Can the communism fall during the II world war

Nov 2008
639
Melbourne, Australia
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.
Once again, you condemn yourself with your own quotes. Marx did not theorize that socialism should involve bloodshed, merely that it be created with bloodshed. Socialism would be INAUGURATED with bloodshed, just like the French and American Revolutions. Bloodshed would not CHARACTERIZE the regime. Apparently you do not have the wit to recognize the difference.

The socialist system would not "go through a phase of totalitarianism before utopia emerged". The world would go through totalitarianism before socialism was unveiled. Another distinction that you clearly cannot appreciate.
 
Mar 2008
401
He predicted it surely, but he did not want totalitarianism

He said it was an essential transition phase towards his utopian goal, those that followed him were in their eyes (or at least that is what they said) merely following through. They could say that they were following Marx prediction and everything was on course as he wanted. Yes it is a heap of faeces but then so was Marx idea of a utopian world.

Therefore your suggestion that he advocated these things is incorrect.

Marx said that the dictatorship and the bloodshed was an essential transition phase toward his airy fairy world, I would say that was advocating it. Had the Soviet Union for example become a democratic socialist nation then they would have been skipping part of the plan, they did not they became as Marx predicted a dictatorship. Yes he thought they would pass through this to an egalitarian society, this obviously was never going to happen which makes one doubt Marx’s role as a great thinker don’t you think?

They did not want totalitarianism, they wanted socialism.

Yet Marx did not believe you could have socialism without first having the oppression, hence the transition period. The oppression happened as Marx said, the utopian society did not. History records the socialist dictatorships they are fact clear to show us the historical record for the utopian society.

Once more I am astonished by your bias

What bias? Marx said it and others did it. No bias just facts, yes uncomfortable facts for those who profess to be socialists but to state facts is no bias. To attempt to deny them could be argued to be bias though.

Marx said

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

Then went on to give the examples of the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and even Cromwell (justified I might add) as being inaugurated in blood. Thus signalling his acceptance at least that the great socialist society would be the same. They did after all have a very bloody revolution which if you read their propaganda would not be complete until it was world wide. Lenin /Stalin et al could honestly point to that acceptance by Marx and claim to still be Marxists. You cannot use some of Marx words to justify your argument and ignore others that do not.

Yes, he believed totalitarianism would be a phase of oppression. THEN socialism would arrive and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would appear.

So those socialist dictatorships were part of the plan, at last!

As for the utopian bit don’t hold your breath.

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.

So at long last after hours of typing we get to the fact that peaceful old Marx did advocate bloodshed. As for being temporary how would you define that when the revolution is complete, which it never was it never went worldwide try as it might. So the bloody revolution in the eyes of socialists was still justified until the utopian state was reached, which of course it never would be.

Marx did not theorize that socialism should involve bloodshed, merely that it be created with bloodshed.

Silly statement, you cannot separate its inauguration from its being, especially when it was planned that way. That is like saying someone murdered a person to steal their car, but the murder had nothing to do with the theft.

The socialist system would not "go through a phase of totalitarianism before utopia emerged". The world would go through totalitarianism before socialism was unveiled. Another distinction that you clearly cannot appreciate.


I’m sorry, unveiled?

Was it there all the time then?

Since the socialism that Marx wanted was actually against human nature (the reason it would never work) it really cannot have been waiting to be “unveiled” it would need to be created.

The reason for the bloody revolution and the reason for the transitional dictatorship was so that the old order could be completely destroyed. The same reason for Mao’s “cultural revolution” both were an attempt to start with a clean slate.
 
Mar 2008
401
The Zulu accounts speak of a tall British officer who was given the opportunity to shake the hands of his troops before leading a bayonet charge down the hill from the spur. The said at the end he climbed onto a wagon and killed many men before he was overcome. The Zulu’s were proud of him as they have a tradition of being proud of fearsome enemies.

I take it you have never been to Isandlwana or studied a plan of the place. C company had retreated up to spur just below the peak and over looking the by then overrun Royal Artillery position. Their charge would have taken them into that position. For him to have reached the wagon park, which incidentally was overrun prior to Youghusband’s charge he would had to cover perhaps a mile or mile and a half, not possible I’m afraid.

However if you have evidence to suggest he died in the wagon park then you should contact the South African authorities as they have located Younghusbands cairn just in front of the C company one just below a house sized rock below the spur previously mentioned.

I seriously recommend a visit to Isandlwana the battlefield has a distinctly eerie feel as you stand surveying the many white stone cairns marking where particular people fell.

Sadly you have missed the opportunity to hear the after dinner talk by David Rattray which cumulated in a walk down to Fugitives Drift as night fell.
 

Edgewaters

Ad Honorem
Jul 2007
9,098
Canada
historian said:
In a letter to Joseph Weydemeyer in 1852 Marx says:


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.

So here we have Marx saying that the class struggle will lead to a dictatorship and that this dictatorship is phase that must be gone through to reach his nonsensical classless utopia. He called it a dictatorship of the proletariat as did Lenin.
Yes, but they meant utterly different things. Marx didn't mean a 'dictatorship' in the sense you're thinking of it. He called liberal democracy a "dictatorship of the bourgeouisie", that is, that it was set up so that bourgeouis interests would be dominant. The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply that, reversed: it now serves the class interests of the proletariat, rather than the bourgeoius. So it's not a totalitarian phase at all: it's the same system of government as an advanced capitalist democracy at the peak of its development, only now it is advancing proletariat rather than bourgeouis interests. What "dictatorship" means, in this context, is the supremacy of class interests, not a police state. Marx definately recognized that some countries - chiefly Britain and America - were advanced democracies where important gains in the state and the economy had been made by the working classes and yet he names these as dictatorships of the bourgeouis. Not a "bourgeouis dictatorship" - the difference is important. It doesn't mean the state is a dictatorship, it has a meaning beyond the political sphere. It's the historical dictatorship of a class - in a sphere that transcends the state and every other social institution - where bourgeois interests are paramount.

Marx and Engels pointed to the Paris Commune as the model for the 'dictatorship'. Engels: "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ... election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers ... [the state is] at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap."

In no way did the Soviet revolution in Russia, nor the many Stalinist (and later Maoist) revolutions which followed, resemble these notions in the least.

Karl Kautsky's criticisms of Lenin come from a solid background in Marxist theory, and are about as close as you will get to seeing what Marx himself would have said about Lenin. A reading of Kautsky's last work - Social Democracy versus Communism - would be immensely enlightening to you, and I think you'd very much enjoy the criticism of the USSR you will find therein. Here it is:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1930s/demvscom/index.htm

Lenin /Stalin et al could honestly point to that acceptance by Marx and claim to still be Marxists. You cannot use some of Marx words to justify your argument and ignore others that do not.
Exactly, that is precisely what Lenin and Stalin did. They ignored a vast number of 'inconveniences' in Marx's writings, including some rather elementary parts of his theories: a feudal, agrarian society could not (according to Marx) proceed straight to communism any more than a Stone Age society could overnight inaugurate a modern capitalist democracy. Russia was meant to go through a revolution, yes, but it was to be one which installed liberal democracy, not communism - that would come later. They ignored what had been written about the dictatorship of the proletariat, about voting rights, about elected officials, and many, many other things. The revolution in the first place defied Marx's historical conception of dialectic materialism; and the state which followed defied the labour theory of value (as you shall see by the end of the post). These are the two core elements of Marx's theories, and they were both rejected by Leninism. Clearly, the Bolsheviks utilized Marx's name and some of the slogans and catchphrases associated with his theories, but the meat of Marx's theories were completely and utterly rejected.

So at long last after hours of typing we get to the fact that peaceful old Marx did advocate bloodshed. As for being temporary how would you define that when the revolution is complete, which it never was it never went worldwide try as it might. So the bloody revolution in the eyes of socialists was still justified until the utopian state was reached, which of course it never would be.
Perhaps, but this is no different than the bloody imposition of liberal democracy on the entire world, which we witness right now. By outright invasions, but also of course by violent revolutions - the majority of capitalit democracies established in the last half-century have been founded in blood of one sort or another. Of course, according to Marx, this too is a historical necessity as capitalism must first be imposed and run its course before communism can take root.

Also, take note: Marx does not call upon bloody revolution in every case:

We know that we must take into consideration the institutions, the habits and the customs of different regions, and we do not deny that there are countries like America, England and – if I knew your institutions better I would perhaps add Holland – where the workers can attain their objective by peaceful means.

Since the socialism that Marx wanted was actually against human nature (the reason it would never work) it really cannot have been waiting to be “unveiled” it would need to be created.
I'm not sure why people think this. It seems to be based on a false understanding of Marx as advocating some sort of welfare state, a popular misunderstanding you seem to be having difficulty with. I did earlier make a few quotes of Marx on social reform and on redistribution of wealth, which he categorically rejects. I'll add some more here:

Criticizing state aid to socialist co-operatives in Germany:

Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!

From the remnants of a sense of shame, "state aid" has been put -- under the democratic control of the "toiling people" . . . through these demands that it puts to the state, [the proletariat] expresses its full consciousness that it neither rules nor is ripe for ruling!


-----

On inequality in general:

"The elimination of all social and political inequality", rather than "the abolition of all class distinctions", is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality . . . The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept . . . which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion


-----

On economic inequality:

the individual producer receives back from society . . . exactly what he gives to it.

. . . Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values . . . the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

. . . The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.
"

So you see, the notion that Marx advocated some sort of "let's have the government redistribute all the wealth and make everybody equal!" is complete and utter nonsense: Marx advocated a society which featured a right of economic inequality, according to the individual's capabilities.
 
Last edited:

galteeman

Ad Honorem
Apr 2008
2,198
Sodom and Begorrah
The Zulu accounts speak of a tall British officer who was given the opportunity to shake the hands of his troops before leading a bayonet charge down the hill from the spur.
Did he say "Tally Ho" as he charged:)
 
Mar 2008
401
Why would they be eating locusts in Utopia?

Why would they not? It is Utopia you can do what you want, no dissent allowed remember.

Why are they 'little' Welshmen? Are all Welshmen little in your eyes Historian

Because frankly most were, and right up to WW1 the average height of the soldier was much shorter than today, possibly lack of nourishment who knows. Six foot people while relatively common nowadays were fairly rare in Victorian times.

Did he say "Tally Ho" as he charged

No idea! Personally I would have opted for “Oh! Well what the F...K”

Though I would prefer to have gone like Durnford laughing, joking and encouraging his men to the last.
 
Mar 2008
401
it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.

So the superior position of Lenin/Stalin etc as dictators were in fact covered by Marx as the labour they put in was superior they believed to that of others. The same equality enjoyed by communist party member is also then sanctioned by Marx in the same way. So according to you Lenin/Stalin were following the Marxist plan?
 

Belisarius

Forum Staff
Jun 2006
10,359
U.K.

I take it you have never been to Isandlwana or studied a plan of the place. C company had retreated up to spur just below the peak and over looking the by then overrun Royal Artillery position. Their charge would have taken them into that position. For him to have reached the wagon park, which incidentally was overrun prior to Youghusband’s charge he would had to cover perhaps a mile or mile and a half, not possible I’m afraid.

However if you have evidence to suggest he died in the wagon park then you should contact the South African authorities as they have located Younghusbands cairn just in front of the C company one just below a house sized rock below the spur previously mentioned.

I seriously recommend a visit to Isandlwana the battlefield has a distinctly eerie feel as you stand surveying the many white stone cairns marking where particular people fell.

Sadly you have missed the opportunity to hear the after dinner talk by David Rattray which cumulated in a walk down to Fugitives Drift as night fell.
As it happens I've not been there, although I passed up the chance to go a few years ago. I do however, know someone who has and has both talked to and corresponded with Mr. Rattray. I'll run this by him next time I see him. He never misses an opportunity to show off his knowledge [and library] on the Anglo-Zulu War.