Just too bad Lenin died before he could properly explain the new direction he wanted to take. With that I mean NEP was a change of plans, and had the others known what he intended, history would have been different.
I put out a message to the founder of a fan group I'm a part of, hopefully they will reply soon. They had some work done to their group journal, so hopefully they will either be willing to do ours or know someone who will.
I be honest, finding someone who can do a journal skin is proving a bit more difficult than I expected.
They led the way , didn't they, Poverty ,Genocide, War and Murder. Thats why Communism , doesn't work. That's, why the Soviet Union Collapsed. They spent more on their war machine, while the people starved.
They were pushed into a cold war by global imperialism which depleted all their resources, true. But more than this, the long term effects of the Stalinist bureaucracy on socialist production began to take their toll by the late 60s.
D34KON is right. Not only does communism ALWAYS fail, but the hole concept is a joke. You mean to say that people with talents and skills who work hard for a living should make just as much as the lazy bumb down the street? And by "just as much" I mean "just enough to get by". No thank you. Capitalism ftw bro. -___-
Everyone who works hard should get paid well. Simple. Socialism can provide this. The opportunities for work under capitalism do not exist for many and there is vast and devastating unemployment; the "free" market is a myth.
There is not reason why you should be paid well for hard work if there is no demand for the product of your work. Demand, not labour investment, creates value. Marxism fails to account for this, hence its universal failure as an economic system.
Demand is only the tip of the iceberg: It is absurd to consider demand for products that don't exist. It would be impossible to measure. Besides, demand is in large part shaped by the market, it is simply abstract wishful thinking to assume value is endowed by consumers. If people are paid in accordance with the labour they contribute, you may buy whatever is available to you.
I'll ignore the spelling errors, first of all Communism doesn't mean everybody gets paid the same, that's ridiculous. I'll give a short list of different positions in the USSR in 1956 and their respective monthly earnings in rubles. President of the Moscow academy of Sciences 15,000 Army Colonel 4,000 Rector of an Important University 8,000-12,000 Senior Government Official 6,000 Factory Manager 3,000 Shop Superintendent 1,200-1,600 Shop Foreman 1,200
human nature is basically egoistic so true communism doesn't work. If people are basically selfish, then they won't work for the common good, and there will be a tendancy to freeload or take advantage of the system. For communism to work in that case, you would need to make sure that everybody was doing their fair share. You would need a system of "points", to make sure everybody is doing their part. People then work to earn points, so that they can justify receiving their share, or else they don't get their share, or they go to jail, or they're kicked out of the community, or some other fascist reaction.
Capitalism is also a value-point system, with the "points" being capital. Therefore, communism is just a form of capitalism, only worse. It is worse because people can't get ahead. They can still starve, but they can't get rich.The former Soviet Republic is the poster child for this. Even Fidel Castro admitted that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work. It's a failed system. It collapses on its self every time. The only way it would even work would be in small communities, it will NEVER work in large nations. If you believe so then you are fooling yourself.
People are shaped by society just as much as they are shaped by natural selection, so to say that we are selfish under a system that requires selfishness is as much to do with the nature of capitalism itself, so that's almost a circular argument.
Human nature isn't egoistic. What proof do you have? Can you show me any scientific study supporting this? How do you explain class society only existing for a very small amount of the total years of existance of humanity? What is your critique vs. "Egalitarian motives in humans" by Christopher T. Daws, Tim Johnson, Richard McElreath, Oleg Smirnov and James H. Fowler of the universities of California, Stanford and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development? Are you claiming that people are in fact not shaped by the material conditions and realities that surround them? How do you take advantage of a system with free access for all? Is it not in everyones best interest that "freeloaders" be dealt with? Do you reject the theory of alienation? Why? Do you reject anthropologic studies that suggest and evidence that social behaivour is directly related to the material conditions surrounding the subject in question?
To claim that communism is a form of capitalism is utterly ridiculous and extremely stupid.
P.S. Fuck Marxism-Leninism. You should never discuss anything with Marxist-Leninist. They are probably the biggest history revisionists on earth. Not to mention to call what they achieved in any country that was built on Leninist roots (the premise of vanguard parties modeled after the USSR and so on) socialist/communist in any way is even more ridiculous than your "critique".
Well for one if you want an understanding of Egoism I suggest you read these two articles good sir. [link] [link] And after reading them if you still require proof I suggest you take a break from all your spoon feed theories and books, grab a coffee, take a seat and watch the world around you for once. Doing this will surly open your eyes a bit. As far as your question concerning class society goes, I am going to give you an opinion of a 17 year old girl and say that it's due to evolution, an expanding population, and (once again) people's need for self gain. If people work and make an abundance in money they are classified as being "Higher class". In actuality we have just have multiple types of people with multiple types of economic statuses. We as humans sort them into classes. But then again that's just my opinion. Critique if you want.I love to be enlightened. My thought on "Egalitarian motives in humans" is that it has truths. It is evident that those who earn less and who are less fortunate will envy and want to lash out at those who do. This being in our EGOTISTIC nature. But I ask is it better to have those in society who despise those who have what they do not, or facilely take the opportunity away from everyone to gain that level of prosperity? The communist prospect is, poverty for all. Well...except the leaders of the party. History shows they do quite well. There are many factors that go into shaping a person. Parenting,education,geological location even. Yes I do believe that material conditions play an important role, however this is not the only factor at work. Take siblings for example. Perhaps one grows up to be a hard working citizen and never gets in to trouble with the law but the other becomes a serial murder. There are many things that may have been different. Influence from social group, mental state, traumatic experience...etc.
I do not believe that communism is in any way as successful as capitalism. It has , as I've said time and time again, a failed system. Just simply pointing out to those in the communist party who think that capitalism is "the devil" that the founders of their party didn't exactly abandon all the capitalistic ideas. They just morphed them into such a way that would benefit themselves and oppress everyone else. Another example of Egoism.
But I'm glad to see that we agree on one thing. Marxist-Leninist are indeed very ignorant people.
You link me two articles you dug up using google, one of which mentions Ayn Rand, lol.
Excuse me? Spoon fed theories? This coming from someone who uses worthless arguments debunked as early as 1850 by one of the very founders of socialism? Tss. Watch the world around me for once? How about you watch the world around you. You're a privileged middle class white girl probably living in suburban America. If there is someone who does not know how the world looks, it is you. What exactly were you trying to prove by telling me to "take a look at the world", anyway? That it is fucked up? Wonder who is to blame, lol. Do you honestly think that greed and egoism do not grow in a system in which greed is rewarded and promoted? Greed usually grows from scarcity after all.
You are saying that class society existing for a very large majority of the existance of the modern human is because in the last few thousand or so years, we evolved, despite anthropoligical proof that homo sapiens, the current evolution of human, with behaivoral modernity, has existed for around 50,000 years?
What are you babbling about different economic statuses? Those (among other things such as their relation to the productive forces etc.) are what determine classes...
As for your response on "Egalitarian motives in humans", to call that a critique is ridiculous, I'm not even sure if you disagree or agree with it.
Why don't you just stop trying to appeal to human nature in a way so fits your agenda and just accept what has been proven anthropologically time and time again, that human social behaivour reflects upon the material conditions and realities in which someone lives. Material conditions and realities, by the way, include all the things you listed. Influence from social group, traumatic experiences, geographical location, socio-economic condition, culture, etc, etc, etc.
The communist prospect is not "poverty for all" (that is ridiculous!), rather free access for all, a production based on need instead of silly artificial wants due to commodity fetishism, cultural hegemony and commercialism. Communism is leaderless. What makes you, someone who doesn't even know what communism is, the person to decide who represents us? North Korea calls itself democratic too, but I bet that you don't ever criticize democracy because of North Korea, lol. Communism hasn't failed because it has never been implemented. Anyone who has an understanding of communism and Marx, should know that what was established in the USSR which was based on Leninism and all countries that followed which were the lapdogs of Moscow, were organized in a very uncommunist manner. Not to mention that communism cannot exist in a capitalist world.
You think capitalism is successful? War, poverty, disease, criminality, drug-use, soaring prison populations, hunger, ghettoizing the poor, wage-slavery, world-wide depression, skyrocketing anti-depressant sales, homelessness, suicides, alienation, bullying, teenage pregnancies, misogyny, racism, prostitution, human trafficking, commodity fetishism, increasing class differences, you think this is success? Success for the ruling class, maybe, because all of this fucking benefits them. And I am the one who needs to take a look at the real world, fuck off.
Well now don't we look all mature. Getting pissy and cussing out a minor. Geeze. Almost everything you listed against capitalism has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years. You think there wasn't War, poverty, disease, criminality, drug-use, hunger, ghettoizing the poor, wage-slavery, homelessness, suicides, alienation, bullying, teenage pregnancies, misogyny, racism, prostitution...etc BEFORE the modern era? HA! This has existed throughout human existence.Under monarchy , oligarchy,democracy, communism...Throughout Egyptian times, Mid evil times, the Victorian era... etc. So saying that it comes from democracy alone is ridiculousness. My family lived under the oppression of communism and they fled. They came to America in the early 1980's and have built a better life. So yes. I HATE Communism. I'm done with this debate. I have my views and you have yours. I doubt either are ever going to change. Have a lovely day Sir.
I will never really understand why people use the "people are selfish" argument, I've studied communism for a while and there are things you could say that I would really have no answer to other than slight deviations from true communism. As for your theory it's really not based on anything other than your perception that communism can't be competitive, that's blatantly untrue. Cuba for example probably has the best average quality of life in North America, the UN has cited cuba as an example of a country with no malnourished children and they also have one of the best healthcare systems in the Americas, and a higher life expectancy than the United States. Norway's economy has been described as "soviet style" and they have 31% state ownership of privately listed companies and higher state ownership of private companies, a self proclaimed welfare state with the 4th highest per capita income in world, state involvement doesn't seem to hamper things now does it? (btw in saying that Norway is 4th, the US isn't above that)
Perhaps. But then why I ask, does the US have so many people from Cuba fleeing to their borders? Why did my family flee Soviet Russia? If you oppress the people you can say whatever you want about how great the government is. But the actions of those who escape speak louder to me then your words.
Why did my family stay? Hell my Grandmother still has a faded newspaper clipping of Nikita Khrushchev on the wall and she left when I was born, oppression doesn't correlate to any economic system, Allende was elected and Pinochet was a dictator with an extremely pro business policy.
Communism isn't supposed to be competitive. What are you babbling about? "Soviet-style", what? Are you claiming that big government, government owned industries, government supplied services, etc. equal communism?
If communism isn't supposed to be competitive then that would explain why we lost the competition that was the cold war. Communism MUST be competitive if we expect to win the struggle with capitalism. Yes I am saying that, a state controlled economy economy where the means of production are publicly owned, and services provided by the state is communism. Maybe you have some other interpretation like a worldwide stateless Utopia, the fact is communism is an ideology that includes many schools of thought, mine draws from Nordic socialism and Cuban communism.
Think of the context of the Communist Manifesto, the meaning of the word state as defined by Marx and the contemporary usage are very different, and I think that it is possible to strive for a society that as Marx intended is stateless, but which still retains some of the contemporary aspects of governance we currently include under the umbrella of "statehood". It would be foolish to read Marx using a contemporary lexicon.