U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Anti-Communism: Manufacturing Ignorance and Hypocrisy

Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 22 Sep 2015, 23:27

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.” -Karl Marx, The German Ideology

“SOCIALISTS ARE LEADER-WORSHIPERS!” - says the bourgeoisie.

As I've said in a past post, hostile to socialism has not ease up, in spite of the cases of socialism having been "crushed". The bourgeoisie will one minute giggle and say Marxism has been "exposed", and in the following minute, they'll be frothing at the mouth about how we have to "stop socialism" from taking ceaselessly our assumed "flexibilities". We're told socialism was "demonstrated wrong", while in the meantime it's still a "danger". It's unmistakable the bourgeoisie is still terrified shitless about the intense samples of communist and national-freedom triumphs far and wide.

In this manner, against comrade purposeful publicity is as yet running hard and urgent to keep the individuals and our belief system under control.

The case that communism(Marxism-Leninism) has been "vanquished" is a some piece of this publicity. It is an endeavor at undermining socialism according to the masses, who are, as Marx said, subject to the thoughts of the really predominant class(the entrepreneur bourgeoisie). This thought is accordingly taken as reality, in spite of the thought itself being, as hostile to comrade purposeful publicity, confirmation that the oppressors still think about socialism as a danger to their energy. Since it is still a risk to their energy. In any case, this proof is just the tip of the chunk of ice with regards to the falsities of hostile to socialism.


“We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!” - V. I. Lenin

A prominent case made by the bourgeoisie and their finance scholastics is that each and every communist state in history has been "suspicious", and troublesome of individual protection in light of this. This presumption is thought to be "normal information", since the bourgeoisie, the proprietors of our general public's belief system, wishes it to be. The certainties of manifestly obvious and material dangers to these communist states are never thought seriously about. Did not the radical forces lead fourteen intrusions of new Soviet Union soon after the October Upheavals of 1917? Yes. Is Trotsky not on record as having worked together with the FBI and Mexican government? Yes, he is.

In any case, not just this, the entrepreneur states themselves are as yet acting pretty much as suspicious as the communist and hostile to radical states they fault. And afterward going considerably encourage. The business people don't simply target communists, however everything without exception that marginally contrasts hypothetically or for all intents and purposes from the "basic information" of the bourgeoisie's outright run the show. Not just were individuals from the Dark Puma Gathering killed by the handfuls, not just were CPUSA individuals observed and regularly detained, not just were defiant figures like MLK and Fred Hampton killed, yet numerous different gatherings have been focused on and assaulted in comparable ways, and still are.

MKULTRA and the Tuskegee tests are not simply fear inspired notions; they have been conceded and turned out to be valid. What's more, these weren't notwithstanding focusing on communists, yet any non-white individuals, the destitute, poor people, and so forth. The "Russian Rest Analysis" creepypasta doesn't compare to what the entrepreneur colonialist US government has done, all things considered, and to incalculable quantities of individuals.

Today, constraints are as yet going ahead against anybody considered even a little danger to average standard. Notwithstanding the early guarantees of President Obama, there are still individuals held detained in Guantanamo without having had a trial(some have been there for over 10 years). The FBI simply attacked the counter war FRSO central station around two years back. It has turned out that the FBI is additionally as yet watching previous Dark Jaguars basically for their capacity to("GOD Deny") bring individuals of each skin shading together to battle for equity. Only a couple of days back it was released that the CIA has been consistently tormenting individuals associated with insubordinate action. Just today it was uncovered that the US government won't arraign those liable of these unlawful demonstrations of torment.

What's more, similar to I said above, though the US torments and screens even generally little scale agitators and progressives, the communist and hostile to radical governments, which are by one means or another esteemed the "suspicious" ones, had quite undeniable and intense dangers to stress over. The Inlet of Pigs attack of progressive Cuba, the almost 400 death endeavors against Castro(all fizzled – place that in your financial balance and smoke it), the mediation in truly every hostile to industrialist and against radical unrest ever, the fruitful deaths of different progressive pioneers around the world(Che, Allende, Sankara, Kirov, and numerous others), the on-going vicinity of the US military on the Korean landmass, the US government helping in the butcher of more than 500,000 individuals before the Korean War even started, the help Reagan and Thatcher provided for the Khmer Rouge in tormenting and murdering Vietnamese individuals trying to undermine the upset in Vietnam – and this is just to give some examples illustrations of colonialist animosity against progressive governments. I think this all constitutes real purposes behind communist and hostile to colonialist states to be tired of the aggressors.

But then, it is the legislatures needing to battle these dangers, not the administration inciting the demonstrations of aggression(who still subdue what's coming to them of nonconformists and expected protesters), that are called "suspicious". As though industrialist states have never attacked anybody's privacy(see: the Loyalist Demonstration and NDAA and the whole fragging McCarthy era.


The hypothesis of "saints" and the "group" is not a Bolshevik, but rather a Social-Progressive hypothesis. The saints make the individuals, change them from a group into individuals, therefore say the Social-Progressives.

"The people make the heroes, thus reply the Bolsheviks to the Social-Revolutionaries. The book carries water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries. No matter which book it is that brings the water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries, this book is going to drown in our common, Bolshevik cause.” - Joseph Stalin

“SOCIALISTS ARE LEADER-WORSHIPERS!” - says the bourgeoisie.

Something else the entrepreneur media won't let you know when discussing the issue of the Faction of Identity: Joseph Stalin, the man most broadly reprimanded for this practice, contended energetically against this practice; he contradicted the religion developed around him by figures, for example, Kruschev. It's hard to believe, but it's true, the notorious maker of the "Mystery Speech"(which is the essential bit of proof utilized by the bourgeoisie to point the finger at Stalin for egomania) was one of the individuals who initially pushed for Stalin to tackle the Russian title equal to the German title of "fuhrer". Stalin succeeded in obstructing this from getting to be official.

At that point there are the 3 distinct endeavors of Stalin's to leave from his post as General Secretary: first amid the entire Trotsky-Stalin competition after Stalin was fairly chosen as the leader of the Gathering, then amid World War II, lastly at the last, unpublished Congress of the CPSU he ever attended(the one preceding Kruschev's "Mystery Discourse"). His solicitation was denied by a vote every time.

Lastly(regarding Stalin), there was the memoir of himself he through and through scrutinized as being untrue, optimistic, and, obviously, a bit of legend love. He issued an extensive articulation denouncing the book. (Perused his announcement: ... /02/16.htm)

Abandon it to the bourgeoisie to denounce a practice they do each and every day, and to a more prominent degree. In the industrialist belief system, a statue of Lenin implies "mentally conditioning" and cultism, yet cutting four presidents into a fragging mountain it "curious" or "aware" or something. A bust of Stalin is "unbelievable pioneer revere", however a monstrous statue of Lincoln is absolutely not that. They say to respect communist pioneers is to appreciate "genocidal insane people", as though Washington didn't possess slaves, or Jackson didn't slaughter Locals, or Lincoln didn't place Locals in the process of childbirth camps.

There's a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the slave-proprietor and originator of the KKK. There's a state-park named after him here in Tennessee, yet no doubt, regarding the individuals who contradicted subjugation and battled for national-freedom is what's over the top.


“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” - Joseph Stalin

At last, there is the unbelievably dubious and optimistic idea that socialism is naturally "hostile to flexibility", whatever that implies. As a matter of first importance, flexibility is never laid out as something cement – it is clarified in visionary, non-material terms. It is posed as some perfect above and free of reality. That is on the grounds that it's significance, in the average sense, does not envelop the entire of society, as is asserted in the beat-around-the-shrub clarifications, however it just applies to the bourgeoisie. The masses have the "opportunity" to offer their work power(to offer themselves, their being, for a certain measure of time consistently) to the owning class, or starve, destitute and poverty stricken, while the bourgeoisie has the flexibility to appreciate solaces and extravagances they increase through the work force of the masses, not their own exertion.

Opportunity in an industrialist society rests in the hands of, as Lenin said, the (wage)slave-proprietors, not the workers(wage-slaves) themselves. That is, opportunity is saved for the minority of riches proprietors, while the individuals who own only their own work power(their exceptionally pith) are avoided from this benefit, despite the fact that they're most of the populace.

Industrialist states have constantly abused and mistreated dissent(see the first area of this post). Indeed, even in the beginning of the US, laborers' difference was put down with discharge and projectiles. Today, things are the same, if not more terrible, and the bourgeoisie still claims to be the power battling for "opportunity". The United States is still called the "place that is known for the free", regardless of having the most elevated number of detainees fragging ever. The hegemonic confidence in the "flexibilities" of private enterprise is still yelled from the housetops while individuals are being beaten, wrongfully detained, killed, and by and large mistreated by middle class state-power as I write this.

The thought of flexibility is characteristic for the treatment of human instinct. There is no opportunity when a man can't take after their interests when their work power(their species-being) is under the control of another person once a day, just with a specific end goal to stay alive and sufficiently solid to work some more.

The bourgeoisie likes to say communist states "control thought", however does the bourgeoisie not possess the broad communications, the method for generation, the belief system of this general public? I figure we communists have discovered the key to "mentally programming": giving free instruction at each level and keeping the populace sound. Yes, as per entrepreneur rationale, the communists states are not ousted on the grounds that the populaces are savvy and solid. That practically gives away the disappointments of private enterprise.

Who is keen on controlling the masses: the states that need their kin to be brilliant, sound, proficient, or the ones that keeps instruction and wellbeing out of the span of a considerable number of its people?The states that furnish the individuals with every one of the intends to think and represent themselves, or the states that limit these rights to just the individuals who can manage the cost of it(and are in this way as of now purchased over to the bourgeoisie side of the class war), while whatever is left of the populace is taught to stay quiet and under the monetary and political control of a little world class? Communist states or entrepreneur states?

I think that its difficult to trust that the greater part of the states and countries always derided by the bourgeoisie need to "trap" taught, sound individuals into being upbeat. On the off chance that anybody is "totalitarian", it's the states which are possessed by a monetary tip top, who decline to taught and treat their own particular individuals, not those which unyieldingly and uninhibitedly furnish the whole populace with what they require, so they find themselves able to concentrate on different things, utilizing their abnormal state of instruction and sound bodies.

Why might these communist and hostile to colonialist nations furnish the individuals with all that they require in the event that they need them to stay diverted from toppling these supposed "dictator administrations"? Wouldn't they take a lesson from the industrialists? That is, keep the populace idiotic and frantic just to survive.

Yet, as Marx's quote at the earliest reference point of this post focuses out, the decision thoughts of each society(here, that is common hostile to socialism) are dependably the thoughts of the decision class. Only on the grounds that they say it, doesn't make it reality. Simply on the grounds that they point their fingers somewhere else, doesn't mean they aren't liable of equivalent or more awful law violations. Simply on the grounds that they say something is "awful", doesn't mean it's awful for you. They are just say it in light of the fact that it's a risk to their own energy, not on account of they care at all about us. They don't. Quit trusting they do.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]