All Communists are dead-beats

[bit_pattern]

The gulags and killings probably come about because there has been no toleration of dissent in any of the "proto-marxist" states. (Not 100% sure what Marx said about this - or if he thought through the process in enough detail but Lenin definately viewed all dissent/criticism as illegitimate and something that needed to be crushed).

This is a good point. Marx never envisaged Communism in an agrarian society but rather a post-industrial society like Germany was at the time. There is something to be said for Lenin inheriting a brutally repressive state and simply extending it.

 

[Virus]

I'm going to have to take that as a "No.".

I suspect that term may not mean quite what you think it means. Would you like to explain what made mid-nineteenth century England a mercantile economy, and exactly how it differed from a capitalist one?

According to Wikipedia, England was Mercantilist until 1860.

By 1860, England removed the last vestiges of the mercantile era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

This is a good point. Marx never envisaged Communism in an agrarian society but rather a post-industrial society like Germany was at the time. There is something to be said for Lenin inheriting a brutally repressive state and simply extending it.

And what would that be?

 

[bit_pattern]

And what would that be?

That he inherited a brutally repressive state and extended it, maybe?

 

[bit_pattern]

According to Wikipedia, England was Mercantilist until 1860.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

The "last vestiges", but the transformation to laissez-faire capitalism began decades earlier when the corn laws were repealed. And it wasn't the "last vestiges" of mercantilism that led to the famine, quite the opposite in fact:

A rigid belief in laissez-faire also guided government response in 1846-1849 to the Irish famine, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died. It was expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

It would be fair to describe the Famine as the first great blunder of British capitalism, as it was exacerbated by the repeal of the corn laws and Britain's new embrace of laissez-faire

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Right then.

There is something to be said for Lenin inheriting a brutally repressive state and simply extending it.

And that something is...

That he inherited a brutally repressive state and extended it, maybe?

Tell me more, I'm fascinated!

 

[bit_pattern]

Right then.



And that something is...



Tell me more, I'm fascinated!

OK, I'll type slowly for your benefit; Russia was a terribly brutal, repressive state before Lenin took over, and he continued that tradition with gusto after he took power. So perhaps the repressive nature of the Soviet regime had, at least in part, something to do with the nature of Russian society as much, if not moreso, that anything inherent in the tenets of Communism.

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[JJM 777]

I know a few Communists. None of them are very succesful in life.

They don't make much money, they haven't achieved much in their careers.

They tend to be single.

Some of them, are total bums...living in their mom's basement with very low level jobs that they hate.

What they ALL have in common, is great resentment towards folks who have achieved, or at least make a decent attempt to.

They go on and on about how the gov. should give them this, the gov. should give them that, and how some day..they will simply RISE UP and take what they want.

Like I said....dead-beats.

Questions? Comments? Please leave a message after the beep.

I know more Capitalists than Communists who fit this same description. Most poor people are so, and most of them have a Capitalistic worldview anyway.

 

[Kotatsu]

(Not 100% sure what Marx said about this - or if he thought through the process in enough detail

Not quite sure either, but he sure didn't tolerate dissent from Bakunin and the rest of that crowd...

Don't think you can be a communist in NYC. Sure, you can think it's a good idea and call yourself a communist, but at the end of the day you're going to work, paying your bills, and shopping like everyone else.

Hang on -- are communists not supposed to go to work? Pah! My day has been wasted!

 

[quadraginta]

I'm going to have to take that as a "No.".

I suspect that term may not mean quite what you think it means. Would you like to explain what made mid-nineteenth century England a mercantile economy, and exactly how it differed from a capitalist one?

According to Wikipedia, England was Mercantilist until 1860.

By 1860, England removed the last vestiges of the mercantile era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

So now you are struggling with the meaning of "last vestiges"?

Are you just not very adept at cherry-picking, or is English perhaps not your first language?

Try and stay on track here. What do you mean when you use the term "mercantilism"?

 

[quadraginta]

OK, I'll type slowly for your benefit; Russia was a terribly brutal, repressive state before Lenin took over, and he continued that tradition with gusto after he took power. So perhaps the repressive nature of the Soviet regime had, at least in part, something to do with the nature of Russian society as much, if not moreso, that anything inherent in the tenets of Communism.

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Brutal repression was something of a unfortunate cultural mindset even (maybe especially?) at the beginning of the twentieth century, as it had been for most of human history before then. This may have been more true in Russia than in other parts of the world, but only by a little bit.

As you point out, the Bolshevik success in October 1917 was only the culmination of social upheaval that had been going there on for years, since the culture shock of rapid industrialization began to dissolve the fabric of Tsarist Russia back in the 1890s. In a somewhat ironic twist it could be said that the Tsar's attempts (reluctant as they were) to institute a representative parliamentary government were the match that lit the final bonfire. It might also be said that they were not quite ready for democracy.

The dirty commies weren't particularly more brutal or repressive than any of the other factions, although they may have been better at it.

They were essentially the last ones standing.

 

[bit_pattern]

The only thing I'd disagree with you on was the level of repression in Russia, they were very backwards compared to the rest of Europe and had only abolished serfdom within decades of the revolution, my impression has always been that it was a particularly nasty place even for the era.

 

[dirtywick]

Hang on -- are communists not supposed to go to work? Pah! My day has been wasted!

How are you going to be a communist then participate in capitalism? Communist by title only?

 

[quadraginta]

The only thing I'd disagree with you on was the level of repression in Russia, they were very backwards compared to the rest of Europe and had only abolished serfdom within decades of the revolution, my impression has always been that it was a particularly nasty place even for the era.

I don't think we're exactly disagreeing. Remember, I acknowledged that it " ... may have been more true in Russia ...". How much more is certainly an area of discussion which could be pursued, but somehow I don't think it would be a fruitful avenue of debate. I've been trying to discourage Virus' fixation on body counts.

However, I will at least point out that the Turks were no pikers when it came to massacres while the Russians were having their little disruptions. In fact the Turks blamed the Russians. ("Now look what you made me do.") The Brits invented the expression "concentration camp", although not the practice, while they were discouraging the Boors in South Africa, before the Russian Revolution even started. Around the same time the U.S. was cheerfully burning entire villages to the ground in the Philippines. For those with scorecards, some people put the human cost of our excursion there at about a million people, or 10% of the population. (Coincidentally close to the number and proportion of Irish who died in the Great Famine.) For fun trivia, we also created an entirely new and somewhat ironic meaning for the term "water cure" while we were there.

I'll stop now.

 

[quadraginta]

How are you going to be a communist then participate in capitalism? Communist by title only?

My suspicion is that it may be possible to both be a "communist", and to work. That's assuming we can arrive at some sort of agreement on what a "communist" is. I'll go out on a limb here and say it is probably possible to do both for most definitions of "communism"

Maybe the meaning of "work" is starting to be an issue as well.

Parky started this thread with something of the same sort of confusion. I believe we're still waiting for him to enlighten us.

 

[bit_pattern]

I don't think we're exactly disagreeing. Remember, I acknowledged that it " ... may have been more true in Russia ...". How much more is certainly an area of discussion which could be pursued, but somehow I don't think it would be a fruitful avenue of debate. I've been trying to discourage Virus' fixation on body counts.

However, I will at least point out that the Turks were no pikers when it came to massacres while the Russians were having their little disruptions. In fact the Turks blamed the Russians. ("Now look what you made me do.") The Brits invented the expression "concentration camp", although not the practice, while they were discouraging the Boors in South Africa, before the Russian Revolution even started. Around the same time the U.S. was cheerfully burning entire villages to the ground in the Philippines. For those with scorecards, some people put the human cost of our excursion there at about a million people, or 10% of the population. (Coincidentally close to the number and proportion of Irish who died in the Great Famine.) For fun trivia, we also created an entirely new and somewhat ironic meaning for the term "water cure" while we were there.

I'll stop now.

lol

 

[bikerdruid]

The PRC still defines itself as Communist. Just like Thunder's friends.

Say that we don't believe the PRC's own claims of what they themselves are. You still have some splainin' to do about 1921-1990, yes?

stalin claimed that he was a communist too.
he wasn't.

 

[dirtywick]

My suspicion is that it may be possible to both be a "communist", and to work. That's assuming we can arrive at some sort of agreement on what a "communist" is. I'll go out on a limb here and say it is probably possible to do both for most definitions of "communism"

Maybe the meaning of "work" is starting to be an issue as well.

Parky started this thread with something of the same sort of confusion. I believe we're still waiting for him to enlighten us.

I agree that a communist can work. But in NYC your life is a life under capitalism was the point I was trying to make; you can call yourself a communist but then you participate in capitalism like everyone else, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Slimething]

stalin claimed that he was a communist too.
he wasn't.

Your point?

 

[Virus]

Can you say "capitalism"?

From ADAM SMITH AND AMARTYA SEN:
MARKETS AND FAMINES IN PRE-INDUSTRIAL EUROPE

CORMAC Ó GRÁDA

...it would seem that a
backward agriculture, coupled with the lack of an adequate
policy response from the authorities, rather than the failure
of the markets for staple foodstuffs to work, were mainly
responsible for the famines analysed here.

http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/seminars/pdfs/grada_smithsen.pdf