The Soviet Union was AGAINST Socialism

Its not some people. Its everyone. Not everyone might be as malicious as Stalin but everyone takes part in the failure of socialism. I studied in Germany shortly after the wall came down. The East Germans had totally lost any and all work ethic they once had. They might not have been killing people but they had certainly contributed to the failure.

 

I believe that it was eighteen foreign armies that were sent against the workers' state while it still was that. Any stuff thereafter - and in Germany - is about a kind of capitalism and has nothing to do with the question.

 

There are something that never been addressed in any ideologies.

Human Natures.

There are always someone who would bend the system to their own benefits regardless of what system (communist, socialist, democracy or capitalist..etc) they live in.

Here are what I learned about revolutions from human histories

1. Those whose began any revolutions to overthrow their perceived oppressive governments, should never allow to hold any offices of powers. When threaten, these same people would easily treated their own country men as their enemies.
2. Perpetual never ending revolutions are nothing more than lies and propaganda.
3. Any political or religious ideologies against the very basic human natures, would simply never work. Whoever insists otherwise would always ends in epic disastrous results.
4. It is no surprise that countries that have little resources usually do better economically/politically than other countries who have plenty of oil. Those who have little resources would have to do whatever it takes to improve their own prosperity. Others oil rich nations would find unnecessary to improve their own prosperity economically and politically. Oil are curses to these countries.
5. Those who attempt to utilize abstract ideologies (political/religious) to solve any practical problems, would always end in failures.

 

What kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) response is that?

 

Your desinformation is incredible big.

At first point, Noam Chomski isn't communist, he is anarchist, and he is opposed to authoritarian communism, and to the Soviet Union.

And all the states are murderers, so don't report so fast the Soviet Union, because his biggest enemy also have millions of murders behind.

 

Bravo; this commentary is like a breath of fresh on a thread so filled with lunatic theory and laughable attempts to re-write the historic record of man's failed honeymoon with Socialism.

I call this the circle of stupidity; where one idiot claim is then countered by the facts and followed by the next idiot claim only to end up at the original idiot claim in the hopes that by this time everyone forgot what the idiot claim was.

The best system of Government ever invented by man was the Constitution which purposely designed a government that could not work well and left the power to states and individuals and private property rights.

History has shown us that although it has its warts, the end results are superior to any other form of Governance.

 

And it still failed, within the first ten years of it's ratification even.

Government is the problem.

 

James Cessna ,,you haven't answered my question.

How many people were "slaughtered" by the communists in Laos?

If you really do know,, you wouldn't have brought Laos up in this thread.

 

Why not?

Yes, it does and has - in France, Germany, Russia, Vietnam, list goes on.

No the horrors come from statist political groups, such as Leninist and Maoist groups.
Clearly you didnt bother finding out what my point here was.

Actually we start with A and we can end up with heaps of stuff. You will notice, well actually you wont because you dont know anything about history, but if you did you would notice what often was A initially was overtaken by other elements such as B. that created either more B or something far worse - C. This has played out in in the major revolutions such as Russia, China and others like Vietnam.

Einstein was a socialist. haha fail.

I cna assure you I can trump your argument with ease.

So give an example of this so-called socialism? How about you read my thread instead of making the same stupid comments every other propaganda filled ignoramus does.

LOL You are totally clueless.

How so?

 

He's probably referring to the Russian Civil War. Heaps of foreign armies arrived to take down the Bolsheviks, including American forces. It was as much an event that hardened and deepened the brutality and authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks as the 1917 revolution itself.

 

You won't have heard of it. It's called historical knowledge. Look it up, child - I believe that even your Holy Wikipedia Scripture deals with it, after a fashion.

 

James Cessna,,, I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

LOL Dont expect one.

 

So typical,, making outlandish statements then not putting the money where the mouth is.

 

Read, pause, and reflect Dr. Michael Parenti's ingenious observations!

Excerpt From his book Blackshirts And Reds:

A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous” (Monthly Review, 5/83). Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.

Sorely lacking within the U.S. Left is any rational evaluation of the Soviet Union, a nation that endured a protracted civil war and a multinational foreign invasion in the very first years of its existence, and that two decades later threw back and destroyed the Nazi beast at enormous cost to itself. In the three decades after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviets made industrial advances equal to what capitalism took a century to accomplish–while feeding and schooling their children rather than working them fourteen hours a day as capitalist industrialists did and still do in many parts of the world. And the Soviet Union, along with Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, and Cuba provided vital assistance to national liberation movements in countries around the world, including Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in South Africa.
Left anticommunists remained studiously unimpressed by the dramatic gains won by masses of previously impoverished people under communism. Some were even scornful of such accomplishments. I recall how in Burlington Vermont, in 1971, the noted anticommunist anarchist, Murray Bookchin, derisively referred to my concern for “the poor little children who got fed under communism” (his words).

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little room for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism–not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience–could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not. As the political philosopher Carl Shames argued:



http://www.revleft.com/vb/dr-michae...t=114609&highlight=michael+parenti+criticizes

 

Resisting Arrest - Read Tony Cliff on this subject. Clearly the key point about the Soviet Union is that the wars of intervention meant that the working class that had made the Revolution disintegrated and the County - which had a vast peasant majority anyway - was isolated by the failure of the European working class. I don't know what 'left' you think hasn't considered this history: over here it has been part of general discussion for about forty years or so.

 

Whilst I agree the civil war probably ramped up the authoritarianism and brutality of the Bolsheviks, I contend their ideology was intrinsically authoritarian and AGAINST socialism, ie worker control and diffusion of the state. This occurred for a number of reasons, buyt the fact is it happened and it was the Bolshevik's willingness to utilize violence so readily and the repression of the state that backfired in a horrific way.

 

It came from making revolution in a dictatorial state where the working class was tiny, in the expectation that it would lead to a proper revolution in suitable countries, which didn't happen. The Bolsheviks had to be authoritarian to survive, like any militarised group, and I don't think Makhno did any better, let alone Tolstoy. Men make history, but not according to their own wishes.

 

Actually I posted the link at the bottom so your are clearly a fool, but yes go on...

No one. I know you've been embedded with propaganda, but given you know absolutely nothing about socialist ideology outside of conservative rhetoric, perhaps you should keep an open mind. Although I know, you being a conservative (so-called), you probably wont.

LOL So by your logic (or rather lack thereof) here, you beleive The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic because its in its title

So? They also said they were "free" and "demcoratic" - so you believe that too? Please dont tell me you are a hypocrite and only believe some

How so? What was socialist about it?

Correct.

Really? I am quite sure he is.

You also think North Korea is democratic it seems!! HAHA

 

And when it didnt happen it retained its state central apparatus. Even before this however there was a complete contempt for worker and peasant organization. The Marxist doctrine that so detested the peasants was also a factor in centralizing their regime.

Indeed, so then you have to say, the Bolsheviks didnt aim for socialism, they aimed just to keep power.

I disagree. They didnt have to launch a coup in 1917. They didnt have to disassemble the Constituent Assembly when they people of Russia didnt give them the full vote (although there was more to it than that). Remember that whilst the Civil War hardened the Bolsheviks, they knew their actions would lead to such conflict. The Reds fought against other socialists and communists remember, not just liberals, conservatives and monarchists.

 

For the best, it was that or death for themselves and their families, and in a war situation people tend to convince themselves that they are right, not forgetting the police state. As to peasants, I don't think 'Marxist doctrine' detests them - just believes, correctly, that they are incapable of positive collective action.

Well by Stalin's time they were different people of course, most of the Old Bolsheviks having been seen off, but, on the whole, yes, agreed - though by that time I think they were as vague about what 'socialism' might mean as are current Americans.

There was something of an international disagreement already going on and killing millions, of course, It is worth keeping that in mind when we examine the bolshevik psychology.

 

We don't worship people; we worship the intent contained in the Constitution. People worship is for fools and the gullible.

Nothing that man has invented or will invent will be a better guarantor to freedom, liberty and prosperity for its people.

You and your idiot buddy Noam can re-invent Socialism as often as you like and re-invent what it means; the bottom line is that it is a failed ideology and can never work as well as the US Constitution has for the simple fact that all other forms require central group think and "deciders" rather than allowing market forces to determine how best to utilize scarce resources.

The idiot strawman that Conservatives want ZERO regulation is nothing more than deflection and attempts to obfuscate the failure of Socialist group think.

 

Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The best system of Government ever invented by man was the Constitution which purposely designed a government that could not work well and left the power to states and individuals and private property rights.

History has shown us that although it has its warts, the end results are superior to any other form of Governance.

Really; how has the US failed?

No society can function without governance.

Now run along and bore someone else with your laughable nonsense.