Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto"

[Saint Marcus]

Are you implying that I only base my opinion on how well Communism did in Russia (and other countries)? No, no, no. While communism's basic utopianism and misunderstanding of human nature go against it, all I really need is to look at how 'well' it did when actually applied. For instance, compare North and South Korea. When Korea still was one, North was rich industrial area and South poor and agricultural. Now, it's the other way around. From unified Germany of pre-WW2, communism transformed East Germany to empty hulk that West Germany still has to support to get it to same level as itself. And East Germany was supposed to be the showcase of Soviet socialism to the world.

please stop Stefu before you say more stupid things.

What? That wasn't true communism? It's the truest kind of communism man can achieve.

The problem is that North Korea, Cuba, China, Vietnam and Russia aren't developed enough for Communism. At least when the revolution took place. If you have actually read Marx, which you clearly haven't, you would know that Marx would predict a failure of communism in the countries it happened in. None of those countries were ready, and any attempt of communism would be a failure (and he's been proven right). Those countries would have benefitted far more from capitalism than from communism (and once again he's proven right).

So please stop your rambling about what happened in Russia and North Korea and how much it all failed. Of course it failed, Marx has said so himself.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by GP
Lonestar, you're raping a dead horse. nobody pays attention to
Marx anyway.

anyway.. communism is not for people it is for angels.

capitalism would become communism if people would change by themselves (ie realise that private property doesn't matter, etc... ) noone can successfully force this idea on anyone let alone on the whole society.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well lets face it, I have never had a love of Stalin or Mao...and for the working class man in a western society, Trotskyism is the tradition to pay attention to and learn from...it is the most relevent to the modern day society IMO...although I think all need to be modified to adjust to the present day scenario, but this is as Trotsky and Lenin did with Marxist principles in the light of the revolution in Russia...

It's not relevant at all. Capitalism is.

[chequita guevara]

Well MarkL, to be fair, Marx said that revolutions in Russia and China could succeed -*(IF)*- they served as the spark for a general revolution in the West where modern, industrialized, socialist countries could help them out with building up their own infrastructure.

Lenin himself said the revolution in Russia will fail if Germany does not revolt. They were right and wrong. The revolutions did succeed and they did fail. The capitalistswern't strong enough to destroy them (not right away) and with no help coming from Western socialism (since it didn't exist) they had to do whatever they could to survive, leading to horrible, criminal results.

[Stefu]

None of those countries were ready, and any attempt of communism would be a failure (and he's been proven right). Those countries would have benefitted far more from capitalism than from communism (and once again he's proven right).

East Germany?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Lenin himself said the revolution in Russia will fail if Germany does not revolt.

Course, I also bet the whole imprision the workers and shipping them off to the far North had something to do with the "revolution" (what Revolution? All it did was trade one dictatorship for another!) failing than Germany not revolting.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well MarkL, to be fair, Marx said that revolutions in Russia and China could succeed -*(IF)*- they served as the spark for a general revolution in the West where modern, industrialized, socialist countries could help them out with building up their own infrastructure.

Lenin himself said the revolution in Russia will fail if Germany does not revolt. They were right and wrong. The revolutions did succeed and they did fail. The capitalistswern't strong enough to destroy them (not right away) and with no help coming from Western socialism (since it didn't exist) they had to do whatever they could to survive, leading to horrible, criminal results.

sorry mate, you cannot just make an excuse for one of the worst regimes in history. Or such a poor excuse. A country with so much resources as USSR can definitly self -sudstain if a proper system is in place.
Communist idea (everything centralized) made it possible to put the whole society in the hands of a lunatic. I would have seen you if you lived and average persons 'communist' life. Let alone having an opinion that differed from the regime in such a society.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
although I think all need to be modified to adjust to the present day scenario, but this is as Trotsky and Lenin did with Marxist principles in the light of the revolution in Russia...

Yeah, their use of and defense of state terror were truely awe-inspiring.

[Saint Marcus]

East Germany?

There wasn't a revolution in East Germany, and by 1945 there was little to nothing left of Marxism.

Well MarkL, to be fair, Marx said that revolutions in Russia and China could succeed -*(IF)*- they served as the spark for a general revolution in the West where modern, industrialized, socialist countries could help them out with building up their own infrastructure.

Hmmm, true if and only if Germany and Britain would revolt right after Russia (matter of months, not years). Marx said the revolution would succeed if it started in Germany and England, and then swept accross the globe. This clearly wasn't the case, and a few months after the October Revolution it was clear no developed countries would follow them, so the Revolution was doomed almost from the start.

Course, I also bet the whole imprision the workers and shipping them off to the far North had something to do with the "revolution" (what Revolution? All it did was trade one dictatorship for another!) failing than Germany not revolting.

Read the above. After a few months the revolution was doomed and it only went downhill from there (further from the Marxist ideal). Russia didn't have the right foundation for the revolution, and Marx made this clear in his works.

A country with so much resources as USSR can definitly self -sudstain if a proper system is in place.

I'm very sorry, but according to Marx (long before the revolution) communism can't and won't succeed in under developed countries.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


sorry mate, you cannot just make an excuse for one of the worst regimes in history. Or such a poor excuse. A country with so much resources as USSR can definitly self -sudstain if a proper system is in place.

Whose making an excuse? I'm just saying what happened.

BTW, if Russia should be so rich, why are they worse off today?

Communist idea (everything centralized) . . .

That's not the communist ideal. And it's not what handed Stalin all the power (esp. since at the time that Stalin seized power the NEP was policy in the USSR, which was decntralizing everything). I've explained how Stalin and the bureaucracy seized power from the Bolsheviks many times in the past, but it never sinks in. You don't care to know, so what's the point in explaining anything to you, OFitG?

edit: changed person to whom I responded.

[chequita guevara]

From Karl's 1882 Intro to the Manifesto.

If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Whose making an excuse? I'm just saying what happened.

BTW, if Russia should be so rich, why are they worse off today?



That's not the communist ideal. And it's not what handed Stalin all the power (esp. since at the time that Stalin seized power the NEP was policy in the USSR, which was decntralizing everything). I've explained how Stalin and the bureaucracy seized power from the Bolsheviks many times in the past, but it never sinks in. You don't care to know, so what's the point in explaining anything to you, EiF?

OK, first off, current Russia is recovering from the communist times and many of todays capitalists are half criminals and yesterdays communists. Capitalist system develops unlike communist one. And I assume if Russia continued in a capitalist way it would have been one of the richest countries in the world. As is the rest of western Europe,m along with all the countires in the mioddle.

Perhaps China will be able to evolve form communist system inot something better, but they will evolve into a market economy that and inefficient communist political system will not be able to support anyway, we will see if smart Chinese find a way out of that in a peaceful way.

As for Stalin, he is certainly not communist ideal, but unfortunatly he was made possible by that system, as other communist dictators. At the end the party has the absolute power and it will never use it on benefit of everyone, rather on its own benefit. (benefit of its more important members) Absolute power is never good and the idealist background does not help.

The only way forward for such systems is democratically elected socialist government. That has a chance oif surviving and developing but that has a chance of being voted off too if it doesn't work!

[Saint Marcus]

As for Stalin, he is certainly not communist ideal, but unfortunatly he was made possible by that system, as other communist dictators.

Democracy made it possible for Hitler to rise to power, without democracy Hitler would never been allowed to leave his cell.

Does that mean democracy leads to dictorship? of course not.

Does Stalin's rise to power means that communism leads to dictorship? of course not.

[faded glory]

I dont get you commies

If you acknowledged Marx's system would indeed fail in most cases what the hell was the point in implementing such a pathetic system in the first place . It does indeed make the rich poor. But it makes the poor even poorer. Marx thought that the proleteriat owned nothing and had nothing to lose but there 'Chains'...this most certainly was not true.


All of Marxs predictions were untrue about the growing disparitys between rich and poor...he was most certainly wrong about everything else.

[TCO]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


sorry mate, you cannot just make an excuse for one of the worst regimes in history. Or such a poor excuse. A country with so much resources as USSR can definitly self -sudstain if a proper system is in place.
Communist idea (everything centralized) made it possible to put the whole society in the hands of a lunatic. I would have seen you if you lived and average persons 'communist' life. Let alone having an opinion that differed from the regime in such a society.

BUT THEY'VE HAD 70 YEARS OF BAD WEATHER!!!

How do you expect anybody to do well in that situation? Be fair!