The Victory of Communism!

[Dixon Cannon]

The system created by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro IS communism.

In name only. Again, USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). If those dictators had achieved communism they would have gladly stepped aside, gone back to the collective farm to work, and allowed the "proletariat" to rule. But as we've seen repeatedly, those kinds of power-mongers never have any intention whatsoever to allow the "proletariat" to come to power. It is their intent from the start to RULE; to RULE with an iron fist; and to RULE everyone, at every minute until the day they die.

That is not Marxist/Engels Communism! That is pure, naked totalitarian authoritarian, statist tyrannical dictatorship.

Communism is a phantom and a pipedream believed only by ignorant peasants who actually believe in a "workers paradise". To a savvy, astute, and powerful egomaniac, it's merely another vehicle and an excuse to sieze power and to control the state.

We confuse all these 'ism's with what is really at play - and that is STATISM, the control of the mechanisms of the STATE so as to control people. To a slave, does it really matter Fascism, Communism, Nazism, etc, etc????... the gulag is just as gruesome as the concentration camp.

As Pete Townsend says: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Won't get fooled again."

-dixon cannon

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Look at Prince William, for example, proudly wearing proletarian attire and following proletarian pursuits, like chopping wood during his trip to South America.

Such a shame he doesn't hunt foxes and act foppish, as his forebears used to do.

By the way, I think you're confusing "proletarian", which is really industrial and urban, with "peasant", which is agricultural and rural.


.

 

[jamespowers]

And, there was no such ideal as Marxism in the 1700s, which is probably what 99.9% of the world's true communists follow today. So a utopian revolution of the 1700s has nothing to do with scientific socialism in the age of imperialism.

You had a true case in Jamestown. All of your criterion were met. They had a council and everyone had a share in the output---the farmer, the baker, the candlestickmaker etc. It didn't work because the inherent reason to strive for greater things resulting in increased productivity and thus more products---including food were not there. They starved to death because of it.
We saw the same thing with Soviet quotas. A glass factory was to make so many stacks of glass so high. The result? The glass was so thick it wouldn't fit int he panes. The next year they thought they had it fixed. They were supposed to produce so many feet of glass per year at a specific width. The result? The glass was so thin it couldn't be placed in the pane without breaking. :eusa_doh:
Thus where there is no motive to produce a product that is competitive and of high quality, we all lose as citizens of that society. [huh]

Regards,

J

 

[Pilgrim]

You look at communism from an academic point of view, not from an everyday's person point of view.

That's true. But I think that's an advantage. It's meaningless to label anything that a "worker at the bottom" doesn't like as Communism. That makes as little sense as Dr. Strngelove's General Jack D. Ripper going on about how we need to protect our precious bodily fluids from Communists. Just because we don't like something doesn't make it wrong - or Communist. It's important to be specific about our meanings, because otherwise we tend to slide back into the linguistic sloppiness of calling things we don't like "Commie pre-version."

True, in books communism is an "economic theory", "economic or political system" or "a system of government", but the very purpose of communism is the elimination of social and economic classes, and that's what it translates to in everyday life.

You're right in that it is one of the primary goals of that theory and system. Fortunately, as Jamespowers points out, that theory and system is discredited and has been out-competed by Capitalism.

In terms of behavior, I'll offer this observation:

I think that in the US, many people try to minimize the differences in economic status when they meet others, out of politeness if nothing else. Iin other countries people might defer to royalty or the rich, it seems to me that we don't tend to defer to those richer than us. There are certainly real distinctions, but when we meet socially we don't tend to acknowledge them. I think that's a traditional in the US built on the rather egalitarian origins of our country. We don't accept that some people are 'better" than others because of their income.

Now, it is not true that there are no social and economic classes in the US (and I hope it will never be true), but the ideal of a classless society is a communist one.

I agree with you there! However, the fact that some people in the US look at society and don't admit or perceive that there are economic classes doesn't mean they're Communists. (NOTE: That's my interpretation of your earlier statement, and it may not be an accurate interpretation.) Of course, there still are some nutballs who go around espousing Communism or Socialism, and we are unlikely to ever be free of them.

 

[jamespowers]

That is not Marxist/Engels Communism! That is pure, naked totalitarian authoritarian, statist tyrannical dictatorship.

Communism is a phantom and a pipedream believed only by ignorant peasants who actually believe in a "workers paradise". To a savvy, astute, and powerful egomaniac, it's merely another vehicle and an excuse to sieze power and to control the state.

We confuse all these 'ism's with what is really at play - and that is STATISM, the control of the mechanisms of the STATE so as to control people. To a slave, does it really matter Fascism, Communism, Nazism, etc, etc????... the gulag is just as gruesome as the concentration camp.

As Pete Townsend says: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Won't get fooled again."

-dixon cannon

Exactly! It is all a pipe dream that someone who really has designs on being a tin plated dictator dream of. All ends in statist rule by a kakistocracy bend on power over all and everything. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Another fantasy..

... served by the 19th century robber barons and their trusts, happily clear-cutting forests and poisoning communities with industrial waste, while employing scores of children to waste away in mines and sweatshops. .

The 19th Century, in the United States at least, was one of the most productive and prosperous periods in human history. The myth of the "robber baron" is something we've bolstered. To people who could work, have steady employment and steady income, it meant homes, food, transportation, education, improvement, upward mobility, etc, etc.

Looking back from our air-conditioned easy living, it might appear that times were harsh and that people were slaves to the "robber barons", but to them, in their 'modern times', life couldn't be better.

The 19th Century in America proved that Capitalism does work and that people can be free to make choices for themselves to improve their lot in life.

Let's don't succomb to myths about the old days. Remember, the children of those 'wage slaves' went to school, to college and on to much improved lives of their own. Everyone one of them - NO - of course not!

-dixon cannon

 

[Rebecca D]

The system created by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro IS communism.

In a tiny nutshell, the system created by the Russian people had nothing to do with Stalinism. It was only the conditions of Czarism, World War I, and attacks by 14 countries that led to the brutal rise of Stalinism. In the late 1920s (after Lenin’s death) the true communists were expelled from the Communist Party, and the Party abandoned its revolutionary politics. Lenin's right hand man, Trotsky, was expelled, and eventually murdered by the Stalinists. Stalin actually sided with Hitler, and crushed the revolutionary tendency that fought to win the Spanish civil war against the fascists. Stalin also created a theory of “socialism in one country” or “peaceful coexistence” that goes against everything that is Marxist. He also slaughtered and disappeared countless numbers of people. There was nothing communist about it, except that the people who did these crimes did so under the guise of the so-called Communist Party.

Stalin betrayed the revolution in the name of Lenin, and Maoism is simply a system built upon the Stalinist model. You would never find books by Lenin in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China that were written in the time of the Civil War, and of course the ban on Trotsky was heavy. Imagine finding “The Stalinist School of Falsification” by Trotsky in a Maoist library!

Castro is a different case altogether. It's my personal belief that he was successful in defeating many of the interests of the Stalinists in his communist party, but that does not make him or Cuba communist. Maybe if the conditions were ripe for revolution, socialism could be achieved in Cuba, but that has not been the case. However, one of the leading communist intellectuals in Cuba has begun discussions on Trotskyism and other forms of revolutionary ideals, and she’s organized a small but powerful group of revolutionaries to try to influence the workers away from Stalinism. So far she’s been permitted by the Fidelistas to do so, but we’ll see how far she gets.

I didn’t join this discussion to become an armchair politico. There is so much to spell out when you discuss revolutionary socialism - most people believe that communism and revolutionary socialism are two different things, and they have no idea the tendencies that exist when they try to red bait or generalize revolutionary politics. My only idea here was to spell out the fact that communism is not a part of the American government.

 

[scotrace]

My point is that there are class differences, but why would people see the lack of social and economic classes as a thing to be proud of?

And that is a valid point. It's just that this thought doesn't transform ergo into "this is communism."

 

[Marc Chevalier]

To people who could work, have steady employment and steady income, it meant homes, food, transportation, education, improvement, upward mobility, etc, etc.

Looking back from our air-conditioned easy living, it might appear that times were harsh and that people were slaves to the "robber barons", but to them, in their 'modern times', life couldn't be better ...

Let's don't succomb to myths about the old days. Remember, the children of those 'wage slaves' went to school, to college and on to much improved lives of their own.

Life couldn't be better? Robber barons didn't exist?



-- The Great Railroad Strike of 1877

-- The Haymarket Affair

-- The Pullman Strike

-- The Homestead Strike of 1892 : http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/carnegie/strike.html

-- The Ludlow Strike and Massacre

-- The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire

-- The Bisbee Deportation of 1917


And on, and on, and on ....


.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Interesting observation.

certainly that's Rand's opinion. I won't punish myself with reading that again. bk

I never thought of learning, comprehending, and understanding as "punishment"! Maybe that is part of the situation we are discussing here. It has become easier to be spoonfed dumb-downed cliches' vis-a-vis MTV and Howard Stern and Air America, then to actually read, ponder, research and ultimately embody rational concepts and ideas.

Allow me to "punish" a little more; Greed is a phony concept. Is the man who lives in a house, pays his bills, meets his obligations and doesn't demand things from his neighbor greedy and money grubbing just because down the street in the park are people who choose to live differently? ...Or the second generation welfare recipient who feels entitled to a monthly check because of those greedy, selfish capitalists? If I have two cars am I greedy because someone else has one - or none? Is Bill Gates greedy because he has a more opulent lifestyle than Hugh Hefner or Joe Dokes?

Altruism is THE problem; those people who embrace Marxist-Leninist theory who believe that YOU owe somebody, somewhere, something and that if you don't give freely (You Greedy Selfish .....) that the state should take it from you by force and give it to someone (after deducting administrative costs, of course!). Altruism has brought us dumb, irrational ideas like Social Security, Food Stamps, Welfare Debit Cards, and even such wonders of public good like sports stadiums and Gateway Arches!

I'm grateful that I "punished" myself with Ayn Rand and rational, objective thought long enough to educate myself and to understand these concepts (that rightfully should be taught in our state-run education institutions - those greedy, selfish.......!).

A lot of terms get thrown around, the meaning of which are hidden and obfuscated. Ayn Rand had the ability to cut through all the fog and in clear, rational, concise language state things as they really are. That's what it means to be Objective.

-dixon cannon

 

[Baron Kurtz]

but you concede that one can read, understand, take it in ... and still disagree with Rand?

bk

 

[Dixon Cannon]

but you concede that one can read, understand, take it in ... and still disagree with Rand? bk

To disagree with Rand is to not understand; what's to disagree with??? The fact that so many others misunderstand those concepts or choose to disagree give an indication of what's going on within our own society. As Rand would say, "A is A". No matter how hard you want it, 'A' cannot by anything else - the deterioration within our own society is proof of that. We cannot have the fruits and benefits of a rational, objective Capitalist society while pretending that we are a socialist, altruistic, redistributionist, welfare state. What that kind of thinking leads to is.....well...... say no more

-dixon cannon

 

[scotrace]

The main point proven

Is that the best discussions happen when ladies don't stay closeted in the Powder Room. Thanks for excellent posts, Rebecca D.

Lighter aside: Near where I live is a living history vllage that was occupied in the 19th century by Zoarites - German "separatists" who formed a small village that was, to all intents, successfully communist in a real sense. Everyone shared equally in goods produced. Governing board of workers, etc. To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.
Eventually it failed and disbanded. Not because of an inherent weakness in the village's system of government, but because of the total separation of the sexes.

No sex allowed.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

well, herein lies a fundamental difference of worldview. I would not consider the welfare state, social security or food stamps to be irrational ideas, as you put it.

"To disagree with Rand is to not understand" is such a stupendously anti-intellectual, anti-thought (and completely irrational) statement that i'm quite astounded.

bk

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Correct!

...Just because we don't like something doesn't make it wrong - or Communist. It's important to be specific about our meanings, because otherwise we tend to slide back into the linguistic sloppiness of calling things we don't like "Commie pre-version."

...Of course, there still are some nutballs who go around espousing Communism or Socialism, and we are unlikely to ever be free of them.

This was the problem that developed out of the 'Red Scare' days of the 1950's, the House Un-American Activities hearings, McCarthyism and the John Birch Society - it like the boy crying wolf - sooner or later people get tired of being fooled. Communism as an accusation declined rapidly, much to the advantage of Socialists and Statists everywhere!

It is much easier for altruistic, socialistic, statist "nutballs" to get their message out to the masses (press, TV, radio) because there is no fear of anyone calling them a Communist! Even recognizing and referring to someone as a Socialist is falling out of favor - thus the overuse of the term "Liberal". Our new Joe McCarthy is a cute blond named Anne Coulter!

Libertarians view the situation correctly; one is either in favor of individual self-responsibility and Individual Liberty operating in the Free Market - or one favors the sovereignty of the State and the authority of politicians and bureaucrats and government institutions. Libertarians and Statists; those who love Liberty or those who abhore it.

-dixon cannon

 

[MK]

.

I found the title of this thread, "The Victory of Communism!" humorous. I figured that someone was just being facetious.

I am surprised that there is this much discussion about communism. It has failed miserably every time it has been tried.

 

[Rebecca D]

Is that the best discussions happen when ladies don't stay closeted in the Powder Room. Thanks for excellent posts, Rebecca D.

Thank you sir!

Hey, where in Ohio do you live? I was born and raised in Tiffin and Republic - Seneca County, Ohio to be exact. I also spent several years in Columbus.

 

[Pilgrim]

Dixon makes many excellent points, but I'll quibble with this one:

The 19th Century, in the United States at least, was one of the most productive and prosperous periods in human history. The myth of the "robber baron" is something we've bolstered. To people who could work, have steady employment and steady income, it meant homes, food, transportation, education, improvement, upward mobility, etc, etc.
-dixon cannon

I'm with you in terms of productivity. The increase in output of goods during that period was absolutely amazing. Certainly, no other century in human history can compare! This period was also the time when the country's population began shifting from rural-based to urban-based; one of the big reasons was the shift to manufacturing.

Just off the top of my head, I'd suggest the downside was twofold:

1) The balance between production and environmental stewardship was too tilted to production .Many of the highly successful enterprises of that period (especially mining and the petroleum industry) created clean-up problems that we've been struggling with for years, and some of which we're just discovering. Heck, in my town of Fort Collins we just discovered a river with water pollution problem caused by petroleum tanks that were pulled out 20+ years ago.

2) The cost in terms of child labor and disregard for worker's health was staggering. I'm not a fan of unions, but there were good reasons that unions originated during this time period. The industrial barons went too far and destroyed too many lives in the name of profit. Unions were a response that - at the time - made sense. (I think many unions have lost their reason to exist and now only function as a mechanism for getting workers new raises every year, whether they're warranted or not.)

Much of the century following the 19th century witnessed a struggle to balance these equations of productivity, environmental quality and worker rights. I'm not sure we have all of them right yet, but in my personal opinion, we're in a better balance than in 1900.

 

[scotrace]

I know where Tiffin is

Thank you sir!

Hey, where in Ohio do you live? I was born and raised in Tiffin and Republic - Seneca County, Ohio to be exact. I also spent several years in Columbus.

Not far south of Fremont - I like to visit the Hayes Library. Neat!

I'm 30 minutes south of Canton.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

And my point is....

Life couldn't be better? Robber barons didn't exist?



-- The Great Railroad Strike of 1877

-- The Haymarket Affair

-- The Pullman Strike

-- The Homestead Strike of 1892 : http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/carnegie/strike.html

-- The Ludlow Strike and Massacre

-- The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire

-- The Bisbee Deportation of 1917


And on, and on, and on ....


.

What's your point?...This reads like history as history reads like the beginning of history! If you're trying to imply that Capitalism failed because it didn't appear full-orbed and perfectly executed in the new America - that's a given! A system evolves, it grows through trial and error. Mistakes get made. Bad decisions are undertaken. Pig headed leaders in management and labor push the limits. That sounds like life to me!

The proof is in the pudding (as it were!). People flocked to this country in droves to work in Carnegie's steel mills, on Vanderbilt's railroads, on whaling ships and in garment factories SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE SOMETHING BETTER THAN WHAT THEY HAD EXPERIENCED PREVIOUSLY. No one promised them a rose garden - they promised them WORK and PAY. Socialist and altruists love to paint all this as sheer misery (and by todays standards it may well have been - but that wasn't today and our standards didn't apply!)

And sure enough, as things tend to evolve, new standards were set and new rules for work were implimented. That doesn't mean that conditions previously were BAD or that conditions in similar occupations are GOOD.

May I give a personal example?... Ok! Thank you! When I began work on airline ramps back in the early 1970's there were no standard other than a uniform shirt and pants. I have a scar on my forehead from thirteen stitches from a wingtip bonk. In the following years scalp laseration caps were mandated, steel toed boots were required, knee pads were suggested. As thirty years have passed, take a look out the terminal window now - shorts, tennis shoes and not one hard hat!!! Things change. Standard evolve. Conditions and requirements shift. People and their expectations change.

I'm sure in this new century people will judge us by their standards as well. (I can hear it now, "You know they actually burned the fossils of dead dinosaurs to power their motor vehicles!!! Outrageous!"

-dixon cannon