On the Venzuelan "Strike"

[Felch]

Well thanks GePap, I prolly wouldn't have thought up half those things before I came to Poly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh...not all commies endorsed the USSR. Besides even they were better off than they are now.

In the 40s and 50s just about every Commie was rah rah, USSR.

And as MtG says, a lot of the problems is because the USSR was more ****ed up than we previously thought, and the 'numbers' were much more inflated.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And as MtG says, a lot of the problems is because the USSR was more ****ed up than we previously thought, and the 'numbers' were much more inflated.

A large part of it was caused by the Cold War.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


A large part of it was caused by the Cold War.

This depends. Sure alot of problems were caused by the USSR focussing an excessive amount of its economic resources on its military. On the other hand, when resources were focussed on improving the economy such as with Khrushchev's "Virgin Lands" agricultural program in Central Asia, the USSR still ended up with an economic and ecological disaster.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Uh...not all commies endorsed the USSR. Besides even they were better off than they are now.

In the 40s and 50s just about every Commie was rah rah, USSR.

How many communists do you know? One of the profs in my department is a member of the communist party and stands in the local electorate. He's sort of a loved eccentric in the department. The Marxist/Leninist party also stands a candidate. One day a grad student unwisely suggested that there was no difference between them. You should have seen it.... Communism is not a monolithic doctrine and neither is "capitalism".

Many communists hoped that the USSR could eventually become the socialist state that it aspired to be. I think they were mistaken because there was no way that the Russian empire was ready for a complete socialist takeover in 1917. Gorbachev himself said, that in retrospect, a milder revolution would have put Russia in a much better position. That's not to say that the Soviet Union failed merely because of its style of government. It faced many problems, being from the outset a poor country opposed by the world's wealthiest and most powerful countries and being in a strategically undesirable position.

And frankly capitalism was in crisis when much of this was happening. Why do you think that Keynesian policies were adopted so readily by western governments?

[Sava]

So Chegitz, should I like Chavez or not, I'm still not clear.

[Agathon]

You must love him!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
How many communists do you know?

Be fair, Agathon. In the 1940s and 50s, it's not like there were all that many Communist groups. There was the Communist Party, the council communists, and and handful of Trotskyist splinter groups. The CP was 90% of the movement. The great fracturing didn't begin until the late 1950s, when Progressive Labor split from the CP. The 60s was a time of a thousand flowers, or at least revolutionary socialist groups.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How many communists do you know?

Many, many communists (though more socialists). I don't think it is a streach by ANY means to say just about every commie in the US during the 40s and 50s looked to the USSR. It wasn't like it was as splintered as it is now. Many even traveled there and proclaimed how amazing it was (Paul Robeson, who is practically idolized at my undergrad school, being a prime example). Many of them loved that it looked like it worked.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Be fair, Agathon. In the 1940s and 50s, it's not like there were all that many Communist groups. There was the Communist Party, the council communists, and and handful of Trotskyist splinter groups. The CP was 90% of the movement. The great fracturing didn't begin until the late 1950s, when Progressive Labor split from the CP. The 60s was a time of a thousand flowers, or at least revolutionary socialist groups.

Fair enough. I just don't buy into this "the USSR was a mess so we must all be good capitalists" line. In some ways the demise of the USSR was the best thing that could happen for the left. I still think they are right - capitalism is a doomed system one way or another (the other means we all die horribly).

Back in the 30s you had all sorts of them fighting in the Spanish Civil War.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How many communists do you know?

Many, many communists (though more socialists). I don't think it is a streach by ANY means to say just about every commie in the US during the 40s and 50s looked to the USSR. It wasn't like it was as splintered as it is now. Many even traveled there and proclaimed how amazing it was (Paul Robeson, who is practically idolized at my undergrad school, being a prime example). Many of them loved that it looked like it worked.

By the sixties I'm sure more were looking at Guevara and Castro. I know I vastly prefer them to Stalin.

[Imran Siddiqui]

By the sixties I'm sure more were looking at Guevara and Castro.

And since when did I even mention the 60s?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

By the sixties I'm sure more were looking at Guevara and Castro.

And since when did I even mention the 60s?

I didn't say that you did. Aren't we talking about the present prospects of the left left?

[Plan Austral]

Even though I dont like Chavez, and I am not a communist I have to admit that what Cheguitz said is true..
God, sometimes it is so hard to explain to americans/europeans how the third world works...(specially latin america)

[red_mustard]

Makes you wish the coup was succesful? Now another murdering dictator is in place. Worse, we didnt put him there !

Communism is dead guys. It doesnt work. Watch the destruction of venezuala in the coming months. It always happens. So many examples to cite.