Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

On NK and other stuff

LOCKED
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Jul 2014, 09:04
Quote:
In the first years following the revolution, it is almost certain that some will prefer the market to our equal salaries.

That's funny because it was precisely under Stalin that the old laws about wage limiting were taken down. The USSR was perhaps even more unequal than developed capitalist countries in those times.

Quote:
Stalinism doesn't need justification. All the achievements of the soviet people during the Stalin era speak for themselves. Unless one is a corrupted libertarian or CIA agent, of course.

The achievements were won by the Soviet people not because but despite Stalin.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 10:17
Loz wrote:
That's funny because it was precisely under Stalin that the old laws about wage limiting were taken down. The USSR was perhaps even more unequal than developed capitalist countries in those times.
What's really funny is the obsession of "left communists" and Trots regarding the USSR. It seems that their major enemy is probably 1917-1953 USSR than the imperialist countries. There has never been, EVER, a better state for the workers than the one of the Stalin era.

Quote:
The achievements were won by the Soviet people not because but despite Stalin.
The people can't achieve anything without the vanguard party, and the vanguard party can't achieve anything without the people. The marvellous example of stalinic USSR proves this.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 11:49
Quote:
You accept the reactionary forces???My right-wing-liberalism sensors have gone crazy. The vast majority of the working classes think with their stomach. In the first years following the revolution, it is almost certain that some will prefer the market to our equal salaries. Shall we respect their will and give up power, betraying the working class and our historic role?


Several places to attack your argument here.

1 - Reactionary forces can be composed of the burgeoise, who have nothing to win from the revolution. But can be composed of the proletariat too. What happens when 90% of the proletariat is against the revolution ? You force them into socialism ? Isnt this too arrogant ?
2 - If the proletariat is soo dispersed and ignorant as to decide with the stomach, then your pre-revolutionary work was not trully done. You will have bad results no matter if the revolution falls back into capitalism or keeps a facade of socialism. Without conscienciousness there is no socialism, period.
3 - How can you betray the proletariat by accepting their decision ? You betray the proletariat when having the power you ignore what they want.

Quote:
Stalinism doesn't need justification. All the achievements of the soviet people during the Stalin era speak for themselves. Unless one is a corrupted libertarian or CIA agent, of course.


Of course it need. What you are saying is that the party bureucrates are above right and wrong. And this is one of the traits of stalinism.

Under stalin the "scientifical" label of socialism (not that socialism had become trully more scientifical) was forced down the throats of the people. This was used as an excuse to transfer more power from the proletariat into the party hands. If socialism is see as fully scientifical, then a class of bureucrates, well versed into the science of socialism can very well decide everything for the proletariat without having to asking them what they want. In that way the proletariat becomes as powerless as they where under capitalism. Stalinism can sure achieve some transformations in the material conditions of the proletariat that might very well be hard to achieve under capitalism, but this has a limit. Without conscienciousness, those material conditions are not enought to trully emancipate the proletariat, them you are subject to the conditions for a termidorianist revolution or worse, a return to capitalism.

Quote:
That might be a problem. Collective leadership could be a solution.


The only solution is the soviet. Theres no socialism without soviets.

Quote:
Oh yes they did.


Of course they didnot. They voted against. But a counter-revolution cannot be checked by votes, only by force. Did the people call to arms to stop the fall ? Nope.

Even the military done nothing - at first they tried - but misteriously stoped and watched the fall.

And you keep ignoring my last posts, i know they are hard to answer, but replying selectively shows you are trying to convince, not by simple sincerity, but by ignoring key criticisms.

Quote:
Agreed. But many, many years after the revolution. Only when the previous generation was not even born during the revolution.


I will answer that later, i have to go.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Jul 2014, 12:21
Quote:
What's really funny is the obsession of "left communists" and Trots regarding the USSR. It seems that their major enemy is probably 1917-1953 USSR than the imperialist countries.

Non-sequitur.

Quote:
There has never been, EVER, a better state for the workers than the one of the Stalin era.

In the good old Brezhnev times you would have most likely ended up in a psychiatric hospital for talking shit like this. Rightfully so too.

What's there to say after and about a comment such as this. Keep living in your imaginary world.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 14:45
Loz wrote:
In the good old Brezhnev times you would have most likely ended up in a psychiatric hospital for talking shit like this. Rightfully so too.
Yep that's what all revisionists keep saying.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2014, 17:49
Everything AldoBrasil said about Stalinism and revolution with a communist vanguard party can be summed up very easily by saying that the system is not perfect. Imperfect as it may be, it is far more realistic than left-communism and has already been implemented many a time before to the extent that at one point it covered almost 1/3 of the globe's landmass with 1/3 of it's population to boot.

On the other hand, his left-communism, perfect as it may be in theory, will exist only in one's imagination. Homo sapiens sapiens will have evolved into homo superior long before his ideas would have even the slightest chance of being implemented - ideas of somehow being able to educate the majority of the proletariat to the extent where they wouldn't need any sort of vanguard party or governance is either extremely naive or borderline insane.

He pointed out all the faults he saw in stalinism and leninism (and quite well I must admit) without offering a concrete and solid alternative. It's a common mistake way too many people do. He has so much blind faith in the whole of the proletariat to actually believe that they can all simply be morphed, educated, brainwashed, or whatever into becoming benevolent, honest, virtuous, hard working people who put the betterment of humanity before themselves, thus making a government unnecessary.

If only it were that easy.

How exactly do you teach people that? Schools that teach concrete science to children and teenagers (the ages when the mind can be most easily moulded into believing a chosen set of ideas - brainwashed if you will) have proven not to be as efficient as they were intended to be.

AldoBrasil is offering to somehow teach something that isn't an exact science but an ideology to the majority of grown people who's minds and brains have already reached maturity thus making it more difficult to convince them that a certain set of ideas are correct. He bases his assertions on no concrete evidence whatsoever. Where in history have you seen a prosperous and stable society linger solely on the good will of the people? Ideas have to be enforced for the majority to believe it. Every single productive society is proof of that.

An ideology is based in philosophy. Marxism is an ideology:

A. it is a philosophy based on the belief in materialism, a belief in itself that says the material world creates ideas.

B. it utilises scientific reasoning and dialectics to the best of its ability in order to find a solution to the injustices of our modern capitalist world.

AldoBrasil on the other hand is an idealist. He simply chooses to believe that enlightening the majority of the working class in the virtues, or better yet in the benefits of Marxist thought would be the ultimate solution to achieving communism even though no event in history has even come close to presume it a possibility.

His posts contradict each other. He at one point says that a vanguard party subjugates instead of liberates the proletariat by taking away political and economical responsibility from them. Then he says that the party should be utilised to enlighten the masses to govern themselves instead of the party governing them. In other words the party should lead the masses through a revolution and then give the power to the masses in order to choose what to do next and accept that, even if that leads to their overthrow and to the end of the socialist system.

Then he says that the party should educate the masses properly before the revolution so that they wouldn't turn reactionary after the revolution. His proposals are just too far-fetched. What he proposes is too vague and lacks practicality. People would spend most of the time arguing about what the next step should be and less time in implementing anything practical.

His arguments have more to do with the concept of democracy than with socialism.

Then there's the talk about freedom. Who is anyone to decide what freedom is for someone else? Freedom is as subjective and individualistic as our fingerprints. There is no universal freedom that applies to all. It could be argued that Syria is the freest place in the world, where you can kill and rape without the full force of the law at your back. It could be argued the other way by saying freedom is the ability to walk down the street without the fear of being raped or killed because the full force of the law protects you.

Then he says that power should lie in the hands of the soviets. Well power did lie in the hands of the the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and was the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union, the only one with the power to pass constitutional amendments. It elected the Presidium, formed the Council of People's Commissars, the Supreme Court, and appointed the Procurator General of the USSR.

His last point where he uses the fall of the USSR as evidence to the validity of his posts is also false. The fall of the USSR is not something so simple as to claim it was a matter of it being either the party's fault or the proletarian's fault. It was an extremely complicated event, a complex set of cause and effect events than spans over a century, and trying to determine why it happened is one of the most retrospective historically puzzling and difficult questions to answer. There are countless threads in this forum and countless books published all trying to determine why the USSR ended in all it's complexities. Anyone who thinks he understands the entire event perfectly in all its aspects is a fool in my opinion.


Finally on Comrade Stalin. AldoBrasil claims that the giving full responsibility to the masses is the right way to go and that we should accept and trust the judgment and will of the masses unconditionally.

In that case let's go back to 1941 and the Battle of Moscow.

When the largest invading force in history, unsurpassed even to this day, invaded the soviet union and was approaching Moscow after having destroyed everything in their path all the way from the Atlantic ocean, all of the residents of Moscow were packing their bags in an extreme panic to abandon the city.

All the members of the communist party and the general staff had their bags and tickets ready heading for the first train out. All of the members of Stalin's inner circle were in full agreement that the best course of action would be to follow in the footsteps of Mikhail Kutuzov, abandon the city to the Nazi's, retreat, regroup, counterattack, retake the city and push the enemy back out of soviet lands. Was it smart thinking or cowardice?

Nevertheless at the very last moment a rather small man who was five seconds away from getting on the train out of Moscow himself, stopped, paced back and forth along the railroad tracks, remembered Lenin's legacy and decided that he could better the legacy of Mikhail Kutuzov himself who had more than 100 years prior, defeated Napoleon's armies who were up until then the largest invading force the world had ever known.

One man went against all the advice, judgements, and the conclusions of the party and proletariat alike, advice which at the time would have been the most logical, intuitive and sound to any one of us were we there ourselves.

Yet he turned and looked at his retreating men and said "Nay! We stay here and defend our capital until victory!"

The battle for Moscow was the first time that the Nazi military machine was brought to a halt.

The decision of this one man culminated in the moment when Marshal Vasilevsky reported by radio that the encirclement of the German armies had been completed. For a few moments Stalin just sat there, his eyes half-closed as though he were going to sleep.

This was his hour of triumph. He had not only defeated his current enemy; he had defeated the past. All the doubts he had about his past decisions were swept away in a cool breeze. Everything he had done had led him to this moment of victory, the greatest victory the world had ever witnessed.

He knew better than anyone that no one can condemn a victor. To the victor the spoils. Not only had he succeeded Lenin in leading the workers state, but he had also become its saviour.

Drunk on success, he very slowly and gently, with his eyes still closed, repeated the words of a song:

'You're caught in the net, my pretty little bird,
I won't let you go for anything in the world.'
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 17:59
The wonderful part of your post about the battle of Moscow sent chills down my spine. Well done, comrade. And well done for describing in an excellent manner what my mediocre English cannot.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2014, 18:19
Yeqon, I officially love you. Have my babies.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2014, 18:20
Stalinista wrote:
The wonderful part of your post about the battle of Moscow sent chills down my spine. Well done, comrade. And well done for describing in an excellent manner what my mediocre English cannot.


Mediocre English? Your English is excellent. I actually based some if not most of my thinking on your and MissStrangelove's posts. I simply elaborated on what you and her already said. The part you wrote about freedom for example I only reiterated.

The debate between Aldo and Miss was one I really enjoyed. It has been a while since I read and analysed an entire thread thrice.


MissStrangelove wrote:
Yeqon, I officially love you. Have my babies.


You shouldn't tease a fellow comrade like that Miss. It'll cloud my male objective judgement.


I do love your new avatar though.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2014, 19:17
Yeqon wrote:
I do love your new avatar though.

Thanks.
I almost used Meryl, but I figured EVA fit a communist forum better. And let's be honest; Big Boss was pretty red and a complete Che-wannabe.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Jul 2014, 20:31
You're wrong about pretty much everything.
And 1941 wouldn't have even happened were it not for Stalinist stupidity. Everyone knows that Stalinism and Moscow's tool Comintern were one of the biggest culprits for the victory of Nazism in Germany.

Also just to shit up your patriotic little poetry piece/rant that has nothing to do with anything:
Quote:
The battle for Moscow was the first time that the Nazi military machine was brought to a halt.

No, that was Smolensk.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2014, 20:59
MissStrangelove wrote:
Thanks.
I almost used Meryl, but I figured EVA fit a communist forum better. And let's be honest; Big Boss was pretty red and a complete Che-wannabe.
Yeah I remember the image of him being awarded the title of big boss in the beret and the beard just like Che. I don't remember much from the Metal Gear Solid franchise since it's been at least 12 years since I last played those. Sons of Liberty I remember well because that's the game that introduced me to the franchise.

It's only recently I got back into gaming because of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance and Ground Zeroes although the latter isn't a complete game. The original soundtrack gives me the goosebumps to this day whenever I play it in my head.


Loz wrote:
You're wrong about pretty much everything.
And 1941 wouldn't have even happened were it not for Stalinist stupidity. Everyone knows that Stalinism and Moscow's tool Comintern are one of the biggest culprits for the victory of Nazism.


Stalinist stupidity? He made mistakes as do all people do, but to call him stupid...? That's funny. To assume Hitler would have never invaded were it not for Stalin, That's even funnier.

Everyone knows? At one point in history everyone knew that the world was flat and people who thought differently were burnt at the stake.

Victory of Nazism? I think you may have mixed up these red soldiers carrying Nazi banners for SS death squads.

Image



Loz wrote:
No, that was Smolensk.


I said halt the the Nazi war machine. I didn't say delay its advance. Open up a dictionary and learn more English.


Battle of Moscow

Wikipedia wrote:
For the first time since June 1941, Soviet forces had stopped the Germans and driven them back.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 21:43
Pls wait until i prepare a very long answer.

We are delving deeper and deeper into something that is quite complex and i am still not in the spirit to answer (lot of things in my head).
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Jul 2014, 21:46
Quote:
Stalinist stupidity? He made mistakes as do all people do, but to call him stupid...? That's funny. To assume Hitler would have never invaded were it not for Stalin, That's even funnier.

I reckoned i should add Germany for clarity and edited the post just before you responded.
It was quite clear from the context though. You're just trying to find excuses to post some pictures.

Quote:
I said halt the the Nazi war machine. I didn't say delay its advance. Open up a dictionary and learn more English.

Fair enough. All hail Great Stalin the victor Byalistok, Uman and Kiev.
It's funny how you people never wonder why and how did Hitler get to Moscow and whose fault that was in the first place, if only from a purely military standpoint. Fact remains that Stalin was the biggest culprit for the outright annihilation of the standing Red Army in 1941.
So you trying to pass off this military dilettante as some sort of a great strategian and commander is outright ridiculous.

But that's all off-topic.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 22:06
Loz wrote:
It's funny how you people never wonder why and how did Hitler get to Moscow and whose fault that was in the first place
I can't believe what I am reading. In order to criticize the USSR, Trots blame ...Stalin for the fascist advance in Russia.
Loz wrote:
if only from a purely military standpoint.
Or, more likely, from a purely anti-soviet standpoint.
Loz wrote:
Fact remains that Stalin was the biggest culprit for the outright annihilation of the standing Red Army in 1941

Imagine what would happen if he wasn't the "biggest culprit" ! We'd be talking about the Sioux Soviet now and we would be admiring the red flag on the statue of liberty.

@Aldo:
Based on your theories about freedom, you definitely support

this (Prague "spontaneous" "revolution"
)
Image



Do you?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 22:55
(This is not my answer, just a side note about Stalin)

Yes, Stalin is not of those responsible for the advances of the wermach into URSS. (i am being ironic, sorry sometimes i forget how hard is to detect i am being ironic)

Stalins errors :

1 - Not telling germany communists to ally with the liberals and other parties who were anti-nazi. Anti-fascist wide front worked in england and france and avoided fascist parties there to reach power. (This could very well have stoped nazism dead-track in germany and avoided te war all together).
2 - The purges.

Strategic level:
13 of 15 Army Generals,
8 of 9 Navy Admirals,
50 of 57 Army Corps comanders,
154 of 186 Division Commanders.

Those are very hard to replace, but not as critical as the purges at the middle officer level, because thats where most of the body of knowledge of the army rests, and are the ones who actually go to the front line. This explains bad russian performance at winter war for example and cannot be justified by any "bolchevique" view. The purges had effects in the economy and the military of URSS. It even went on as to deny the URSS the effects of a well organized defense, that was explored in the ideas of deep war (defense in depth). Later implementations of defense in depth (when the officer corps recovered from the purges) proved that the ideas where sound, at least defensively. Deep war involved a long series of wide front advances that the russian army (probably due to the purges and the losses at the start of the war) proved unable to pursue until late in the war (bagration).

We must stress that the red army, if not technologically superior to the german army, was materially much more advanced, and in some fields (like te all critical tank production) was superior to Germany right from the start of the war (example of this is when a KV-2 tank single handedly stoped an entiry german corps until he was killed by a Flak-88mm).

This material advantage, yes, was the result of Stalin rapid industrialization, but its unrealized potential was Stalin's fault too, becuase it is widely believed that it was the result of the purges and Stalin's messing with military affairs.

3 - Voroshilov and the group of seargents in the cupola of the RKKA.

Replacing competent old timers. The usual answer to this is that they were czarists or trotskists. But, when you have a nazi german at your neighborhood you are not supposed to get rid of good generals. And eventually the personal dispute between Stalin and Trotsky cannot be understood as a necessary bolchevique evolution but as a consequence of very specific conditions. If the professional revolutionaries where trully marxist-leninists they would not allow the power to be concentrated into the hands of Stalin so easily and neither would be accomplices to the killings of almost all old time bolcheviques in accounts of treason (if ther are 10 bolcheviques and 1 accuses the other 9 of treason, what are the chances of the 9 being traitors ? would be more than obvious that the single one is the true traitor ?). Yet another example of why the proletariat must be well versed in politics way before the revolution, as not to be lead as sheep when a power hungry men like Stalin tries to enact his termidorianist revolution.

4 - Dismantling of the preparations for deep war done by generals who where later expurged.

Like the dismembering of the all armored armies of the pre-war russian army, because Voroshilov still believed in the war in the same style as WW1, where tanks would be support weapons for the infantry.

5 - Concentration of the Red Army at the front lines as if the war was going to be a repetition of WW1 (the Stalin's principle of defending as westward as possible). This is one of the results of the purges and of Voroshilov as the defense minister.

Another consequence of the lack of knowledge of those in power. Deep war concepts were well developed and could very well avoid encirclement and the deep penetrations done by the Wermach at the start of war via defense in depth.

On Stalin account we can place :

1 - Rapid collectivization.
2 - Rapid industrialization.

As everything in history, we cannot know how history would come out if Stalin did things diferently or if the things done could be done in other way, and without Stalin.

The end result of the war was an even deeper concentration of power in the hands of Stalin. Another result was the destruction of 60% of the houses and other infrastructure in URSS. The killing of 20 million people in URSS alone.

This materal result sealed the fate of URSS as being always behind USA during the cold war (USA suffered none of the destruction).
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 25 Jul 2014, 01:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2014, 23:24
Yeqon wrote:
Yeah I remember the image of him being awarded the title of big boss in the beret and the beard just like Che.

Oh, it goes way deeper than that. Che is referenced (favorably) every 5 seconds in Peace Walker, and Big Boss is fighting alongside Sandinistas (Chico) in Ground Zeroes.

Quote:
It's only recently I got back into gaming because of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance and Ground Zeroes although the latter isn't a complete game. The original soundtrack gives me the goosebumps to this day whenever I play it in my head.

Yeah, Ground Zeroes is just a preview of MGS5 basically, but I love it all the same. I actually haven't played Revengeance, but have heard tons of good things about it. The move away from stealth seems like it's split some fans, but most people seem to like the story which is what most people play Metal Gear for anyway.

Also, Aldo, your latest post is actually very coherent. I thought about commenting on it bit-by-bit, just so this post wasn't off-topic, but 90% of it would have been "I agree, I agree, I agree." So, thumbs up.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 24 Jul 2014, 23:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 25 Jul 2014, 01:55
Quote:
Everything AldoBrasil said about Stalinism and revolution with a communist vanguard party can be summed up very easily by saying that the system is not perfect.


And so ? Of course if i am criticising something this is tantamount to say that the thing being criticized is not perfect. So what ? Should we ignore all criticism ?

Quote:
Imperfect as it may be, it is far more realistic than left-communism and has already been implemented many a time before to the extent that at one point it covered almost 1/3 of the globe's landmass with 1/3 of it's population to boot.


Well, the english empire was once that big, yet, should we celebrate and repeat the english empire ? Nope ?

So this means that the ammount of landmass and people who are under something doesnt automatically translate into a reason in itself for the existence of that same thing, right ?

Quote:
On the other hand, his left-communism, perfect as it may be in theory, will exist only in one's imagination.


Can you give me the results of the lottery too ?

Quote:
Homo sapiens sapiens will have evolved into homo superior long before his ideas would have even the slightest chance of being implemented - ideas of somehow being able to educate the majority of the proletariat to the extent where they wouldn't need any sort of vanguard party or governance is either extremely naive or borderline insane.


Like the homo-sovieticus ? Like the declaration by the Russian government (IIRC under krushev) that URSS had already reached communism (even without the soviets) and that "all work was already done" ?

Quote:
He pointed out all the faults he saw in stalinism and leninism (and quite well I must admit) without offering a concrete and solid alternative.


I was not asked to do so, but i will do, later.

Quote:
It's a common mistake way too many people do. He has so much blind faith in the whole of the proletariat to actually believe that they can all simply be morphed, educated, brainwashed, or whatever into becoming benevolent, honest, virtuous, hard working people who put the betterment of humanity before themselves, thus making a government unnecessary.


Nope, they dont need to become perfect. Actually, they must be all quite greed. They must all want the best for themselves. What we are going to do is show that their greed and want can only be solved collectively via socialism, as if only one part of them are greedy (the professional revolutionaries who supported Stalin) the rest are going to suffer.

Quote:
If only it were that easy.


Did i say that it was easy ?

Quote:
How exactly do you teach people that? Schools that teach concrete science to children and teenagers (the ages when the mind can be most easily moulded into believing a chosen set of ideas - brainwashed if you will) have proven not to be as efficient as they were intended to be.


Nope, being socialist is itself teaching socialist to yourself. We are going to educate the people by offering people ways to practice collective government and by connecting already existing collectives into wider circles. In the URSS first come the soviets and then later came the bolcheviques and the revolution, not the other way around.

You learn to be socialist by experiencing the soviet itself. Socialism and Soviet are two parts of a single body. You teach socialism to your childreen by giving your socialist example (for one, sharing the house work with your wife instead of having her as your own personal maid). You teach socialist to your children when you raise them to think by themselves, using the example of others as suport.

You teach socialism, when your party, instead of having a know-it-all leader, president or whatever, it has concentric rings of power (again soviets) to rule it. You teach socialism when your labour union is not used by those in power, because the power rests subjectively and objectively into the hands of the workers itself.

You teach socialism when you create parallel structures of power (soviets again) without the consentment of the burgeoise structure. You create a parallel state, run as circles of soviets where people are - even if this produces errors - incentivated to vote everything without a ruling aparattus of "professional revolutionaries" to tell the people what to do (without telling how they reached the conclusions).

You create socialism when people are able to overcome fear to talk in public, personal prejudices, petty disputes in the soviet, in order to be accepting of other people. When grown man and woman know that they are the rulers of the world, not only in theory (as stalinist and even DPRK usually tell) but in practice.

So basically, your all impossible left-comunism is nothing new but the soviet. The very same soviet Lenin supressed because he thought that going to the socialism as fast as possible (materially) was more important than going step by step, by accepting the soviet mistakes and their slow intellectual grow. This was a choice, a conscious choice by lenin (he even talks about the possibility of a termidorianist revolution).

His choice was the result of both the fact that a socialist revolution never happened anywhere in the world at that time (so he could not look anywhere for examples) and the fact that state of intelectual development of the proletariat in URSS was quite feeble.

But, that choice had consequences and the rise to power of Stalin is a direct consequence of that choice. Stalin is himself, personally, the termidorianist revolution Lenin talked about as possibility. The execution of all of the old guard of the bolchevique party is an internal strugle whose unique porpuse was to defeat the party itself and produce a ditactorship of a single man, like any jacobin of the french revolution would recognize imediately.

Lenin inadvertently produced the seeds of the destruction of URSS in the hands of the party nomenklatura. Because the conscious proletariat in a soviet structure cannot betray ifself, but a small craddle of profissional revolutionaries can, and done.
First with Stalin then later with Gorbarchev. Because any betrayal of the revolution and the proletariat cannot be produced by the whole proletariat against the whole proletariat, it must be done in order to seclude a party of the proletariat and, by extracting power from the rest of the proletariat, make that small part become the bureucracy etc. It becomes all too easy when the proletariat is already secluded even before the revolution (we have the professional revolutionaries, right ?).

Quote:
AldoBrasil is offering to somehow teach something that isn't an exact science but an ideology to the majority of grown people who's minds and brains have already reached maturity thus making it more difficult to convince them that a certain set of ideas are correct.


First we must convince that something is wrong : Capitalism.

Socialism and soviet is natural. Its the first thing that you think when you think to replace capitalist structures (even if you dont think using that words). People spontaneously organize themselves into assemblies, just like the Paris Comune teaches us. What they lack is a more profound knowledge of their enemy and their situation.

Quote:
He bases his assertions on no concrete evidence whatsoever.


The ones who base their assertions in no concrete evidence whatsoever are the bolcheviques. Never in the history of mankind bolchevism worked. Nada, zilch. All bolchevique countries crumbled or are in the process of crumbling. And you pretend to repeat the same mistakes without asking yourself why it went wrong (well, Stalinists usually use the old theory of CIA infiltration and treason etc, but dont go anywhere to analyse the historical facts dialetically and detect the basic contradiction of URSS society).

Quote:
Where in history have you seen a prosperous and stable society linger solely on the good will of the people? Ideas have to be enforced for the majority to believe it. Every single productive society is proof of that.


So we are going to force people to become socialist, right ? Where is the socialist brainwashing machine ? I want to buy one.

This is similar to islamist radicals trying to "convert" people to Islam via the muzzle of a rifle. People can very well call "allahuakbhar" and pretend to be islamic, while being watched. But this simple doesnt work.

Quote:
An ideology is based in philosophy. Marxism is an ideology:

A. it is a philosophy based on the belief in materialism, a belief in itself that says the material world creates ideas.

B. it utilises scientific reasoning and dialectics to the best of its ability in order to find a solution to the injustices of our modern capitalist world.


Depends on wich definition of ideology you use.

Quote:
AldoBrasil on the other hand is an idealist. He simply chooses to believe that enlightening the majority of the working class in the virtues, or better yet in the benefits of Marxist thought would be the ultimate solution to achieving communism even though no event in history has even come close to presume it a possibility.


Thats the correct word. Enlightenment. We must allow the proletariat to discover and know the advances of the enlightnment age instead of the bullshit (sorry for the world) consumerist culture they know now. And this can only be done if we are agents of transformation, both by example and by teaching.

Quote:
His posts contradict each other. He at one point says that a vanguard party subjugates instead of liberates the proletariat by taking away political and economical responsibility from them. Then he says that the party should be utilised to enlighten the masses to govern themselves instead of the party governing them. In other words the party should lead the masses through a revolution and then give the power to the masses in order to choose what to do next and accept that, even if that leads to their overthrow and to the end of the socialist system.


Nope, i never said that the party necessarely subjugates the proletariat. I've said that the party does this if it is inspired by the ideals of leninism and bolchevism. But it can be done other ways, and can be an instrument of liberation. And thats exactly what i am proposing.

Quote:
Then he says that the party should educate the masses properly before the revolution so that they wouldn't turn reactionary after the revolution. His proposals are just too far-fetched. What he proposes is too vague and lacks practicality. People would spend most of the time arguing about what the next step should be and less time in implementing anything practical.


Thats exactly the whole point. The soviet and the assembly dont work because people are used to "father figures", they are used to have a class of specialists who can think for them. And them you give them power, you put them in a soviet. Bolcheviques see the result and say : See ? This doesnt work, we need a leader.

Concil communists see this and say : Look ! There are a lot of things to be done here, these people must learn how to run a soviet the correct way (IE.: How to make a soviet reach results) !

Quote:
His arguments have more to do with the concept of democracy than with socialism.


We cannot have democracy without socialism neither socialism without democracy, because socialism IS the superior form of democracy.

Quote:
Then there's the talk about freedom. Who is anyone to decide what freedom is for someone else? Freedom is as subjective and individualistic as our fingerprints[.


So freedom is subjective and individualist as our fingerprints, so basically freedom is egotism. Lets supress freedoms in the name of the scientifical socialism ! Let the scientifical socialist party and their class of knowledgeable people run the country while the proletariat watches !

Nope, freedom can be perceived and experienced, and can be shared, so it can be communicated, and can be teached. So it can be scientifically defined. Because thats how science works.

Quote:
There is no universal freedom that applies to all.


Hmmm, maybe thats why freedom for the proletariat is freedom to follow the orders of the professional revolutionaries while for the professional revolutionaries freedom is to run the country, right ?

Quote:
It could be argued that Syria is the freest place in the world, where you can kill and rape without the full force of the law at your back.


Nope, because if you can be killed and raped, them you are not free. (if someone can kill and rape, this means that someone else can be killed and raped without wanting).

You are using a burgeoise concept of freedom. Just like the society x individual false dichotomy liberals use.

Freedom when men is not the opressor of men.

Quote:
It could be argued the other way by saying freedom is the ability to walk down the street without the fear of being raped or killed because the full force of the law protects you.


Well, i suppose someday i will be. And nowhere in my posts i was against the law. Writen, positive law, is an superior form of justice. In the burgeoise world justice cannot be fully attained, because class interests overcome the human need for law and peace.

Quote:
Then he says that power should lie in the hands of the soviets. Well power did lie in the hands of the the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and was the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union, the only one with the power to pass constitutional amendments. It elected the Presidium, formed the Council of People's Commissars, the Supreme Court, and appointed the Procurator General of the USSR.


Yes, power lied in the hands of the SUPREME Soviet. IE.: If we have an national assembly, in the lines of a burgeoise national legislative house, and we call that legislative house the supreme soviet, then we automatically have a sovietic system. How easy !

Nope, to have a sovietic system you must have one from bottom to top. Not a castrated version where only the "revolutionary name" was kept. But function was lost a long time ago.

Quote:
His last point where he uses the fall of the USSR as evidence to the validity of his posts is also false. The fall of the USSR is not something so simple as to claim it was a matter of it being either the party's fault or the proletarian's fault. It was an extremely complicated event, a complex set of cause and effect events than spans over a century, and trying to determine why it happened is one of the most retrospective historically puzzling and difficult questions to answer. There are countless threads in this forum and countless books published all trying to determine why the USSR ended in all it's complexities. Anyone who thinks he understands the entire event perfectly in all its aspects is a fool in my opinion.


Of course, you resort to the old "it was a complex matter !" to ignore the obvious. Marxism-Leninism failed, and failed utterly. To their defense, we can say that they were sucessfull in producing a burgeoise modernization in a country where the burgeoise would, probably, be too weak to do. But they went only there, and nothing survived this, besides the material advances.

I will refrain from explaining again, because i've already done, and your answer ("its not that simple") is not enough to guarantee a longer response.

Quote:
Finally on Comrade Stalin. AldoBrasil claims that the giving full responsibility to the masses is the right way to go and that we should accept and trust the judgment and will of the masses unconditionally.


Who are you not to accept ? God ? What ?

Quote:
In that case let's go back to 1941 and the Battle of Moscow.


1941 is very well inside stalinism.

Quote:
When the largest invading force in history, unsurpassed even to this day, invaded the soviet union and was approaching Moscow after having destroyed everything in their path all the way from the Atlantic ocean, all of the residents of Moscow were packing their bags in an extreme panic to abandon the city.


And so what ? In a previous post i already explained the reason i believe Stalin is one of the culprits of things reaching this level of destruction.

Quote:
All the members of the communist party and the general staff had their bags and tickets ready heading for the first train out. All of the members of Stalin's inner circle were in full agreement that the best course of action would be to follow in the footsteps of Mikhail Kutuzov, abandon the city to the Nazi's, retreat, regroup, counterattack, retake the city and push the enemy back out of soviet lands. Was it smart thinking or cowardice?


So a single right decision of Stalin automatically turns all his decisions into good decisions ?

Quote:
Nevertheless at the very last moment a rather small man who was five seconds away from getting on the train out of Moscow himself, stopped, paced back and forth along the railroad tracks, remembered Lenin's legacy and decided that he could better the legacy of Mikhail Kutuzov himself who had more than 100 years prior, defeated Napoleon's armies who were up until then the largest invading force the world had ever known.


So we must credit the whole war and victore into that "small decision", oh, a romantic view of history. The great hero, burdening the weight of the world, chose to fight. Omg. Stalin my hero !

Quote:
One man went against all the advice, judgements, and the conclusions of the party and proletariat alike, advice which at the time would have been the most logical, intuitive and sound to any one of us were we there ourselves.


So we have to conclude that everything about the soviet was wrong, and the correct genious, the great wheelsman of minkind, the eternal sun, is the right answer to all our problems ? Well if so, i will join the church next to my house and become a neopentecostal christian, because i believe Jesus Christ is way better to be elected as the "right man" haha

Quote:
Yet he turned and looked at his retreating men and said "Nay! We stay here and defend our capital until victory!"


The history of the single man against the hordes of nazists is become more interesting. Pls tell more, i've not read enough about this.

Quote:
The battle for Moscow was the first time that the Nazi military machine was brought to a halt.


Because they overstretched their lines of supply, not because the "hero" decided to stop them.

Quote:
The decision of this one man culminated in the moment when Marshal Vasilevsky reported by radio that the encirclement of the German armies had been completed. For a few moments Stalin just sat there, his eyes half-closed as though he were going to sleep.


Dude, i too believe that Stalin was the bigger dick of the universe. But i believe that overstretched lines of supply is a much simpler answer to why the soviets managed to stop the wermach.

Quote:
This was his hour of triumph. He had not only defeated his current enemy; he had defeated the past. All the doubts he had about his past decisions were swept away in a cool breeze. Everything he had done had led him to this moment of victory, the greatest victory the world had ever witnessed.


You almost made me cry. I am almost becoming an stalinist. Thank god he sent Stalin to make that decision ! The correct decision done by the greatest man in history. Crying now...

Quote:
He knew better than anyone that no one can condemn a victor. To the victor the spoils. Not only had he succeeded Lenin in leading the workers state, but he had also become its saviour.


I am almost falling in love for the man of steel.

Quote:
Drunk on success, he very slowly and gently, with his eyes still closed, repeated the words of a song:

'You're caught in the net, my pretty little bird,
I won't let you go for anything in the world.'


Hm, the burdens of the great man. You dont know how burdensome is to lead a great nation into victory. All the time he spent having to decide everything for everyone. Sure. I was mistaken. We dont need the emancipation of the proletariat. We need to clone Stalin ! Long live the eternal sun of mankind !

But nope. Material conditions can very well explain why the war turned against the germans. Like i said earlier.
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 25 Jul 2014, 02:12, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 25 Jul 2014, 02:08
Can we get a tl;dr? What's your issue with the vanguard party, again?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 25 Jul 2014, 02:13
TL;DR:

A vanguard party creates in itself the conditions for a thermidorianian reaction and the institution of a bonapartist government.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.