In Reply to: Re: 'state capitalism' not 'communism' posted by Captain Freedom on January 27, 1997 at 10:02:46:
> You guys just can't stand it that the "evil empire" collapsed before they
> got a chance to bury the decadent capitalist pigs. Whatever you want to say
> about the Soviet Union, History will record that:> a) It was founded on Marxist ideals
The Russian Revolution - not the Soviet Union - was founded on Marxist ideals.
> b) It was a blood bath
The Soviet Union under Stalin did result in the deaths of millions.
Socialists don't deny that. We do deny that the deaths were carried
out in the name of socialism.> c) It was a total failure
What was a total failure - the Soviet Union or the Russian Revolution?
While the Soviet Union had nothing to do with socialism, it did last for
80 years, so one might reconsider the assessment of it as a total failure.
The Russian Revolution on the other hand WAS a success. It showed that the
workers could run society for people's needs - not profit.
Its success was short-lived however, due to the invasion of the country by
no less than 18 foreign armies including all the imperialist powers.> That is all. So ask yourselves this: Why is it that a "true communist state" as
> you define it has NEVER been even attempted since Marx wrote his Meisterwerk
> "Das Kapital"Never? When was Capital written and when did the Russian revolution - the attempt
to build a "true communist state" - occur?> What went wrong in China?
Mao's Chinese revolution was nationalist and aimed at competing with the West,
not on spreading successive workers' revolutions.> What went wrong in Vietnam?
Similarly nationalist, but any success that may have been achieved was
prevented by the U.S. who "defended" South Vietnam by killing 3 or 4 million people,
and destroying the environment with a ruthless bombing campaign begun by
President Kennedy in 1961.> What went wrong in North Korea?
Again look for the U.S. involvement in killing tens of thousands
prior to the Korean war, and since then its support of the South through
investment and military aid, against the - again Stalinist - North.
> There was a time when a majority of the human population of the world lived
> under communist governments. Trade between the communist countries and Europe,
> Asia, and Africa was open and of a large scale. So don't give me that garbage
> about a western boycott from the United States.
> The Soviet Union and China had more resources than the United States. Why couldn't
> they develope a sustainable system on their own.What was the world system? Could two countries no matter how large,
develop a sustainable system in the face of global resistance.> You leftover Communists are living in a fantasy world. The "poor" of the world don't
> want your help. They want American help. "Help us be more like you," they say.
> "Show us how privatization works We see the light."Perhaps the poor do "want American help". Probably the American
poor from the American government. Capitalism operates so well
in the United States that the richest 1% of the population take 77% of the pre-tax
income. Real wages since the 70's has fallen 30%, employer-provided health
insurance by 23% and employer-provided pension plans by 43%.
Unemployment is only 5% if you ignore the 5 million who have given up
looking for work and the other 5 million who are involuntarily working
part-time. A realistic figure is more like 14%. It is obvious that
anyone who approves of such circumstances does not find themselves
similarly positioned. Those with a stake in the capitalist system
and those who will be swept aside when the masses revolt.> And those poor old communists ain't got nothing to do,
> but rewrite history books all day.Find me a mainstream media source which states that America invaded Vietnam,
Panama, Grenada, Iraq etc., and was not "defending" someone in the process.
None.