thousands more were shot or sent to the Gulag for the crime of sneaking into fields and taking grain snippings just to try and feed their families. It is one of the worst crimes against humanity in history, yet one of the least talked about. It's a mystery to me as to why that is.
Well, it could be that we're all supposed to be buddy, buddy with the russians now, thanks to their gas reserves which they don't have many qualms about cutting off if you get uppity. Which they can do thanks to the little fact of being a nuclear superpower. At least that's how I understand it.