Thank you for proving my point that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
why was the american gov so "evil" during the cold war
- Thread starter xxxtotalwhorexxx
- Start date
I haven't said that BLM is Marxist, I said that the support which the protest got is based in the contradictions of capitalism. I keep saying and you don't listening to me, Marxists don't do revolutions, revolutions are the way how society transforms in history, people do revolutions, and apparently during the protests the people were on the streets.
The Black Panther Party played important role in the 70s, and it was communist party, but that is not the point, I can point out how student organizations which were Marxist played quite important role in the movement against the war in Vietnam... but lets leave that out of the discussion since that is not the point.
I speak of economic crisis since we are in such, not only political or social as 50s, 60s or 70s which were years of boom economically. But what you forget is Cold War, there is no USSR now as scare goat... and if I remember good, in 2016 there was research in US about socialism showed that socialism is popular in US as never before...
We are not in an economic crisis in the U.S so I have no clue what you are talking about. Socialism is not communism.Or did you forget that?
? No argumenst on commodification of labour?
Who said socialism is not communism? Marx never made difference between both, nor Trotsky or Lenin... I said those countries were not socialist, i remeber, read...
You have no clue what you said or are saying now or earlier .
Why comment when you will just reply with either a strawman, equivocation or begging the question fallacy. Every time I have replied to you; you either completely missed what I was talking about, assumed I was talking about something completely different, or started on an entirely new argument. I thought me saying nobody can change your mind because beliefs are hard to change was pretty much the end of this. But I guess I was wrong. Have fun arguing for the sake of arguing
You said they were not the same .You claimed the countries that I said were communist were not communist but socialist .Yes Marx did see a difference. He believed socialism was a step towards communism. Societies would be socialist first then become communist. You have said so much bullshit you can't even keep it all straight.
I'm talking about active participating members of an organization. Most voters are not. I am American, I know about being forced to choose a ballot rather than have all candidates face one another. The 2 party system is essentially by law at this point. Neither Dems nor Republicans have ever invited me or anyone I know to do anything except vote for someone or give money.
Well, Capitalist propaganda vs. Marxist propaganda? I choose Marxist, because it is better for humanity and for nature. Good luck in your self-delusion or participation (by being a citizen of a wealthy nation, I am too) in exploitation of poor agricultural and manufactiring workers around the world. The future brings mass waves of immigration and armed conflict due to environmental degradation caused by capitalist overreach. Talk about how you think communism isn't going anywhere, fine, but whatever we want to call it, capitalist and free trade ideology has lost much of its shine and something else will replace it eventually. If you accept all our modern problems, you have no vision for a better future for yourself or anyone else.
There are millions of Democrats and Republicans. You know our political parties aren't dues paying entities that will invite you to an ice cream social.What do you expect your local Senator to invite you over for coffee? They don't do that in communist countries either .
No, you actually put words in my mouth... where did I say I support slave labour? Quote me... your arguments on whether labour is commodified were some statements fro organization which can't do the job for which was formed (if we guess it was formed to do what it says). So in order to disprove my arguments you start discussion about Popper and Marx, I didn't started that... but than you say I use strawman argument...
No, I said they were not communist and even they didn't identified as communist, but as "socialist". I also said they were workers states, and that Trotsky had correct analyzes on USSR, that means it was not socialist state (because is just oximoron socialist state) but workers state. I also said that Marx elaborates good what socialism and communism is and that state regulation is not socialism because socialism is stateless society... also said you have no idea what socialism is and have just ideological view on socialism from Cold War that is why you say USSR was communist/socialist...
No Marx didn't saw difference in that sense, for Marx socialism was just the first stage of communism, Stalinists and Maoists saw difference in socialism as the transitional state, Marx called that dictatorship of the proletariat (he wrote that about the Paris Commune), or as Trotsky called it workers state. For Marx socialism was the stage when money still are used for exchange based on use value.
"The socialist mode of production, also referred to as the communist mode of production, the lower-stage of communism[1] or simply socialism as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels used the terms communism and socialism interchangeably,[2][3]"
"Marx himself did not use the term socialism to refer to this development. Instead, Marx called it a communist society that has not yet reached its higher-stage.[1] The term socialism was popularized during the Russian Revolution by Vladimir Lenin. This view is consistent with and helped to inform early concepts of socialism in which the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labour would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.[8]"
"Socialism is a post-commodity economic system and production is carried out to directly produce use-value rather than toward generating profit. The accumulation of capital is rendered insufficient in socialism as production is carried out independently of capital accumulation in a planned fashion. However, there have been other concepts of economic planning, including decentralised and participatory planning. One of Marx's main manuscripts is a posthumous work called Grundrisse, published in 1953. In this work, Marx's thinking is explored regarding production, consumption, distribution, social impact of capitalism. Communism is considered as a living model for humans after capitalism. The emphasis is upon fair distribution of goods, equality and the optimum environment for humans to live in to develop themselves to their best capabilities (art, politics and philosophy, among others) to achieve happiness and to satisfy intrinsic needs. Marx's goal was to design a social system that eliminates the differences in classes between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In doing so, the tension and the power differences which force workers to labor in bad conditions for poor wages, disappear. According to Marx, capitalism is a system guaranteed to collapse because big companies would buy small companies, leading to monopoly. In such a scenario, a very small number of people control most of the money and power. Poverty for the masses would prevail."
And this is also why China is not socialist...
"In Trotskyist political theory, a degenerated workers' state is a dictatorship of the proletariat in which the working class's democratic control over the state has given way to control by a bureaucratic clique. The term was developed by Leon Trotsky in The Revolution Betrayed[1] and in other works.[2] rotsky held that in Russia between the 1917 October Revolution and up to Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power, there was a genuine workers' state.[3] The bourgeoisie had been politically overthrown by the working class and the economic basis of that state lay in collective ownership of the means of production. Contrary to the predictions of many socialists such as Lenin, the revolution failed to spread to Germany and other industrial Western European countries (although there were massive upheavals of working people in some of these countries), and consequently the Soviet state began to degenerate.[4] This was worsened by the material and political degeneration of the Russian working class by the Civil War of 1917–1923. After the death of Lenin in 1924, the ruling stratum of the Soviet Union, consolidated around Stalin, was held to be a bureaucratic caste, and not a new ruling class, because its political control did not also extend to economic ownership. The theory that the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers' state is closely connected to Trotsky's call for a political revolution in the USSR, as well as Trotsky's call for defense of the USSR against capitalist restoration.[5]"
"In Trotskyist political theory, deformed workers' states are states where the capitalist class has been overthrown, the economy is largely state owned and planned, but there is no internal democracy or workers' control of industry. In a deformed workers' state, the working class has never held political power like it did in Russia shortly after the Russian Revolution. These states are considered deformed because their political and economic structures have been imposed from the top (or from outside), and because revolutionary working class organizations are crushed. Like a degenerated workers' state, a deformed workers' state is considered to be a state that cannot be transitioning to socialism."
"Socialism in one country (Russian: социализм в отдельно взятой стране, tr. sotsializm v otdelno vzyatoy strane, lit. 'socialism in a single country') was a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin in 1924, which was eventually adopted by the Soviet Union as state policy.[1] The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1923 except for the one in Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. This turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held position by classical Marxism that socialism must be established globally. However, proponents of the theory argue that it contradicts neither world revolution nor world communism. The theory was in opposition to Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and the communist left theory of world revolution."
"On the question of socialist construction in a single country, Friedrich Engels wrote:
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.[17]
— Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847"
"In 1848, Karl Marx and Engels claimed:
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.[18] — Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848 In 1882, Marx and Engels wrote: 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.[19] — Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, preface to the Russian edition, 1882
Are we now clear? I told you have no idea of communist and Marxist theory... your approach is CIA propaganda combined with Stalinist and Maoist misunderstanding....
"In 1882, Marx and Engels wrote:
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.[19]
— Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, preface to the Russian edition, 1882"
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.[19]
— Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, preface to the Russian edition, 1882"
So if they are the same then we are correct in saying the countries that we in the west call communist are communist.You said we were not correct because they do not call themselves communist but socialist. You made a big deal about Yugoslavia being socialist not communist . But since now you say they are the same then I have been right all along. Either that or you were lying then or are lying now .Which is it ?
No we are not clear because you have no clue what you are talking about. You are reading and learning about communism as we go along .You are not a communist. Just a poser .
No you were not right, since they were nor communist or socialist... I made a big deal about Yugoslavia (or USSR, China) not being communist since we were talking about communism, I also said that state regulation is not socialism, I said also they were not state capitalist and I said they were workers states... but this proves that you don't read me...
<3 <3 <3
No what you said was those countries were socialist not Communist. And now you are saying they are communist.So I was right all along .Or you do not know what you are talking about Or you were lying .Which is it ? I think all three.
See here you say you are from an ex socialist state . But in your last post you say it was neither socialist or communist.Which is it?