«12. . .200201202203204205206. . .222223»
Coming from a Green perspective, I'd agree that it's compulsory, with a kind of delayed onset. Initially new gadgets and services typically start off as one of those perceived frivolities that the only the rich waste their money on. Then if it catches on to the wider public, it becomes a convenience. Then once enough people adopt it, companies start employing it in their regular operations, even expect it from prospective hirelings. It is then where it toes the ambiguous line of being a privilege to that of a necessity; a hidden cost of living. There are many out there that still hold the view of the undeserving poor, and how everyday appliances are privileges, not rights, that they are somehow abusing welfare with their ovens and washing machines, living lives of luxury.
You have to look no farther than cars, personal computers, standardized office suite software, internet & email, LinkedIn & facebook, or smartphones, just to understand how much a typical office job expects of you. And that's a good segway into understanding the whole net neutrality debate.
Today my dad says: "Son, I'm not sure how I feel about you reading all these books by Marx"
I laughed and left the room. (Taking my books with me just in case)
Jeff the nation, Tarnania, United peoples of terran, Willsylvania, and 2 othersTrue communist states of kyrgizan, and Mattopilos
I think it is important to remember that there was a real siege mentality in the USSR, so everything has to be seen in that context. However, I think that Stalin and the soviet bureaucracy more generally have done things which can't be justified even on that basis (for example: purging of fellow communists, tight control of peoples' personal lives, to the extent where people needed a passport to travel within the USSR). Then there was all the stupid mistakes Stalin made (agricultural collectivisation that was too drastic too quickly, leaving the back door open to the Nazis). In the post-second world war period the USSR also did little to encourage revolutions in the world, though they intervened in areas where it was of purely geo-political interest. They didn't intervene in Greece during the civil war. They also gave little material support to Allende's Chile (though that was long after Stalin's death to be fair).
Asturies-Llion, Jeff the nation, United peoples of terran, and Mattopilos
'Needless to say, Stalin was radically shifting the political-linguistic meaning of the term ‘socialism’. Socialism, according to Stalin, is post-capitalism and entailed little more than the universal nationalisation of industry and agriculture. He had at his command the full might of the Soviet state to give a crushing authority to his every pronouncement.
The Soviet Union, he famously stated in the second edition of his pamphlet Foundations of Leninism (late 1924), did not simply aspire towards socialism - previously understood as the rule of the working class, plus substantial moves towards global communism. No, Stalin maintained that the Soviet Union, in isolation, possessed everything required by way of human material and natural resources to proceed all the way to a national communism.8 Note, in the first edition of Foundations of Leninism (early 1924) he had emphatically discounted such an idea.9 - Jack Conrad - Weekly worker 1106 'Without monarchies or standing armies'
http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1106/without-monarchies-or-standing-armies/
OFF-TOPIC: Does anyone here have experience with smelting / forging? Just wondering what a good method is to start up a foundry using bituminous coal (natural mined, not charcoal). I tried just using kindling on coal but that didn't generate enough heat. Would something like a dousing of kerosene work?
Haha, just don't take advice from Mao!
Lemurian outpost, Navastrovia, Kwa-zulustan, Khar od, and 4 othersUnited peoples of terran, Willsylvania, True communist states of kyrgizan, and Mattopilos
I have been recently discussing this with some people, and thought this may be the best place possible to bring this up.
The general argument against Socialism in the USSR is that these countries did not hold the economic base necessary to build a socialist society. However, it is my argument is that, in the industrialization post-stalin, specifically in the Khrushchev era, it was indeed possible to build a socialist society parting with the industrial might of the USSR. The only things you would need are solid heavy industries and a highly skilled and organized labour force in order to continue with socialization, which would otherwise be the result in a capitalist society with a conscious proletarian class. The main aspect that made this change impossible is much more likely to have been the corrupt and authoritarian boureaucracy of the USSR and its internal structure, which brings back the classical question over whether or not a Vanguard Party is a viable way to socialism.
At least in the way I see it, even though it could be both practically and theoretically possible to pass from a boureaucraticized economy to a socialist society, it would come with its own challenges, as the game is different from that of capitalist societies, but it's not an inpossible aspect. Trotsky understood this, if I recall correctly, that it was not too late for the USSR to change into a socialist society, but that its current system would lead to its demise, which quite obviously did. However, the notion that anything resembling a true socialist society cannot exist without a previous capitalist base is, at least in the way I see it, pure ideology—pun intended—.
What are your thoughts on this, comrades?
[quote=kernastiya;19463497]I have been recently discussing this with some people, and thought this may be the best place possible to bring this up.
The general argument against Socialism in the USSR is that these countries did not hold the economic base necessary to build a socialist society. However, it is my argument is that, in the industrialization post-stalin, specifically in the Khrushchev era, it was indeed possible to build a socialist society parting with the industrial might of the USSR.
Elaborate on "the economic base necessary to build a socialist society." Why didn't the USSR have these necessary resources and what are you specifically referring to?
Post by Norht virginia 1 23 suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Norht virginia 1 23 suppressed by a moderator.
Grammar would be lost.
Auhl, Kwa-zulustan, Timchi, Something or rather, and 6 othersRogherland, United peoples of terran, Willsylvania, Aceics, Mattopilos, and Anti-wanda
It is traditionally understood that the generation of a socialist society can only happen from a capitalist one, in the analysis of human economic activities as provided by Marx. The USSR did not hold such economic base as it was, at the time of the end of the Czar's reign, mostly a country of villagers and farmers with little to no industrial activity by itself. The Bolsheviks understood this, and it's what led Lenin to create the soviet economic system based on centralized planification, in contrast with the argument that was put forward at the time in Russia about creating sort of a "capitalist revolution" first, to fill the gaps in the Russian economy. However, that a centralized planned system can lead to anything at least resembling a socialist society is the matter that concerns me in his argument, which is what I'm arguing for.
Well you can use a set of fans and put the coal/ heat source in a vat or hole or somewhere that's closed off except to the top. Then you can add a little access hole off to the side that kind of angles into the bottom and put a fan at the top. When the fan blows air/oxygen into the foundry it will heat up quicker and hotter.
One of my hobbies is working with ceramics, so I have used kilns before. Same principle. However, I've only used electric kilns, not kilns that use fuel, so I can't help you. Why am I posting this if I can't help you? I don't know, I'm bored and have nothing better to do.
When I was marxist I was sure about the problem the Vanguard Party is, and now I keep the same idea about it. My analysis came from what happened in the USSR, the Communist Party by 'itself' destroyed the socialism, like Xiaoping's China did. The Vanguard Party is useful before and during the revolution, after, it becomes a problem (this is one of the reasons why I was between luxembourgism and council communism).
If I understood you well, Is leninism only useful for a pre-capitalist society?
In order for a nation to survive the political and economic policies of said nation must be backed by the will of the people. The reason why the USSR failed is because it put to much power in the hands of the centralized supreme Soviet while taking away power from the workers. In the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution a majority of soviets supported the state's Marxist ideology and eventual goals to create a stateless society structured around collectivism. This hope was lost by many as they were subject to intense political repression following Statins rise to power. The problem with one party states is that there are no checks and balances in place to keep the party from abusing it's powers. The party can change it's policies any time it wants and influence elections any way they choose and the people must follow whether they want to or not. Stalin was able to take control of the USSR because he was influential in the party not because the people wanted to elect him. After his rise to power he lay down the broad power to dissolve worker elected councils, eject members of the supreme Soviet body and arbitrarily arrest citizens. Stalin spread fear of a counter revolutionary danger to the party and explained to the supreme Soviet that strict control and harsh punishment of dissidents was the only way to ensure the survival of the party and socialism. This is why the supreme Soviet passed these legislations since they thought Stalin had the best interests of the party in mind. In that moment, the party embraced Stalinism rejecting the Marxist philosophy it was founded on. the Soviet Union was dissolved because its citizens were finally fed up with living under a totalitarian state. Instead of casting the blame on the soviet communist party that oppressed them they mainly blamed socialism prompting "shock therapy" economic reforms to the economies of former soviet states. Had the Soviet Union had a checks in balances system in place and functioned one he basis of direct democracy or a multiparty representative democracy Stalin would have never risen to power. Perhaps the Soviet Union could have even survived to this day.
Asturies-Llion, United peoples of terran, and Council democratic republics
One might also argue that Russia always been ruled by a strong bureaucracy and leadership, never having true democracy. Since the days of the Czars, through the soviet era and modern times, Russia continues to be ruled by centralized power. Even today, Putin continues to amass power and has become a defacto dictator of Russia since Yelstin abdicated. The people there know no better system than the ones they have always had, which influences their views towards the government, what it should and shouldn't do. Thus, making it more difficult to install democracy, and checks and balances.
So i read an article today about Bernie's response to Venezuela. He kinda dodged the question, saying he is too busy running for president. The real kicker is that in some reaction tweets, someone says: "My ancestors were persecuted by Nation Socialism. I am offended" or something like that. Umm. Either that person is lying, because you would think they would know more about Nazism. Maybe they are just trying to be dumb. Either way, it still made me lose faith in humanity for a few minutes.
Stalin was just a criminel and "red"-fascist. And a traitor of the communist idea.
«12. . .200201202203204205206. . .222223»
Advertisement
