Is Communism effectively dead?

[klesh]

Originally posted by faded glory
Noriega was a fascist too. We greased his ass for encouraging drug cartels.

Faded, we taught Noriega everything he knows while he attended the infamous "School of the Americas" in Ft. Benning, GA.

[Bereta_Eder]

asher, you keep saying what about freedom in China

each country should decide on its own the way its politics work.

anyone meddling with that should get a stick up his ass

(by any way possible)

[GePap]

Originally posted by faded glory
Noriega was a fascist too. We greased his ass for encouraging drug cartels.

As someone who grew up under him Faded, Noriega was not a fascist, but a authoritarian (the only thing he cared about was himself) who ruled with support from socialist-nationalist circles who were anti-US due to US/Panama relations. The US helped Noriega and was helped by him, specially in the early and mid-eighties as a way to funnel arms to the contras during the Iran-Contra scandal. The US didn't want to bring up the drug connection because, 1. drug money was used for the contras and the US didn't care and two, Noriega knew too much. It was only when domestic pressure over drugs overcame Iran-Contra that the US moved against him.

As for the original question:

Leninist, Maoist, and Stalinist interpretations of Marxism are dead. While marxism is certainly wrong for overlooking the rise of the midlle class as the main class, not the workers, its focus on a redistribution of wealth and benefits for workers which would allow them to carry out full lives and not be slaves for a wage has sort of come true in the oldest capitalit societies (EU) to a much greater degree than it ever came true in Leninist, maoist or Stalinist societis, becuase Marx was right in that only societies of great welath could afford his vision.

[Inverse Icarus]

Communism is far from dead.

It's not our fault Communist States didnt lie about their earnings to inflate their pockets...

[Asher]

asher, you keep saying what about freedom in China

each country should decide on its own the way its politics work.

anyone meddling with that should get a stick up his ass

(by any way possible)

I agree.

[Asher]

Originally posted by UberKruX
Communism is far from dead.

It's not our fault Communist States didnt lie about their earnings to inflate their pockets...

No, instead they force the people to live under their strict rules and supervision and squelch any reports of earnings whatsoever.

Far better!

[Bereta_Eder]

err,

[klesh]

It's not our fault Communist States didnt lie about their earnings to inflate their pockets...

kinda like Worldcom?

[Al B. Sure!]

Paiktis:

No one voted for Mao Zedong... the Nationalist areas were just so shattered from Japanese occupation that the Communists easily crushed the Fascists. The communists took China by force


thanks

[Bereta_Eder]

speers, doesnt matter, noone voted for dictaorships either

[Bereta_Eder]

pople had to fight both USSR and US for their national independece and when they achieved it (those who did) have.... reaaly nice feelings for both

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
If a "democracy" becomes so corrupt that there become a de facto subjugation of the so-called working class, perhaps. I think all communist takeovers were a reaction to true oppression.

First of all, there is a working class. The working classes are the people who do all the actual work. Specifically the proletariat, who has nothing to sell but their ability to work. In capitalism the working class is always subjegated. You can only make a profit off of workers if you exploit them, and you can only exploit them if they are subjugated.

Now, that subjugation can be obtained by buying off the working class with social programs, as in Europe. It can be hard, as in Columbia, where they will kill you for being a labor organizer (half of all union activist murders in the world are in Columbia). It can be by entertaining the working class so it forgets its woes, as in the US. Or it any combination thereof.

For a time, the existence of the USSR forced the capitalists to treat the workers of the industrialized world more gentle, to use the carrot rather than the stick. Now that it's gone, the kid gloves have come off, hence liberalization.

Your second assertion would be correct. Communism hasn't come to power in any country except where there was serious oppression. Not even Chile, despite the rhetoric of Kissinger and Pinochet.

The way we combat communism is not simply to promote free-market concepts, but to promote a democracy that is truly concerned with the welfare of all its people.

This is absolutely true. But if this were possible, then communism wouldn't be necessary. As I mentioned previously, Europe built its welfare states in response to the Soviet threat. Communism was an extremely popular movement in Europe, despite Stalin's best efforts. The Communists were growing in political strength and could be expected to win many national elections. Paiktis described what happened because of that in two countries. So the Western Euopean powers began creating social programs for the working class, making their lives much easier.

But without the threat of the USSR, with the capitalist class believing the Communism is utterly vanquished, and doing its best to get everyone else to believe it also, there is no reason to buy off the working class. They can start taking back all of the social programs, which they have done, slowly in some countries, more quickly in others.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh


kinda like Worldcom?

worldcom, enron, xerox, merryl lynch, probably many others...

hell, maybe 90% of big business.

thats why they're succeeding, they're scamming

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But without the threat of the USSR, with the capitalist class believing the Communism is utterly vanquished, and doing its best to get everyone else to believe it also, there is no reason to buy off the working class. They can start taking back all of the social programs, which they have done, slowly in some countries, more quickly in others.

Exactly. And this is our new fight to carry through. The preservation of these rights.

[chequita guevara]

Neither Trujillo nor Noriega were facsists. Fascism is a very specific thing, not simple thuggish authoritatianism. Fascism is a movement of the ruined middle class, declasse proletariat, and the lumpen, which is funded and supported by the big capitalists. It only comes into existence in countries where the working class is politically very powerful, but has failed to carry through their revolution (these conditions do not always result in Facism, however).

Speer, the US Marine's did not kill Trujillo. He fell from power and was replaced with a left-leaning democracy. It was this new government which was invaded and overthrown by the Marines in 1965.

Faded Glory, the USSR did not instigate wars in Africa. The USSR since Stalin's time has been a very conserivative government, prefering trying to buy off capitalist hostility by undercutting revolutionary movements that look to the USSR for leadership. In Africa, revolutions occured in spite of Soviet influence, rather than because of it.

In the wake of de-colonialization, most African governments adopted socialist leanings, as most of their new leaders were socialists. The US was most unhappy with this, and overthrew as many of them as it could. Other governments saw the writing on the wall, and went to the USSR for help (like so many countries around the world). This is the Soviet Union's messing around in Africa.