Can the communism fall during the II world war

Nov 2008
639
Melbourne, Australia
In Marx dream world the people would rule themselves, obviously this no possible how can several million people all have a say? So you would need to reduce it a bit say though councils or committees. Ever served on a committee you want to try it, it is an experience, one likely to scar you for life. These committees would speak for the people, not sure how they would know what the people wanted since there was no democratic structures but hey! Contradiction is the one constant in Marxist ideas.

Anyway, in the Marxist doctrine there was one who was shall we say head of the committee an administrator.

So we have a dictatorship of all the people, now devolved down to a committee at the head of which is an administrator (or as rational people call it the machinery of state). Now you must remember this dictatorship allows no dissent, for according to Marx and his disciplines to dissent means you are a capitalist etc and following the concept of bloody revolution must have been missed during the slaughter, still easily remedied we can have labour camps (strange these people did not even own their labour remember what I said about contradiction).

So we have a dictatorship of all the people, now devolved down to a committee at the head of which is an administrator who has frankly unlimited power, can he be removed? Well since there is no democratic accountability or structures it would be difficult wouldn’t you say?
This is an incorrect description of Marx's prescription of socialist society. I don't know where you got this description. At a guess I'd say it was pieced together from uninformed observations of the Bolshevik and Stalinist revolutions and some improvisation. Personally, I'd like to see some evidence that Marx intended this system. The system that he actually intended can be gleaned from the very word of "Communism". It was to be an international system of classlessness. There would be no central administrator. Certainly this is what happened in Russia and China, but these were misguided attempts at Socialism within One Country, which is not what Marx intended at all. Society would divide into "communes": Relatively small, local, democratic, regularly elected cores which would help to ensure common ownership of the means of production and generally operate within the guidelines, "From each according to his ability to each according to needs". There would be no central government. No political discrimination. No terror. No totalitarianism.
 
Nov 2008
639
Melbourne, Australia
So since every attempt at a socialist form of government has ended up as a dictatorship and totalitarian in line with Marx predictions I really don’t see how you can deny he said it.
Once more you subject us to your reverse logic:
Stalin did this = therefore Marx's writings were totalitarian.

I suggest you alter it to:
Marx said this = therefore Stalin's regime was not socialist.

As far as I can can tell, Stalin did not have a time machine that allowed him to nip back to the 19th C and alter Marx's writings to vindicate his actions.
 
Nov 2008
639
Melbourne, Australia
My own contribution was

to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production;

that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,

that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
True. This is exactly what he did. But I have already explained that you misunderstand the term "dictatorship of the proletariat."
 
Mar 2008
401
It was to be an international system of classlessness. There would be no central administrator.

After as Marx stated going through a period of dictatorship, so the dictatorship was predicted and since it happened you cannot say that the various socialist dictators were not following Marx writings. Skipping to the utopian stage of the his plan and missing out the transitional stages because they do not suit you is really not on is it?

Marx predicted a dictatorship prior to his dream world, the dictatorship happened, sadly his dream world never did.

Yes in reality there would never have been a utopian phase human nature precludes it.

regularly elected cores

Really where did he say this?

In 1879, both Marx and Engels put out a pamphlet to party leaders in which they asked if the party had not been

"infected with the parliamentary diseases, believing that, with the popular vote, the Holy Ghost is poured upon those elected.”

Don’t sound like people interest in democratic accountability to me. An article by Eduard Bernstein a German social democrat was attacked by Marx and Engels when Bernstein called for the:

"educated" men to represent the party in the Reichstag”

Marx and Engels called for Bernstein and his supporters to leave the party if they wanted democratic elections.

Again it would appear democratic accountability was not on their list of communist requirements. As far as Marx and Engel’s were concerned Communism rejected parliamentarianism as a form of the future society. Trying to make them sound democratic after the event is dishonest and bad history to boot.

Of course after Marx’s death and the social democrat won seats in the Reichstag Engel’s changed his tune and applauded the victories, consistency not being a thing with either Marx or Engel’s.

"From each according to his ability to each according to needs"

Sounds good but is just so much BS. Who decides the ability, in other words who decides what you should contribute and of course who decides the needs? I take it you have read Animal Farm?

There would be no central government. No political discrimination. No terror. No totalitarianism.

After the transitional dictatorship this was supposed have happen, of course it never would the dictatorship would not allow it. Luckily for the world the system did not work and crashed.

It does not alter the fact that the dictatorship was part of the Marx/Engel’s plan, to keep repeating the utopian finale and skipping the rest simply will not wash.

Marx said this = therefore Stalin's regime was not socialist.

Very well, Marx said that before his silly utopian society there would be dictatorship built on blood. Remember he said:

“No great movement has ever been inaugurated without bloodshed. The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination it is not a new thing”

Lenin and Stalin built a dictatorship on blood so……..well I guess they are socialist after all.

But I have already explained that you misunderstand the term "dictatorship of the proletariat

No I do not Marx knew for his daft utopian world to exist (at least in his mind) what had gone before had to be destroyed hence the transitional dictatorship. So those dictators you claim are the wrong type of socialist (I love that excuse) were in fact following Marx/Engel’s plan all the whining about the fantasy utopian world to follow will not alter that.

 
Mar 2008
401
The Bolshevik decision to "skip" capitalism for a start was a radical deviation from theory and became Leninism.

Yes I love this excuse WW1 was a turning point for Russian socialism indeed but not as you appear to claim that Lenin deviated from the Marx/Engels ideas quite the opposite in fact. Lenin went back to the writings of Marx and Engels particularly on the Paris Commune and came to the conclusion that the Marxist view of the state and of a workers' revolution had been distorted by reformists. He decided paraphrasing Marx and Engels that:

'The liberation of the oppressed class is impossible without the destruction of the apparatus of state power created by the ruling class.'

So we are back to the Hegel/Marx/Engels ideas of bloody revolution again, far in fact from a deviation from their theories like Rosa Luxemburg actually reaffirming them.

There had been a revolution brewing Russia for a long time against the Tsarist regime it however had been I guess you could call it a liberal capitalist revolution and would be if not gradual certainly not bloody. Lenin and more importantly Trotsky decided that this should not be, they realised as had Marx/Engels that anything approaching a civilised change of power would not suit their socialist creed. If Russia became in effect another Untied States the chances of a successful “bloody revolution” would be pretty much zero.

Once again Lenin was following not deviating from Marx/Engels theories so your assertion on that point is clearly wrong.

Lenin did attempt to revert to a kind of limited capitalism as the Marx/Engels economic model was failing but by then the expertise required had fled or being purged. So your assertion that Lenin skipped capitalism is in effect incorrect, he just had no resources to make it work.

Firstly as Soviet Union was not an industrial country so lacked the necessary infrastructure and of course their bloody revolution (in keeping remember with Marx/Engels theories) had purged all the expertise from the nation. It should be remembered that Marx/Engels ideas were meant to be used in capitalist nations were the hard work of ensuring a working economic and productive system had already been done and they could just steal it. Russia was not one of those countries it was backward and rural. Germany would have been ideal as a relatively new nation with a good industrial base, as would Britain (apparently Marx predicted favourite for the first successful communist revolution, once again he was wrong), but not Russia.

So your idea that Lenin was deviating from Marx/Engels theories is patently wrong.
 
Mar 2008
401
Stalinism also beared no resemblance to Marxism.

Stalin immediately stopped Lenin’s move toward limited capitalism, he suppressed Lenin’s final warning words against him (and eventually had Trotsky done away with). Did Stalinism deviate from Marx/Engels theories? Well his rule was certainly bloody putting the others into the shade, but since as Marx stated himself:

“No great movement has ever been inaugurated without bloodshed.”

He also said:

“The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination”

So the brutal reign of the communists were in fact not deviating from Marx at all were they, he would have agreed with it? In fact attempting to put an “ism” next to the various socialist dictators names in the hope of distancing them from the Hegel/Marx/Engels theories is dishonest don’t you think? Both Lenin and Stalin have been called “state capitalists” but since the Marx/Engels theories required that how can that be deviating from them? In fact how could a state which controls the means of production as in the communist/socialist system be anything else. If my memory serves the invention of the term Leninism came from Stalin have to check that. Stalin was big into words after he was betrayed by Hitler he ordered that the word Nazi should not be used to describe the Germans as it would remind people of Hitler’s socialist origins.

Marx/Engels theories postulated that the communist/socialist system would have to go through a period of totalitarianism to emerge as a utopian society at the end. So the totalitarianism of the communist/socialist system we have witnessed does not deviate from the Marx/Engels theories but in fact fulfils them. Would they have emerged from totalitarianism into some lotus eating utopia, I doubt it very much but it does not alter the fact that historical facts of a communist/socialist totalitarian system did not deviate from Marx/Engels theories but were perfectly in line with them.
 
Nov 2008
639
Melbourne, Australia
After as Marx stated going through a period of dictatorship, so the dictatorship was predicted and since it happened you cannot say that the various socialist dictators were not following Marx writings. Skipping to the utopian stage of the his plan and missing out the transitional stages because they do not suit you is really not on is it?

Marx predicted a dictatorship prior to his dream world, the dictatorship happened, sadly his dream world never did.

Yes in reality there would never have been a utopian phase human nature precludes it.
Marx saw 'totalitarianism" as merely another phase in the oppression of the high over the low. He did not advocate this, this was exactly what he wanted to do away with. He predicted it surely, but he did not want totalitarianism to play any part in the socialist phase of history. His Utopian socialism would do away this pattern of the oppression of the few over the many. Predicting totalitarianism is not the same as saying it will be good when it happens.


"From each according to his ability to each according to needs"

Sounds good but is just so much BS. Who decides the ability, in other words who decides what you should contribute and of course who decides the needs? I take it you have read Animal Farm?
This is your opinion, fine. The fact remains that this is what Marx theorized and hoped for. Equal distribution and substantive equality. No oppression or centralized political control. Therefore your suggestion that he advocated these things is incorrect.

There would be no central government. No political discrimination. No terror. No totalitarianism.

After the transitional dictatorship this was supposed have happen, of course it never would the dictatorship would not allow it. Luckily for the world the system did not work and crashed.

It does not alter the fact that the dictatorship was part of the Marx/Engel’s plan, to keep repeating the utopian finale and skipping the rest simply will not wash.
When I said this I meant that under the final, socialist phase, there would be no central government. No political discrimination. No terror. No totalitarianism. Certainly in the preeceeding phases there would be, but Marx theorized that the workers would rebel against these injustices and establish socialism. These would play no part in his utopian order. These were the enemies that Marx was attempting to destroy. Oppression, and political centralization. Dictatorship was not part of their "plan", but merely of their understanding of the world and the phases thereof that would lead to the socialism they desired. They did not want totalitarianism, they wanted socialism.

Marx said this = therefore Stalin's regime was not socialist.

Very well, Marx said that before his silly utopian society there would be dictatorship built on blood. Remember he said:

“No great movement has ever been inaugurated without bloodshed. The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination it is not a new thing”

Lenin and Stalin built a dictatorship on blood so……..well I guess they are socialist after all.
Once more I am astonished by your bias. The "bloodshed" he refered to was not a totalitarian regime but a violent revolution in which the oppression of the capitalists would be thrown off - leading to socialist utopia. He was right - almost all fundamental political changes would involve significant bloodshed. Socialism is hardly unique in this respect. Perhaps you should actually read the quotes you spout out. He said the society should be "INAUGURATED" by bloodshed. Bloodshed would not characterize the society. Once the oppression was overthrown, the bloodshed would recede. Stalin and Lenin were not "socialists after all" because they built a regime on bloodshed. They were totalitarian rather than socialist because they enshrined bloodshed into their society once it had been established. They did not "inaugurate" their society with bloodshed, but rather, fashioned it into the everyday workings of their society. Furthermore, even if I agreed with you, bloodshed alone does not prove that those societies were socialist. Plenty of regimes involve bloodshed. I don't know how many times I've made this point and how many times YOU HAVE SIDESTEPPED IT, but the Leninist and Stalinist societies were not socialist similarly for the absence of equality and public ownership of the means of production.

But I have already explained that you misunderstand the term "dictatorship of the proletariat

No I do not Marx knew for his daft utopian world to exist (at least in his mind) what had gone before had to be destroyed hence the transitional dictatorship. So those dictators you claim are the wrong type of socialist (I love that excuse) were in fact following Marx/Engel’s plan all the whining about the fantasy utopian world to follow will not alter that.
Yes, he believed totalitarianism would be a phase of oppression. THEN socialism would arrive and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would appear. Totalitarianism THEN dictatorship of the proletariat. They are different phenomenas. Totalitarianism occurs before the socialist revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat after it. Totalitarianism is a poltical term, "dictatorship of the proletariat", a social one.
I am not making excuses. I am not a socialist. But I am capable of understanding Marx's theories without smearing them with Cold War propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2008
1,211
NE PA
They may have thought that but it does not make it true as I have shown you the idea of dying, particularly in battle as an end in itself is not alien to western society at all.

You asked how often do you see western soldiers chose death as an end in itself I have given you two instances and without any real thought on the matter, given time I am sure I can find many more.

I still fail to see why the ill temper.
:confused:

What more can I say? Americans thought at the time that the Japanese way of fighting was alien. That was the way they perceived it, and recorded it. Was it the truth? For them it was. Your point about 30 Welshman fighting the Zulu doesn't compare to an entire Japanese army fighting to the death, let alone the concept of Kamikazes.

Of course you can find instances of western men fighting to die-but I guarantee you that I can find many more instances of western soldiers surrendering, especially in WWII, which is what I was talking about.

The ill temper stems from your obtuseness, which borders on the spectacular. I guess I should respect you for being so ridiculously stubborn. You win. Americans were wrong for thinking the Japanese way of fighting was alien. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and the vets of okinawa should be ashamed for thinking so.:)
 

Belisarius

Forum Staff
Jun 2006
10,359
U.K.
In the Zulu accounts it is not Younghusband who fired from the cave, though it would be nice to have his identity. The Zulu’s say he finally died (the sniper) as the sun went dark which happened late afternoon apparently.
I never said it was. Younghusband was shot atop one of the wagons in the wagon park a considerable distance from the 'C' company position, so could not have led any 'final bayonet charge'.
 
Nov 2008
639
Melbourne, Australia
The Bolshevik decision to "skip" capitalism for a start was a radical deviation from theory and became Leninism.

Yes I love this excuse WW1 was a turning point for Russian socialism indeed but not as you appear to claim that Lenin deviated from the Marx/Engels ideas quite the opposite in fact. Lenin went back to the writings of Marx and Engels particularly on the Paris Commune and came to the conclusion that the Marxist view of the state and of a workers' revolution had been distorted by reformists. He decided paraphrasing Marx and Engels that:

'The liberation of the oppressed class is impossible without the destruction of the apparatus of state power created by the ruling class.'

So we are back to the Hegel/Marx/Engels ideas of bloody revolution again, far in fact from a deviation from their theories like Rosa Luxemburg actually reaffirming them.

There had been a revolution brewing Russia for a long time against the Tsarist regime it however had been I guess you could call it a liberal capitalist revolution and would be if not gradual certainly not bloody. Lenin and more importantly Trotsky decided that this should not be, they realised as had Marx/Engels that anything approaching a civilised change of power would not suit their socialist creed. If Russia became in effect another Untied States the chances of a successful “bloody revolution” would be pretty much zero.

Once again Lenin was following not deviating from Marx/Engels theories so your assertion on that point is clearly wrong.

Lenin did attempt to revert to a kind of limited capitalism as the Marx/Engels economic model was failing but by then the expertise required had fled or being purged. So your assertion that Lenin skipped capitalism is in effect incorrect, he just had no resources to make it work.

Firstly as Soviet Union was not an industrial country so lacked the necessary infrastructure and of course their bloody revolution (in keeping remember with Marx/Engels theories) had purged all the expertise from the nation. It should be remembered that Marx/Engels ideas were meant to be used in capitalist nations were the hard work of ensuring a working economic and productive system had already been done and they could just steal it. Russia was not one of those countries it was backward and rural. Germany would have been ideal as a relatively new nation with a good industrial base, as would Britain (apparently Marx predicted favourite for the first successful communist revolution, once again he was wrong), but not Russia.

So your idea that Lenin was deviating from Marx/Engels theories is patently wrong.
Marx saw capitalism as a phase entire before socialism. Lenin attempted to create a communist state which was not ready for it, backtracked, and attempted to introduce limited capitalism. He did not follow Marx's slow process of maturation by which the working class would gradually attain a class revolutionary consciousness. This was the way in which he deviated from Marxist theory. It was BECAUSE Russia was not an industrial nation that plunged itself into an attempted socialism that it was a deviation from Marxism. Yes, Lenin correctly implemented Marx's ideas of "bloody revolution", but it is here that the similarity ends. Marx envisioned "bloody revolution" obviously as temporary. Revolution is not a permanent state of affairs. Lenin and Stalin did not implement socialist measures of reduction of state power, public means of production or classlessness. The Bolsheviks helped to created the revolutionary situation, but they did not implement the post-revolutionary society that Marx envisioned, and therefore, were deviating from his theory. If Russia had become another "United States" in 1917, this would have exactly suited Marxist theory. This was exactly the kind of mature capitalism that Marx expected before the workers created socialism. The failure by the Bolsheviks to allow for the creation of capitalism in Russia was a deviation from Marxism.