Has Marxism Contributes Anything Positive to Humanity

[jbg]

Oh, if only Marx' Communism probably implemented a democratically elected government & not dictatorship. That would have been truly interesting to see the results. Much of the crap that has been these pseudo-communist states (a true Marx Communist system has never been implemented) has to do with the usually brutal & repressive dictatorships that lead the "communist" countries.

A democracy would modify the Communist elements out of existence rather fast. Communism works only in classroom theory.

[lictor616]

So your one of the 'Stalin was a Jew' crowd?

no i'm in the Lenin, Marx, Trotsky Kamenev were all jews camp(marx was even the son of a long line of rabbis)... that many of the partisan leaders and framers of communism were in one from or another of secret society... "la ligue des justes", adam Weishaupt's know well known illuminati and perfekt tibilisten.

I'm also saying that 53% of the NKVD was jewish, and the Jewish over representation in all important government branches was very important... after all soviet russia (a supposedly anti-nationalistic, anti-religious country, designaded the Jewish Autonomous Oblast as a gift where jews could maintain their tradition and culture... a perk given to NO OTHER people...

Edited October 22, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Communism achieved positive things. It kept the USSR isolated from the capitalist world economy during the 1930's depression, which spared the Russians some misery (though they had enough misery with Stalin slaughtering them). This in turn helped the Russians be economically able to kick Nazi butt during WWII.

Man almost certainly landed on the moon earlier in history because of the Cold War space race.

The Cold War was also probably one of the most peaceful times in modern history (not saying much). At least since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the establishment of the international sovereign state system. Before the Cold War, war between nations was almost constant for centuries. The Cold War period was relatively peaceful in comparison, despite many dead Vietnamese etc.

I'm there are other examples i can think of but i'm tired and lazy.

wow, what a sacrilegious comment.

communist russia was barren wasteland of poverty and dearth in the 1930's... and the Ukraine who was under soviet tyranny in 32-33 saw 7 to 10 million of its people ANNIHILATED in that time... I mean, it takes a pretty sick mind to compare that to bread lines and comparatively very mild and temporary poverty of the genocidal policies of the Soviet...

Also about 30 billion dollars in late 20's and 30's were transfered from New York to moscow... communism was actually FINANCED buy the West, so none of their achievements were actually really done on their own steam. GE paid and financed the electrification of russia as I've said before.

"Kick Nazi butt"? the glorious soviet was so inept and so hopelessly brutal towards their own soldiers that the death toll for russian soldiers is estimate at 13 million! conservatively! the "enemy at the gates" scenario of 1 rifle for 3 soldiers was pretty accurate of how the glorious red army did stuff.

yeah they really showed those germans!

The cold war? peaceful? Are you this insanely ignorant of your own commie history!?!?! RJ Rummel estimates the Genocides and Democides of Communist countries during the cold war (1953 to 1989 roughly- doesn't compile the last two years) at roughly 67 to 83 MILLION PEOPLE...

wow some peace!

Dude pick up a Solzhenitsyn book ASAP... read up on the lovely soviet GULAG archipelago...

Edited October 22, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

... and the Ukraine who was under soviet tyranny in 32-33 saw 7 to 10 million of its people ANNIHILATED in that time...

You make it sound like they were rounded up and gassed....singled out for the final solution even....the estimate of the number of dead range from 2.6 to 10 million....

[cybercoma]

wow, what a sacrilegious comment.

Thus, there will never be any reasoning with you, so I haven't even bothered to craft a response on this issue. You're making this an issue of sacred and profane, when it's not. Too bad. The discussion could have been rather interesting.

[eyeball]

In response to Lictor on this thread and the pending thread drift.

What do you think ?

I would argue that capitalism modified itself in response to Marxism, and therefore ensured that it would outlast it.

For a short while maybe. Neither has managed to reconcile themselves with their natural envoironments yet.

By the way I think your thread drifted away too.

[Michael Hardner]

Like a balloon it did. I let go of the string just after the first post, and didn't check into the thread again until it was gone.

[lictor616]

You make it sound like they were rounded up and gassed....singled out for the final solution even....the estimate of the number of dead range from 2.6 to 10 million....

2.6 is the number of dead non realted to the artificial famine, there were also numerous deportations into GULAGS (2.6 million's worth) that made Treblinka and Auschwitz look like summer camps. The average life of an inmate in GULAGS was 43 hours... Commies would stack up dozens of rows of prisoners at a time and murder them wholesale to save ammo and have the inmates bury the dead.

There were also many summary executions of Kulak farmers, soviet interrogations, mass rapes and other pleasantries who tickle communist fancies.

[Moonlight Graham]

wow, what a sacrilegious comment.

communist russia was barren wasteland of poverty and dearth in the 1930's... and the Ukraine who was under soviet tyranny in 32-33 saw 7 to 10 million of its people ANNIHILATED in that time... I mean, it takes a pretty sick mind to compare that to bread lines and comparatively very mild and temporary poverty of the genocidal policies of the Soviet...

Also about 30 billion dollars in late 20's and 30's were transfered from New York to moscow... communism was actually FINANCED buy the West, so none of their achievements were actually really done on their own steam. GE paid and financed the electrification of russia as I've said before.

"Kick Nazi butt"? the glorious soviet was so inept and so hopelessly brutal towards their own soldiers that the death toll for russian soldiers is estimate at 13 million! conservatively! the "enemy at the gates" scenario of 1 rifle for 3 soldiers was pretty accurate of how the glorious red army did stuff.

yeah they really showed those germans!

The cold war? peaceful? Are you this insanely ignorant of your own commie history!?!?! RJ Rummel estimates the Genocides and Democides of Communist countries during the cold war (1953 to 1989 roughly- doesn't compile the last two years) at roughly 67 to 83 MILLION PEOPLE...

wow some peace!

Dude pick up a Solzhenitsyn book ASAP... read up on the lovely soviet GULAG archipelago...

I was not condoning Communism as a whole. Soviet Russia, especially under Stalin, was horrid. This thread simply asked if there were any positive aspects to Communist and I named some.

60+ million people were killed in WWII alone. If the Soviet-US bipolar "Cold War" situation was not such, and there was another international war between the Great Powers like WWI or WWII there would have many more deaths than actually occurred during that time period.

If the people of the USSR were poor during the 1930's, it was because the gov't let them be. But it is a fact that the USSR kept its economic strength through the 1930's compared to the other great powers in Europe etc. (money may not have gone to the people properly, but the country still had money). The USSR and the U.S. were the only 2 countries to economically survive the 1930's/WWII era and come out the other side as great power states. That is why the US and the USSR were became locked in the Cold War post-WWII. Communism and USSR's insulation from the world capitalist collapse of the 30's was a key reason for this. It certainly wasn't because they didn't take their licks during WWII like virtually all European countries did also.

Lictor, just calm down and step off a bit dude. I'm not promoting Communism. Communism IS STUPID!! Got it? I'm just replying to the freakin thread. Go grab a cup of tea and relax my friend, and stop filtering my posts through your warped lens.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[ToadBrother]

I was not condoning Communism as a whole. Soviet Russia, especially under Stalin, was horrid. This thread simply asked if there were any positive aspects to Communist and I named some.

I don't think we can meaningfully answer the question. Marxism has never really been tried out. Russia and China were still largely agrarian societies when the Communist revolutions came to town. For those whose heads don't explode at the thought of it, they might trying reading what Marx and Engels thought. They believed in a sort of socio-economic evolution (in fact, Marxism has influenced fields like anthropology via this line of thought), starting with countries like Russia and China and then moving forward into a capitalist society. Marx was firmly convinced that once this was accomplished, the workers would rise up against the capitalists, seize control of the government and the means of production, thus ushering in a period of dictatorship of the proletariat whereby the old Bourgeois institutions would be swept away before a completely socialist and democratic state would in turn come to fruition.

Of course, it's a lot more nuanced than that, but that's the basic idea, and believe me, this notion of socio-economic evolution is very far reaching, and Marx's theory pretty much marks the birth of modern political thought. I'm not saying Marxism is right, I'm just saying that those whose slogan is "better dead than Red" might want to take off the sunglasses and assess the actual theory.

But, back to the point, Russia and China, both being agrarian states, would not have been sufficiently advanced for Marx's theories to be put to the test. He was more expecting revolutions in more industrialized areas of Europe, but the aristocrats and power brokers (the Bourgeois) had a trick up their sleeve that Marx didn't quite expect. You see, they basically stole key socialist ideas like labor rights, constitutional government, emancipation, democratizing of institutions, limiting the direct political power of the older aristocratic classes, and so forth.

The thing is that Marx's theories were flawed because he misread the French Revolution, whereas the capitalists did not. Marx had a rather common view (one still very common today) that the French Revolution was a popular uprising. But look at its instigators, its leaders. These weren't the working class that Marx (and so many since) believed had toppled the old regime, they were jealous aristocrats and the learned class. To be sure they got the commoners to rally to them, but they commoners didn't light the tinder box. In fact, the Revolution wasn't lead by anyone remotely "common" until an upstart Corsican who enjoyed crappy wine and cheap snuff and who had spent his early years hating the French came along.

The capitalists knew who really started the Revolution, who really put Louis XIV's head under a guillotine, who really lead it through its various forms of madness, and since none of them wanted to be in the same position in the mid 19th century, they did all the right things to avoid Marx's prophecy, and pretty much did. The few uprisings were quelled, the instigators dealt with, but rather than just throwing everyone who vaguely looked upset into the Bastille, they gave them what they wanted. It was some clever and Machiavellian, and prevented Marx's ideas from being put to the test.

Where the Marxists did gain traction was in places like Russia and China, who were still trying to industrialize and modernize. The people in these countries had a political leadership largely incapable of raising up the lower classes. In both Russia and China, the larger portion of the populations still lived in circumstances little better than serfdom despite concrete steps by their flailing governments to raise their standards of living. Here, the idea of unrestricted socialism, of planned economies where the decadent landed classes would have to surrender their power and property to the people they had so long dominated was extraordinarily attractive. That neither country was anywhere near the ideal capitalist state that Marx envisioned as being primed and ready for the Proletariat's victory was besides the point. Basically both Lenin and Mao invented a kind of weird hybridized Marxism; part Communism, part technocratic industrialism, part semi-religious cult of personality (although, to be fair, the Cult of Lenin didn't really begin until after his death, the USSR became something quite different than what Lenin and Trotsky had envisioned when Stalin seized power). Neither ever actually produced a Marxist state.

Edited October 23, 2009 by ToadBrother

[lictor616]

If the people of the USSR were poor during the 1930's, it was because the gov't let them be. But it is a fact that the USSR kept its economic strength through the 1930's compared to the other great powers in Europe etc. (money may not have gone to the people properly, but the country still had money). The USSR and the U.S. were the only 2 countries to economically survive the 1930's/WWII era and come out the other side as great power states.

Lictor, just calm down and step off a bit dude. I'm not promoting Communism. Communism IS STUPID!! Got it? I'm just replying to the freakin thread. Go grab a cup of tea and relax my friend, and stop filtering my posts through your warped lens.

the government in Russia left their people to starve because to keep their war machine going they had to use ALL of their resources towards the military...

That meant rationing food as much as possible...

Capitalists in the meantime had a formidable army, and full bellies. funny no?

but that's the essence of Marxism... you talk as if we gave Marxism another chance it wouldn't turn out the same... on what do you base this silly myth?

Nevermind that as stated before, marxism is a hoax, and not an actual ideology on statecraft... why do you reject the many examples and different types of communism and marxism that have been tried out (WORLDWIDE) as "not communism/marxism"... Chinese communism and Soviet communism were very different, but hey faired about the same: harrowing poverty, million of cadavers, and a nightmarish prison state.

What about cambodian communism? Tito communism? Polish COmmunism? they all FAILED MISERABLY!

and I'd wager that the reason you defend the communist manifesto and Marx, is that you aren't very well read on the subject.

If you were, you wouldnt dare make the statements you're making.

Edited October 23, 2009 by lictor616

[cybercoma]

lictor, have you read any of Marx's work? I only ask because if you had, you would know that the regimes you're condemning (rightfully so) are not Marxist because they forced communism on the "proletariat" from the top down. The revolution has to come from the people. There has to be a raising of consciousness through successive economic-political crises leading to a revolution. Top-down communism is not communism proper, nor is it even remotely Marxist. Those regimes were horrendous, not because of communism, but because of their un-communist ideals. Communism may very well not work in the "real" world, but that doesn't mean the defective attempts that have been made are actually communism. They were fascist, dictatorial, and totalitarian. They simply displaced non-violent private bourgeoisie with a brutally violent and oppressive administrative bourgeoisie.

[M.Dancer]

Capitalists in the meantime had a formidable army, and full bellies. funny no?

We in Canada, the UK and america had rationing of all sorts. Food, gasolin...nylon.

The UK kept rationing well into the mid 50s.

[cybercoma]

We in Canada, the UK and america had rationing of all sorts. Food, gasolin...nylon.

The UK kept rationing well into the mid 50s.

Don't forget prohibition.

[DogOnPorch]

Don't forget prohibition.

I think that was more in response to the Temperance Movement. Worked out well for some, of course.

[M.Dancer]

Don't forget prohibition.

There was n o prohibition during the second world war, it is not germane to the topic

[DogOnPorch]

There was n o prohibition during the second world war, it is not germane to the topic

Yes...Prohibition ended in 1933...much to the chagrin of the Cosa Nostra.

[cybercoma]

I think that was more in response to the Temperance Movement. Worked out well for some, of course.

That's true. The Temperance Movement did use the war as an excuse though. The Great War that is.

Edited October 23, 2009 by cybercoma

[ToadBrother]

We in Canada, the UK and america had rationing of all sorts. Food, gasolin...nylon.

The UK kept rationing well into the mid 50s.

I was going to say precisely that. There were all kinds of rationing.

The great starvations in the Ukraine were due to Stalin's actions; both intentional and the insane agricultural policies. Big parts of the Ukraine were occupied by the Nazis during the war, so it's kind of tough to blame the Kremlin for what happened at that point.

[ToadBrother]

What about cambodian communism? Tito communism? Polish COmmunism? they all FAILED MISERABLY!

and I'd wager that the reason you defend the communist manifesto and Marx, is that you aren't very well read on the subject.

If you were, you wouldnt dare make the statements you're making.

Who exactly are you talking too? I'm not defending Communism, I'm pointing out that it never actually happened where Marx said it would happen, so whether it would work or not hasn't actually be determined. As to Yugoslavia and Poland, well, there was no Communist revolutions in those places, Communism was imposed. In Cambodia, well we have another agrarian society which, according to the original Marxist theory wasn't supposed to be ready yet.

The only industrialized country where any kind of Communist revolution ever occurred was Hungary in 1919 under Bela Kun. That lasted less than six months.

I doubt very much that you're well read on Marxism. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that about the only thing you know about Marxist theory is what your far right racist literature tells you.

[lictor616]

lictor, have you read any of Marx's work? I only ask because if you had, you would know that the regimes you're condemning (rightfully so) are not Marxist because they forced communism on the "proletariat" from the top down. The revolution has to come from the people. There has to be a raising of consciousness through successive economic-political crises leading to a revolution. Top-down communism is not communism proper, nor is it even remotely Marxist. Those regimes were horrendous, not because of communism, but because of their un-communist ideals. Communism may very well not work in the "real" world, but that doesn't mean the defective attempts that have been made are actually communism. They were fascist, dictatorial, and totalitarian. They simply displaced non-violent private bourgeoisie with a brutally violent and oppressive administrative bourgeoisie.

Communism is the economic dominance of government and bureaucracies. It follows that to IMPLEMENT COMMUNISM... you NEED A HIERARCHY, a ADMINISTRATIVE "bourgeousie"... how else can a country organize such programs as "nationalization"?

NOT EVERYONE can administer the organs of government... and not every citizen can be given the right to veto decisions... AND a communist government will inevitably impose on the proletariat because never will there ever be unanimous agreement anywhere!

The fatal flaws of communism are so apparent, so clearly visible, that only a person that is badly acquainted with them can fail to see them...

The very necessities of organizing labor automatically mean differentiation and ranking and hierarchy (who are anathema to communism).

Think about it how do you equalize a population? If the individual members can NEVER BE EQUAL? How do you for instance seize a mansion from a bourgeois... and redistribute it equally? give a plank of wood to everyone equally? have 20 people live in it? destroy it? who's to decide? where are the guarantee's that this will be done equally?

The same goes for agriculture, different lines of work etc... its just unworkable... Communism is a MISREADING OF HUMAN NATURE... Communism operates under the delusion that human nature can be made to change to suit the whims of primitive works like Das Kapital by Mordecai Levy (whoops I mean Karl Marx!)

Communism thrived because it appealed to the lowest elements of deficient societies (again contrary to what marx prophesied.. communism began in the POORER NATIONS... not the wealthy western one.) Communism in Poland was very bottom up... they motivated enlisted the many poor, uneducated and miserable elements in Polish society (which constituted a majority) they then identified the Bourgeois class (statesmen, poets, writers, bankers etc) and set the mob loose on them... and the results are clearly seen in the annals of history, Katyn, Warsovie etc...

That was proletarian communism... as was the Russian Revolution... who again enlisted MAJORITIES of the proletariat... that's marxism 101. You can SAY that that isn't marxism... but you'd be on par with a person saying that National Socialism never really happened and that hitler's vision was never really carried out.... and so nazism has never really existed and that we should give it a chance.

Fascism has no relationship with communism whatsoever. Fascism is a CONTRARY ideology to communism... Fascism is ELITIST... it is ANTI-EGALITARIAN. Fascists are not egalitarians ... they are Darwinists (real darwinists... unlike communists who merely pay lip service to Darwin and then categorically reject the implication of his theories of biological evolution by swallowing such nonsense concepts as human equality).

Fascism is opposed to Finance Capitalism (the private ownership of industry) and State Socialism (the state ownership of industry)... they would make the Agricultural Corporation, the Fishery Corporation, the Water corporation etc under the joint control of Management, Workers and Consumers. The Government would only intervene in the event of major discord within the Corporation.

That is the essence of Fascism... did it work? well of course unfortunately ... it kinda did in Italy and Germany before the entire World mobilized against them... near zero unemployment, everyone well fed, very few lower classes and very few super rich classes... just a very large middle class of self sufficient, independent free holding people.

Of course it wasn't a utopia... it wasn't particularly pleasant place for Jews, gypsies,, homosexuals, the mentally deficient, the infirm and so on...

But to call Communism "fascistic" (!) is admitting that you have no clue of what these two opposing systems are...

[lictor616]

We in Canada, the UK and america had rationing of all sorts. Food, gasolin...nylon.

The UK kept rationing well into the mid 50s.

for the war effort in WW2 ... yes... but not at all to the same extent...

communists were rationing one meal a day and eating NOTHING but potatoes and a small hunk of scrap meat a week...

that of course was simply not the case for 50's canada and america.... we had diners with immense hamburgers, ice cream and ate 15 buttered pancakes in the morning.

Edited October 23, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Don't forget prohibition.

prohibition was a product of clotted minds enfeebled by Christianity and Jesus Jargon.

And Christianity is the basis for Marxism...

Prohibition was socialist in character... it enabled the GOVERNMENT to make decisions which should be private for individuals.

Real Capitalists, or fascists, understand that while there are many reasons why people may make mistakes, from fallacious appearances to not knowning the effects of certain substances... but certainly the resort to drugs of well-known efficacy involves a decision for which the individual must bear the sole responsibility. Slavish addiction is proof of unfitness for civilized liberty and hence unfitness for civilized society.

Creatures who do not have the intelligence and ethical/moral compass to govern their own lives when they are free to do so should not be given the opportunity to perpetuate their weakness and weaken the nation as a whole.

A rational freedom loving person would say to you: "if you want to sky-dive without a parachute, go right ahead... you won't be missed"

A communist socialist would instead ban sky diving altogether.

Edited October 23, 2009 by lictor616

[DogOnPorch]

I always found it amusing that during Russia's darkest hour Stalin hauled out the old system of ranks for the army and took power away from the commissars. Not to mention re-opened the churches. Stalin didn't run though...much to his credit. Archangel was looking pretty good 'round about Nov 1941.

[M.Dancer]

for the war effort in WW2 ... yes... but not at all to the same extent...

communists were rationing one meal a day and eating NOTHING but potatoes and a small hunk of scrap meat a week...

that of course was simply not the case for 50's canada and america.... we had diners with immense hamburgers, ice cream and ate 15 buttered pancakes in the morning.

The Soviets had the bread baskets occupied by the Nazis. Once again you have skillfully shown you don't know buigger all about anything.....nor do you have any idea growong up in the 50s...