Author
|
Topic: Community and Communism in Russia
|
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104
|
posted 19 August 2005 03:40 AM
Community and Communism in Russia (I)by Jacques Camatte Publishing Bordiga's texts on Russia and writing an introduction to them was rather repugnant to us. The Russian revolution and its involution are indeed some of the greatest events of our century. Thanks to them, a horde of thinkers, writers, and politicians are not unemployed. Among them is the first gang of speculators which asserts that the USSR is communist, the social relations there having been transformed. However, over there men live like us, alienation persists. Transforming the social relations is therefore insufficient. One must change man. Starting from this discovery, each has 'functioned' enclosed in his specialism and set to work to produce his sociological, ecological, biological, psychological etc. solution. Another gang turns the revolution to its account by proving that capitalism can be humanised and adapted to men by reducing growth and proposing an ethic of abstinence to them, contenting them with intellectual and aesthetic productions, restraining their material and affective needs. It sets computers to work to announce the apocalypse if we do not follow the advice of the enlightened capitalist. Finally there is a superseding gang which declares that there is neither capitalism nor socialism in the USSR, but a kind of mixture of the two, a Russian cocktail ! Here again the different sciences are set in motion to place some new goods on the over-saturated market. That is why throwing Bordiga into this activist whirlpool (and we also put ourselves there) provoked fear and repulsion. Nevertheless, running the risk of being carried along by this infamous mercantilism seems necessary because, on one hand, in every case, as Marx remarked "Can one escape dirt in ordinary bourgeois intercourse or trade ? Precisely there is its natural abode." (Marx to Freiligrath, 29.2.1860.), and, on the other hand, the myth of Russian communism began to be washed fundamentally from the minds of those who searched and struggled and corrupted them less and less after the movement of May 1968. Bordiga's texts could be useful because of this, for passing from myth to reality and helping in the understanding of the coming communist revolution. http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/comrus01.htm
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magical_Mongoose
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9992
|
posted 19 August 2005 02:13 PM
Well, there never was Communism because Communism as a societal-movement requires that every one within it inequivocally believes in the equality of everyone. If it was truly a movement of equality, then explain the prescence of leaders and followers; superior men who must guide the inferior masses? Why were there men like Lenin who deemed his philosophy of violent revolution a SUPERIOR one that must crush INFERIOR peaceful change? Because he was interested in leadership and power; just as the Fascists were (Read a good ol' German philosopher called Hegel, and you'll see the connection between these two ideologies). But if Communism is to truly succeed, it can only be achieved by those who TRULY believe in peaceful societal change, who truly believe that EVERYONE is a leader in and of themselves; that we have independent minds but we CHOOSE to act collectively. If Communism is to succeed, it must be a grassroots movement; it cannot be imposed by a state, or brought into being by FORCED economic change, because then it merely establishes the Superiority-Inferiority complex of the leader and masses; of the slave and slave master that has existed since we were apes! EXACTLY WHAT IT OPPOSES BUT WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS CREATED WHEN IMPLEMENTED. Are leaders superior to followers? Communism can only be TRULY successful if it's both leaders and followers believe in egalitarianism; whereby there is no state/religion/man to hold dominion over people/land, there is no distinction between those who choose to assert themsevles in debate vs those who choose not, only INDIVIDUALS WHO CHOOSE TO ACT COLLECTIVELY. It must be a peaceful, impercetible cultural change before it can truly be successful. Let's be clear: the USSR was not Communist, it was Hegellian! "Freedom is achieved as the desires of the individual are integrated into the unified system of the state, in which the will of one is replaced by the will of all." - Hegel Tell me: How is this different from fascism?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662
|
posted 20 August 2005 12:18 AM
Lenin knew that the Russian Revolution of October 1917 was only the first step in the establishment of socialism in Russia. He knew that the socialism could not be achieved in the Soviet Union as long as capitalism continued to dominate on a world level. To this end, Lenin worked with other communist parties in the communist international to try and achieve other socialist revolutions. Lenin died in 1924 having not reached his goal. After Lenin died, Stalin managed to take over the Soviet Union. He vilified Trotsky, Lenin's right hand man who also recognized the need for world revolution. Beginning ion 1929, Stalin tried to achieve "Socialism in One Contry" in the Soviet Union, an inherent contradiction. Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1928, and was murdered by KGB agents in 1940. Trotsky recognized that the Soviet Union would either move forewards to world revolution, or move backwards towards the reinstatement of Capitalism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Trotsky was proved right. Trotsky thought that the Soviet Union was a "deformed workers state". I tend to think that it was "state capitalism". The Soviet Union as a state operated in the same way as corporations under capitalism. Thus the soviet Union had to expand or die, the same way that capitalist corporations must expand or die. Stalin and his successors in the USSR exibited the same sycopathic behaviour exibited by major capitalist corporations. [ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 21 August 2005 06:55 AM
I wonder how many Ukrainian's died during Hitler's barbarossa and einsatzgruppen massacres across that country?. Millions starved and froze to death during and after Hitler's own scorched earth policy with SS death squads occupying Ukraine for over two years. Ukraine lost more people than any other European country during WWII, and many of them were Jews. An estimated 50 to 80 million people were missing throughout Europe and Asia after WWII and the corporate-industrialist-Nazi war of annihilation against communism in Russia. No, Hitler was a more deliberate and efficient mass murderer over a shorter period of time. And Hitler was aided and abetted by western corporations and banking elite. PB, anywhere from six to thirteen million children will starve to death around the free trading capitalist third world, this year and the next and the one after that. Which IMF leader or proponents of a murderous ideology can we lay blame on for this?. That's a holocaust every year, don't you think ?. Or is it politically expedient to focus only on specific periods in recent history and isolate Time Magazine's man of the year for 1943 and his decisions in historical vacuum ?. A Dynasty of Mass Murderers [ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104
|
posted 21 August 2005 01:52 PM
There is something ironic and funny about supposed materialists who put an overly idealist spin on the phenomena that was Stalinism. Of course this prevents them from looking at the political structure that those goons Lenin and Trotsky constructed to begin with. I'm not even a materialist and I have to point this out.That Hegel quote is interesting. I wish that Fidel(who should be taken with a spec of grain) would awknowledge that he is more on the Hegelian side of things then Marxist. Even though Marx had a terrible conception of the state, he did want anarchy, even though he had a bad way of getting there. One of the reasons he parted with Hegel, and was a left-hegelian to begin with was because of that type of view expressed in that quote. A quote which is indeed a good precurser to fascism. And Fidel, red hering all you want the fact is a man and more importantly an idea that did not have the western support, and the industrial materials, still killed more people. More commies(the real kind) then Hitler could ever hope. The Ukranians at least had an idea who they were fighting initially before they were taken out by those who would be communists. And as for the people who starve to death everyday, fulfilling the productive forces as Marx so wanted will continue this holocaust of life on earth. State capitalism certainly has done this, particularly to non human life. And why don't you say something about the 5-10 thousand miners in china who die every year, this and other state capitalist crimes.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 22 August 2005 03:51 AM
quote: Originally posted by Papal Bull: Fidel, estimates on Holodomor range from 8-13 million. Hitler shipped away 600'000-800'000 to camps or had them executed.
The following web ref says that many Jews alone were slaughtered by the Nazis during barbarossa. About two-thirds of Ukraine's Jewish population were pulled out of Ukraine and sent to Russia ... on orders from Josef Stalin in 1941. For every German killed in Ukraine, Hitler demanded that 20 Uke's be murdered. Hitler ordered scorched earth policy as the Red Army liberated Ukraine from the Nazi butchers. Millions starved to death and died of exposure as they wondered across a bleak and frozen Russia and Ukraine. As Churchill and Roosevelt drove for hours to Yalta, they passed by levelled towns, villages and burned-out tanks by the thousands. quote:
Stalin was such a monster to the Ukrainians that when the NAZIs conquered Ukraine the locals were elated. Then they realized that there would be no relief from tyranny.
According to some accounts, the Nazis found willing collaborators in the Baltics and Eastern nations that would later be liberated by the Red Army. A friend of my family's doesn't praise Stalin either. She has venom for Stalin. Her father was a doctor in Odessa, I think. He was sent to Siberia before the Nazi occupation. He lived and so did the rest of his family who left the Ukraine. Another woman fled Poland to Russia and some of her family went to the Russian camps and some volunteered for the Russian front with many more Jewish Partizanis at the time. Two women, both with differing opinions on Stalin which I found interesting. But when I asked them about Hitler on separate occasions, both of them had the same response - They wept. [ 22 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|