I didn't say it was only CPUSA .They were just an example. Are you sure this is what you really mean? You seem to be a bit confused as to whether you are saying this or the opposite.
why was the american gov so "evil" during the cold war
- Thread starter xxxtotalwhorexxx
- Start date
Are you sure you didn't say CPUSA? You are the one who mentioned to prove me that "communism had nothing to do with the gains of the workers" in USA to later say that communist did play role... than you turn my words upside... are you sure you follow what you say? Or you change your mind depending on what I write you as agrumentation just to sound clever? Typical liberal...
No I said communism didn't play a big a role as you are implying. I acknowledged in that response that communists did play a role .But their influence waned after WWE .Now pay attention. This was in part because the CPUSA the biggest group in America took a pro Soviet stance. The cold war was a part of the story. As it was part or most international relations at that time. But listen kid you think you know what you are talking about ? Did those old communists tell you about MAD? Did they tell you the U.S and Russia came as close to ever to war over mobile missile stations in Europe? How Russia almost launched a nuclear strike on America because of a glitch in their satellite system? To which the U.S would have retaliated. Boy you have this idealized concept of communism. Which is silly and pathetic. Communism is food lines , starvation , secret police , extrajudicial killings , torture , forced labor , and oppression. Those things have and do happen in other countries. But they are the core of what communism is.
Last edited:
Now your real thoughts on communism come out. I am not a fan of Stalin, or Mao, although both would be worthy of study, but I doubt that the USSR was nearly as bad as US propaganda makes it seem. Or any state we call "communist". Capitalism seems to provide vast material wealth, yes, also greed, war, environmental destruction, climate change, hyper individualism, materialism, consumerism, chasms of inequality and colonialism, free trade at the point of a gun, and vast mountains of trash and pollutants. If we're just throwing out bad words.
Yes, nuclear war is bad. Good point.
I am stating nothing but facts. It isn't my personal opinion. It isn't propaganda. Those were the things that went on in those countries. It is all easily looked up and verifiable. That is what communism brought to those who lived under it . Not some workers paradise were everyone is equal. But neither one of you are old enough to have seen what things were like for those people. I am. So both of you are just stating opinion. I saw the fall of the Soviet Union and its Bloc .I saw when the Berlin wall came down. Those people in the streets celebrating as though countries governments fell apart didn't seem sad to see them go. They seemed pretty happy. Now their is no doubt America put out a lot of propaganda about communism. But facts are facts. Even if two silly children refuse to believe them and live in some fantasy world.
Yeah police brutality and mass incarceration are bad. Proxy wars are fought by two sides not one . And the last part of your response is called capitalism.Which most communist countries adopted in a state controlled form and now allow in private forms as well.
Last edited:
Good, you are old enough to see the fall of the Soviet Block, we are not... my father is born 48, mother 58, both have lived not only in what you call "communism" but when Yugoslavia and the USSR fall. I guess you were not in the same position as people living in those countries... strange but if you go there and ask them how was it in "communism" first reply you will get is "we had no communism, it was real-socialism" and than they will continue... you seeing the fall of the Berlin Wall is as relevant as what I know from people in my country, because lets be real, you watched the fall with US media interpretation, you were not there... There is saying about the first strike in Serbia, when workers in the industry in Belgrade went on strike, it goes: "they came as workers, left as Serbs", which explains the process which led to the fall.
They were not fighting against communism they fought against the bureaucracy, because they knew what communism is and knew that the Party is taking other direction long time. If you ask them what they think of communism, they never say: "communism is police state" they say: "The bureaucracy betrayed the workers to rob the public property and to become bosses". In 68, when the student protest were in Yugoslavia, the students occupied the University in Belgrade and rename it "Red University Karl Marx", their requests were they want communism and fought against the bureaucracy as traitors of NOB and the socialist revolution, it was same in Prague... "Solidarnost" in Poland was asking for workers self-menagment... The problem in those countries was that the CP fought against all communist groups, the crises came in time where there was no organised left, only nationalist who took the role of leading the people. The CP of Serbia found another way, it adjusted to nationalism and Miloshevic took the role in this. When he addressed the workers on strike, because he had no other way to stay on power, his position was that the Slovenians are responsible for the crisis in SFRY, this was turning point in the process as from that moment nationalism grow. You think those people were fighting for "democracy"? No man, Serbs fought to slaughter Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, Croats fought to slaughter Serbs and Bosnians, Bosnians were in situation were they were facing extermination from both sides and enter in nationalism too, Slovenians and Macedonians pretended that nothing happens... Albanians in Kosovo were slaughtered by Arkan's tigers... You have no fucking idea what those "fighters for freedom" did to each other... the fall is more complex than you think and than it was presented through the US media lens...
If people were against communism, than why Yeltsin had to fought demonstrators in 1993 organised by communist organisations against the privatization? They were on the edgy of Civil War on the issue of social transformation, at the same time neo-Nazi organisations were defending Yeltsin. If people were against socialism, than why they demonstrated and went to strike every time a factory was privatizated in ex SFRY countries?
Ok wise old enough guy, you think SFRY was poor? It was not as wealthy as USA, but it was not imerialist country which build its wealth on the back of other countries... but do you have a fucken idea what happens when a country which had full employment in just 3 years gos to more than 45% unemployment? I lived in the 90s, I remember what happened... you know which were the consequences of "the freedom fighters against communism"? Which by the way was the bureaucracy not the people... I see them every day in the eyes of my Bosnian roommates, my Macedonian, Serbian, Slovenian friends... don't lecture me from moral high ground because "you saw it on TV", I live it everyday... and I'm not telling you this as a communist, but as a human, I know the suffering people had in this "quest of freedom" and its consequences...
And it is quite stupid position to say because you watched on TV, your opinion is more relevant than all the studies and researches I told you...
They were not fighting against communism they fought against the bureaucracy, because they knew what communism is and knew that the Party is taking other direction long time. If you ask them what they think of communism, they never say: "communism is police state" they say: "The bureaucracy betrayed the workers to rob the public property and to become bosses". In 68, when the student protest were in Yugoslavia, the students occupied the University in Belgrade and rename it "Red University Karl Marx", their requests were they want communism and fought against the bureaucracy as traitors of NOB and the socialist revolution, it was same in Prague... "Solidarnost" in Poland was asking for workers self-menagment... The problem in those countries was that the CP fought against all communist groups, the crises came in time where there was no organised left, only nationalist who took the role of leading the people. The CP of Serbia found another way, it adjusted to nationalism and Miloshevic took the role in this. When he addressed the workers on strike, because he had no other way to stay on power, his position was that the Slovenians are responsible for the crisis in SFRY, this was turning point in the process as from that moment nationalism grow. You think those people were fighting for "democracy"? No man, Serbs fought to slaughter Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, Croats fought to slaughter Serbs and Bosnians, Bosnians were in situation were they were facing extermination from both sides and enter in nationalism too, Slovenians and Macedonians pretended that nothing happens... Albanians in Kosovo were slaughtered by Arkan's tigers... You have no fucking idea what those "fighters for freedom" did to each other... the fall is more complex than you think and than it was presented through the US media lens...
If people were against communism, than why Yeltsin had to fought demonstrators in 1993 organised by communist organisations against the privatization? They were on the edgy of Civil War on the issue of social transformation, at the same time neo-Nazi organisations were defending Yeltsin. If people were against socialism, than why they demonstrated and went to strike every time a factory was privatizated in ex SFRY countries?
Ok wise old enough guy, you think SFRY was poor? It was not as wealthy as USA, but it was not imerialist country which build its wealth on the back of other countries... but do you have a fucken idea what happens when a country which had full employment in just 3 years gos to more than 45% unemployment? I lived in the 90s, I remember what happened... you know which were the consequences of "the freedom fighters against communism"? Which by the way was the bureaucracy not the people... I see them every day in the eyes of my Bosnian roommates, my Macedonian, Serbian, Slovenian friends... don't lecture me from moral high ground because "you saw it on TV", I live it everyday... and I'm not telling you this as a communist, but as a human, I know the suffering people had in this "quest of freedom" and its consequences...
And it is quite stupid position to say because you watched on TV, your opinion is more relevant than all the studies and researches I told you...
I'm not reading all this shit .You wrote a fucking book .Go on and pine for something you have never experienced and never will. Communism is done .It no longer exists as a real ideological movement or world political power. What does exist for better or worse will never be replaced by communism. And only a fucking moron would ever think it could . But hey man you do you .Keep dreaming about some non existent workers utopia.But you might want to ask yourself what happened? Why since Marx's first writing has communism failed ? Every single time .
We'll see about that... soon...
Sure good luck with that .
Since the introduction of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms, China has what economists call a socialist market economy – one in which a dominant state-owned enterprises sector exists in parallel with market capitalism and private ownership. It was the active encouragement of private enterprise from 1978 that enabled China to kick-start the long expansionary boom that continues today. Private businesses now produce more than half of China’s GDP and most of its exports. They also create most new jobs.
The top three companies in China are either completely privatized or have close links with the government: Huawei, Lenovo, and Alibaba
The U.S. is a mixed economy, exhibiting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. Such a mixed economy embraces economic freedom when it comes to capital use, but it also allows for government intervention for the public good. After looking it up, the main point why USA is mixed with socialism is the same reason why it is not true capitalism: because it is regulated. Since the government is involved it cannot be true capitalism or a completely free market
The top three companies in China are either completely privatized or have close links with the government: Huawei, Lenovo, and Alibaba
The U.S. is a mixed economy, exhibiting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. Such a mixed economy embraces economic freedom when it comes to capital use, but it also allows for government intervention for the public good. After looking it up, the main point why USA is mixed with socialism is the same reason why it is not true capitalism: because it is regulated. Since the government is involved it cannot be true capitalism or a completely free market
What is socialist economy? Which characteristic of US (or China) economy are socialist? State intervention? If you apply this logic all countries are mixed economy, and we are in socialist economy since the 18 century... capitalist economy is always regulated, it can't be fully "free", it has been regulated since the start. What they call "socialist market economy" was firs interduced in SFRY in the 60s, but the base of the economy in SFRY had no private ownership on factories, they were managed by workers councils in what was known as workers self-management. What makes capitalism is not regulation on "free initiative" but commodity production. If we apply the logic of regulation, we can say that there was no other system in history but capitalism, Ancient Greece had no regulations, in the middle ages there was no regulations of the economy... but there was no commodity production. Both US and China are based on commodity production. The whole thing that China even has long expansionary boom that continues today is in fact characteristic of capitalist production, imperialism is the last stage of capitalism, in order to keep up with the overproduction the market needs to expand because capitalist production can't manage to spend all goods it produces, since part of the value created by workers is extratcted in profits and those who own profits can't consume the good because their consumetion is limited, and those who can consume can't because their consuming power is limited.
Socialist economy is not government regulation but socialisation of the means of production or the control of the surplus value from private to social control, from the benefits of the owners to the benefits of society.You can't have profits on private bank accounts and socialism at same time because it shows that the means of production are not used for the benefits of society but for the benefit of individuals.
Strange how on the definition of socialism as regulations by state intervention you can see that liberals, ancaps (which is just mask for neo-fascist who are cowards to openly say that are fascist), social democrats (from the 3 wave), conservatives and Nazis agree (not to forget also some selfproclamed "Marxist" who defend China's imperialis politics, from ex Maoist currents). But anarchist, communist, democratic socialist, some social democrats (old school ones), most feminist currents (excluding liberal) agree that socialism is socialisation on the means of production... Since it first appeared socialism as idea it has the meaning of socialisation of the means of production, that is how it is created as idea, in contrast to private ownership of the means of production... all of the most important figures in socialist movements such Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Goldman, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Saint-Simon, Owen, even Tito, Stalin and Mao, agreed on this, but somehow the gangs that occasionally support different imperialism (based on their interest) agree that socialism is state regulation... Sorry but liberals, ancaps, conservatives, Nazis and fascist are not point of reference in what socialism is and never have been... same goes for bureaucrats (Deng Xiaoping) in ex CP which were saving their assess like Mao during "Cultural Revolution", Stalin during the purges or Tito during the crisis with Informbiro...
According to the 2020 Economic Freedom of the World Index, the top 10 capitalist countries (ranked from highest score to lowest):
Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Switzerland
Australia
United States
Mauritius
Georgia
Canada
Ireland
China is number 116 on the list. The further down you go the less capitalist of an economy you have. You seem to not understand that capitalism is an ideology and you can have capitalism with communism and socialism. Also you are correct that no country is a pure capitalist country but you are correct for the wrong reason. I will now explain to you how you have explained to DCDevon for 7 pages now. I lived in China you haven't. I lived there for six months for work assignment. Looking online you can find articles saying that China is a capitalist economy and China is a socialist economy. I even found one stating China is just like USSR was and is a post capitalist economy but that has stalled.
Since you never lived in China or probably never visited China I will break things down for you. The government controls everything in China, they even have the great internet wall of China, to have business in China, the government should have a percentage of that business. Thats why foreign companies cannot operate without a local partner and thats what we call joint ventures. Their people cant even own property in China, the government leases it to them only
The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles. ... When economic forces are unfettered, Americans believe, supply and demand determine the prices of goods and services. This never has happened in China, if you can prove it has I would gladly like to see.
The term mixed economy gained prominence in the United Kingdom after World War II, even though many of the policies associated with it at the time were first proposed in the 1930s. Since world War II and the 1930s came after the 1800s I am going to have to say once again you are incorrect
While I do appreciate the attempt to link Mao to lennin Trotsky and the like, you seem to have either failed to grasp the entire picture or are just cherry picking things from articles to try to prove your own agenda. What you are referring to is Maoism, and while his supporters were in fact in favor of Maoism especially after the split in the 60s. Mao himself hated the term as China was completely separated from USSR
Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Switzerland
Australia
United States
Mauritius
Georgia
Canada
Ireland
China is number 116 on the list. The further down you go the less capitalist of an economy you have. You seem to not understand that capitalism is an ideology and you can have capitalism with communism and socialism. Also you are correct that no country is a pure capitalist country but you are correct for the wrong reason. I will now explain to you how you have explained to DCDevon for 7 pages now. I lived in China you haven't. I lived there for six months for work assignment. Looking online you can find articles saying that China is a capitalist economy and China is a socialist economy. I even found one stating China is just like USSR was and is a post capitalist economy but that has stalled.
Since you never lived in China or probably never visited China I will break things down for you. The government controls everything in China, they even have the great internet wall of China, to have business in China, the government should have a percentage of that business. Thats why foreign companies cannot operate without a local partner and thats what we call joint ventures. Their people cant even own property in China, the government leases it to them only
The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles. ... When economic forces are unfettered, Americans believe, supply and demand determine the prices of goods and services. This never has happened in China, if you can prove it has I would gladly like to see.
The term mixed economy gained prominence in the United Kingdom after World War II, even though many of the policies associated with it at the time were first proposed in the 1930s. Since world War II and the 1930s came after the 1800s I am going to have to say once again you are incorrect
While I do appreciate the attempt to link Mao to lennin Trotsky and the like, you seem to have either failed to grasp the entire picture or are just cherry picking things from articles to try to prove your own agenda. What you are referring to is Maoism, and while his supporters were in fact in favor of Maoism especially after the split in the 60s. Mao himself hated the term as China was completely separated from USSR
I have a question for you .How exactly do you see a rise in communism occurring again? It seems the world has moved on and as I said no governments even believe in the ideology anymore .If they ever did. Without countries spreading it by force or people choosing it over their current form of government how exactly do you see this new revolution happening ?
I have nothing to do with you two's conversation. Why mention me at all?
Have been to Hong Kong, not to China unfortunately, and I know all this you wrote, except I don't try to link Mao to Lenin nor Trotsky because of the differences in practice and theory, or at least not to that extend, especially because of Mao's mass line. But I do think that Mao (I still have his "Little Red Book") was closer to Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky than to what China is today. I didn't know that China has still state regulated prices, but that is not most important.
I guess you know what are the basic characteristics of capitalist economy, is commodity production and commodification of labour, and wage labour, so I guess I don't need to write too much about this. Capitalism is ideology, but not just ideology, ideology is a superstructure formed on the infrastructure of mode of production, so capitalism is more than ideology and politics. Is system with its mode of production and relation in production, so you can't ignore the relations and the mode of production and fix on economic freedom and base the determination of which country is more or lass capitalist and ignore mode of production and relations in production. China has wage labour and labour is commodity since it has Labour Market. Capitalist society is the only society in which commodity production is generalized and labour (labour power) becomes a commodity which is sold on Market. That is the difference between China today and USSR in NEP, NEP although had market reforms didn't had labour market.
Mixed economy means that there is combination of market and planned economy, not of socialism and capitalism since the question is not about the mode of production. Even Public companies have capitalist mode of production, wage labour and capitalist relations. Lenin even stated that NEP is not socialist economy but a way to develop the means of production in times of Civil War. The question of USSR economy Trotsky addressed in "Revolution Betrayed" I suggest you to read it as he explains why USSR was not socialist society, but worker's state on the road to develop preconditions for the abolishment of the state. Since the book is published at the end of the 30s, the arguments for 1800 is irrelevant. I don't claim that mixed economy does not exist, I claim that mixed economy is not socialist but capitalist sine the whole relations in society, mode of production, relations in production, class nature of the state remain capitalist. Capitalism is system, not fragmenated and reduced on economy. Socialism is not just planning of production, planning of production to certain extend exist in every capitalist factory, but developing diferent mode and relations in production.
I think there is no necessity to elaborate on the class nature of the state, guess you know this and is one of the basic questions in any Marxist theory...
I can't see how can I have agenda on a forum, what will be my goal, to regrute you? I can't do that, so I have no need to spread any agenda...
"Labour is not a commodity" is the principle expressed in the preamble to the International Labour Organization's founding documents. It expresses the view that people should not be treated like inanimate commodities, capital, another mere factor of production, or resources. Since that right there is a direct opposition to your views as Marx stated labour is a commodity. Everyone has an agenda, mine is to fact check
The question explains why I tell you that you look no communism with Cold War lens... I'm not in favour of governments... I don't think that communism can be forced on people eather... communism has nothing to do with USSR politics during Cold War, and I don't think that can be achived with tanks. On the contrary, in order to have communism you need to have liberation from the state... if you don't trust me on this subject, read, read Engels's "Origin of the Family, Private property and the State" and Lenin's "The State and the Revolution", you might find some new view on communism. I'm in politics almost 10 years, I was not born communist, I was anti-communist liberal, hated socialism as I saw it as repression and as brainwashing. I become communist when by accident while researching Russian Avant-guarde Art discovered that what I have learned about Lenin in school had nothing to do with Lenin. Than I decided to read Marx's "Manifesto of the Communist Party"... it was mind blowing, I realised that what I'm reading had nothing to do with what I've learned about communism... than I started to read more and research history of the October Revolution, I was shocked by many things... I considered my parents for brainwashed by Tito's propaganda when they spoke for SFRY before I actually found myself ...
What countries? No countries, countries will never do such thing. Communism is anti-patriotic and anti-state, that is the bases. Marx states: "The workers have no country". In order to have socialism you need to fight against countries's governments.
It will happen in the same way as in Russia in 1917, by the working class. You think the USSR was created by forcing people? Or SFRY or China... no the people supported the Revolution. Revolutions happen because of the contradictions of capitalism and the relations in which workers are forced. In order to liberate its self from wage labour and exploitation the working class has to end capitalist relations. It is how societies develops, systems are not eternal things they are fazes in history.Is the people that does the revolution not Parties of governments. I don't know how you imagine Bolsheviks or the Revolution in 1917, but Bolsheviks were not big Party in February 1917, 8.000 people in country of more than 80 millions. There was no bloody revolution in October, there was no resistance to Bolsheviks taking power. There is joke that more people died when Eisenstein filmed "October: 10 Days that Shock the World" than when the Winter Palace was taken actually. 20 foregin armies were on the side of the Whites in the Civil War, the Red Army was not equiped... it is imposible to win a war against 20 armies if you don't have support of the people...
I think Revolution is the order of the day in USA, and from there it will spread in Europe.
Don't understand you, you suggest that I say labour is not commodity? The question is not what it "expresses the view that people should not be treated like inanimate commodities" but what it is. Labour is not same as humans, labour power is commodified in the process of capitalist production. Or your argument that labor is not commodity is based on some writing in some document? It doesn't prove that labour is not commodity the fact that someone expressed wishes in founding document. Is labor on the market? Is is used by capitalists? Is it soled by workers? So it is something that is traded... what is that if not commodity?
