| (BTW, this is Kuznetsov. I got banned for a fight between me and another user. I might get banned again, but I'd like to use this account solely to get into this forum a little more) I find that it's odd that the person felt so compelled to criticize us, but refused to approach us with debate within our grounds; I think that says something of this person's methodology. However, for the purpose of the people here that are members of this club, I'd like to break this down a little: Your club here in this relatively peaceful and apolitical site seems to be the only one political-ideological club out here. That's why I couldn't stand it. This person seems to think that an otakus should be precluded from any form of socio-political debate, even within their own grounds. I think that is silly and frankly a very base way of looking at the world. Otakus should have every right to attempt to grapple with the way the world works and how we fit within this society, especially in a subculture that often finds itself disconnected from reality. You, dear Americans, will never understand how people who were subdued by the USSR felt. This sentence is a way to brush off any form of analyzing a very multifaceted issue within the experience of communism. There are two things profoundly wrong with this: 1) This is a logical fallacy that says things can only be understood or verdicts can only be reached via subjective experience. It's like saying that I- as a person who has visited Paris- can speak about the existence of the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre. While subjective experience definitely helps one's understanding, it can also hinder it if you do not approach it in a scientific way. As well, it is possible to research, analyze, and come to verdicts about an event or thing even if you haven't experienced it firsthand. 2) The experience of the USSR should be divided into 2 eras: that of the Lenin-Stalin era (1917-1956) of socialism and that of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Gorbachev era (1956-1991) of state-capitalism and social-imperialism. The Lenin & Stalin administrations were a time when the proletariat genuinely ruled society and the economy was based on human need and the long-term goal of breaking down all class contradiction within society. Now, there were problems at that time, especially in the Stalin administration: there was a tendency to use police methods to deal with class struggle, a somewhat mechanical understanding of class under socialism, and a tendency to fall back on Russian nationalism as a way to galvanize the population to take part in socialist industrialization and anti-fascist resistance during WWII. However, with all these problems, I think that the Lenin-Stalin era was a great time of liberation, democracy, and prosperity for the people of the Soviet republics. However, after Comrade Stalin's death- and partly because of Comrade Stalin's errors, even though he himself was NOT a counter-revolutionary- the capitalist-roader clique around Nikita Khrushchev instigated a coup against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and with the Kosygin Reforms (which instituted "one-man management" of state enterprises and declared that accumulation of profit- not human need- was to be the future driving force in society) restored capitalism (even if it was within state ownership). It was during THIS time that the USSR did, indeed, become the terror that most people think about and became a terror for people across the world, such as in Hungary, Afghanistan, Angola, and Cuba. So, there is some truth to what this anti-communist is saying, however, their method of simply writing off a very complicated situation gives them absolutely no credence. People have invented many weapons of mass destruction, and one of those are totalitharian ideologies. ...What the fuck is that supposed to mean? We both live in democratic countries, so choose whatever you like... Yes, a wide variety of choices in what to believe. In bourgeois-democratic nations, there is indeed democracy, but democracy for whom? Democracy under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (by "dictatorship" I am referring to the domination of one class over another) is meant to help the bourgeoisie struggle between themselves and work out their contradictions: often being used a method of damage control as we saw in 2008 elections. For the masses, however, it is good to look at what Lenin said in The State & Revolution: "the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament!" (and as Dead Prez said "Choose yo oppressor, Jeffrey Dahmer or Hannibal Lecter?). That being said, bourgeois-democratic countries often allow revolutionary movements exist until they become an immediate threat to them- not so much because they believe in "freedom", but because doing such would cause so much outrage among the masses that would actually blow up in their face. This is why the oppressor will never give in, and it is our task to learn from the past, develop a scientific Marxist methodology of looking at the world, and liberating all of humanity in a thorough fashion. |
EatTheWorldFeb 8, 2009 3:38 PM
but Lenin, he did everything right and was a true leader of the people... I don't think this is the best way to look at Lenin. Lenin was indeed, one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century (if not THE greatest) and made a great theoretical and social leap in the history of our communist project. I mean, I guess I don't have to say anything more. However, we shouldn't see him as infallible, nor should we unconditionally support any revolutionary leader. Lenin did get some things wrong: I think he was incorrect in his belief that communists should work within reactionary trade unions (as he suggested in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and I think there were some points where he could have handled certain points in the Russian Civil War better (such as the liberation of Georgia, not uniting with some of the more progressive nationalist forces within the Central Asian republics, some of the more excessive military actions in Ukraine). So while Lenin's contributions and positive work in making the first genuinely liberated society in human history far outweigh his errors, let's not just assume that everything Lenin did was correct. In terms of Stalin, I like Stalin a lot. He was a revolutionary, a great man, and kept the USSR on the socialist road in a time of intense struggles within the Soviet Union and with imperialist pressure from outside. However, I agree with you in that I don't approve of many of Stalin's methods. However, to think that Stalin was completely evil is to negate a lot of great experiences within the history of socialism and would ignore a lot of the great lessons that the proletariat can learn from in the future. A friend of mine wrote a really good essay on this called "Learning From a Century of Revolution, Including Stalin" that can be found here: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/mike-ely-on-triumphs-sorrows-of-the-soviet-revolution/ It's a good look at how we should look at the past and how to reach verdicts on history in order to know what to do next. I think you'll like it. |
| BTW is this Keistas you're talking about? |
| What do you mean about Trotsky having a "big hand" in the USSR? That could be interpreted in different ways. |
| Indeed, Trotsky's contributions during the Russian Civil War cannot be denied, and without him the war would have been much more difficult to win. However, when he started putting forward the theory of productive forces- which essentially said that because the socialist revolutions in Germany, Hungary, and Poland in 1918-1919 failed, the USSR should essentially revert to state-capitalism in order to survive- his revisionism became clear. His rejection of the anti-colonial struggles in the Third World (on the basis that they only had a minority of an industrial proletariat) was a very narrow and dogmatic look at Marx's theories (which weren't always correct) and in the end put him on the opposing end of revolution. I could go on all day about the historical failure of Trotskyism and its failure to ever make revolution or even lead any significant revolutionary movements (outside of the UK and Mexico for very short periods), but I think I'll stop there. However, here's another good essay on Trotskyism I think you might like: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/nando-historys-cruelty-towards-trotskyism/ |
| I suppose I shall weigh in with a comment that I have not completely allowed to mature in my mind, but here it is anyhow. Part of the issue here is that the general public as a whole, at least in the "western" world, does not understand what is meant by "communism" or "socialism." When the terms come up in conversation, they think primarily of Stalin's USSR and "Russian" communism. Furthermore, communists and socialists themselves are not unified in the least. They range from being libertarian-minded to authoritarian-minded. They can hold nigh-fascist levels of nationalist values or be completely opposed to the idea of a nation-state, vouch for anarchy, or they can even be advocates of the so-called "New World Order." To go a bit further, I would say that the destruction that communism and socialism have apparently wielded on society is perhaps almost equal to that of capitalism. However, just as we do not intend to cause the sort of damage that leaders like Stalin did, neither do free-market advocates truly intend to harm society. At any rate, this doesn't really seem like any great insult to communist/socialist ideology but rather a polite-but-honest assessment of it from a position of opposition. |
 |
I suppose I shall weigh in with a comment that I have not completely allowed to mature in my mind, but here it is anyhow. It's fine, Marxist epistemology says we have something to learn from everyone ^_^ (even, at times, reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries) Part of the issue here is that the general public as a whole, at least in the "western" world, does not understand what is meant by "communism" or "socialism." When the terms come up in conversation, they think primarily of Stalin's USSR and "Russian" communism. Well, no one on the left except the most idealist of sects believes that smashing the capitalist distortions and lies will be a quick and easy process. The struggle within the social and ideological is, at times, the most difficult aspect of the struggle for a classless society (even within socialism itself!), but it is not impossible. However, it's OUR responsibility to "set the record straight" about the history of proletarian revolutionary experiences thus far, after all, as Lenin pointed out in What Is To Be Done?, if the masses are not being awakened to class consciousness in times of crisis, it's OUR fault, not theirs. I'd also like to point out that the Stalin era is just as distorted as the rest of communist history, even with all of its problems. Like I said before, it's necessary to show people how to distinguish between the Lenin/Stalin era and the Khrushchev/Brezhnev/Gorbachev era in the history of the Soviet Union. I should also like to point out that while the Lenin-Stalin era had serious errors and excesses, we must always make a point to not "throw out the baby with the bath water". Like I said, I would definitely recommend you look at the above link concerning learning from the Soviet revolution, UtopiaMan. m. Furthermore, communists and socialists themselves are not unified in the least. They range from being libertarian-minded to authoritarian-minded. They can hold nigh-fascist levels of nationalist values or be completely opposed to the idea of a nation-state, vouch for anarchy, or they can even be advocates of the so-called "New World Order." Which is why I have never placed much faith into "left regroupment/refoundation" . I'm more about uniting the masses around a genuinely correct line that has the ability to make revolution, instead of uniting the left around a watered-down line that would lead us into confusion and eventual splitting... and then we'd have even MORE disunity than before. To go a bit further, I would say that the destruction that communism and socialism have apparently wielded on society is perhaps almost equal to that of capitalism. However, just as we do not intend to cause the sort of damage that leaders like Stalin did, neither do free-market advocates truly intend to harm society. I would entirely disagree. The history of socialism has certainly had its excesses, errors, and intense struggles, (all of which we must learn from if we're going to go forward) but the extent of these things are often exaggerated or taken out of context. Let's take the example of the Great Leap Forward in China. Even the great Anarchist author Noam Chomsky once said that even supposing that capitalists were right about the number of deaths caused by famine in Mao's China (which were, indeed, exaggerated and caused moreso by natural causes and not Mao's policies), you could equally make a list of lives lost in India as a result of not having a welfare state during those same years (if not more). And of course, there is the famous Communist quote that I absolutely love: “When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for the errors of socialism.” Honestly, even if Communism did kill 50,000,000 people in the 20th century, it would be good to point out that- directly or indirectly- the actions of capitalists caused the death of 100,000,000-200,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone (to not say anything of the 18th and 19th centuries!). I think there is no argument among us here, however, that capitalism must be overthrown now more than ever. |
EatTheWorldFeb 10, 2009 8:41 AM
| I'm not American D: |
| sad |
| I think that just shows even more how patronizing this person's "declaration" is. That, and even though I was born within the borders of the U.S., and much of my family have lived in America for centuries (and within my Cherokee ancestry, possibly thousands), I do not consider myself an American. I am a proletarian internationalist, for as Marx says in the Manifesto "the working class has no country". In the end, this person simply writes this club off as a group of "naive Americans"- when in fact you ain't dealin' with Americans: you're dealing with Communists. |
More topics from this board
» Leftist reading / channelsHengeDraws - Oct 14, 2022 |
1 |
by Surinen
»»
Dec 3, 2022 7:56 AM |
|
» Communist 3x3HoloisHolo - Aug 1, 2022 |
11 |
by rian9999
»»
Aug 6, 2022 1:12 PM |
|
» Marxist FightsMoonspeak - May 17, 2022 |
29 |
by rian9999
»»
Jun 15, 2022 9:33 PM |
|
» About Japanese views on Russia viz Ukrainearemarf - Jun 5, 2022 |
0 |
by aremarf
»»
Jun 5, 2022 3:54 AM |
|
» Discord ServerHoloisHolo - May 20, 2022 |
2 |
by HoloisHolo
»»
Jun 4, 2022 11:56 PM |