User talk:Gnomz007/Archive2

communism thought today and the youth

Hi. I noticed that you seem to think 1) Communist is bad, and you seem to use your ethinicity in making it seem more reasonable 2) You think that the young (naive) have been somehow taught or just decided to think that communism is good and they they didn't experience it, and easily believe it is good...

What you don't understand is that most communists today have nothing to do with a non-existent country, the USSR (which is your entire basis on anticommunism). Most everyone who supports communism today has little care for Stalinism. And most young communist associate with Trotsky if any at all from the old legacy of the october revolution... Besides, young communists are aware of

1) USSR wasn't communist, because the state owned everything (socialism) Although they were run by a communist described party, but since the fall of Lenin they didn't seem to care much for the ideal of lenin's communism: "for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie"-- Stalin withdrew from the comintern to show support for the west! Since the fall of Lenin and rise of Stalin, the USSR's legitamcy as a revolutionary force ended long ago, almost as soon as it started. 2) Troksy described this as nothing related to communism or even socialism since it was a deformed communist state, ie: completely corrupt (where were the worker's running *anything*?) 3) Some communists in the later half of the 20th century saw hope in communism and the USSR, but so many saw and still see the USSR as a corrupt state, and wished or are thankful for its demise. The saying after the collapse of USSR: "one down, one more to go."

I understand your point. I'm pretty much aware that most Communists today are thinkers on their own and are not mindless (just like the historical intellientsia).

But what you must understand that during actual course of events there were commited many acts that would be considered crimes by any standard without Stalin.

I do not believe that the initial goal of Bolsheviks was to starve or murder people, but this is what they have done to keep the situation their way. There is no value in any ideology on it's own, only in it's accomplisments, what you call capitalism is closer to lacking ideology at all - and for what I know it does accomplish.

And the mantra workers-workers does not work in Russia - most of population was peasants - all my grand-grands were peasants and they really did not like what was going on.

What annoys me is that people have no problem saying the "C"-word just like it was not written on everywhere in the USSR, like it is untainted.

I can not endorse it - most of the time when it meets the reality(not just USSR, there are other distant examples) - it causes mismanagement, coercion and such, I would not insist that it had corrupt ideas behind, just because of indoctrination. There is just one bad idea which is always a bad idea - "we've got to do it, no matter what".

What if this difference between USSR and what you want is the difference between science and engineering.

By contrast I do endorse Open Source - because it is practical - people have plenty of creativity and many people want to have a hand in a bigger project - and it works well within capitalistic framework, nobody does any coercion.

If there is a society which can produce superior results - it can be without Trotsky, Lenin and the "C"-word at all.

I have no hope to combat beliefs, for "Personal beliefs can be likened to nails - the harder you hit them, the deeper they are" (IIRC Tolstoy wrote that).

If you really believe that western democracy is sold out, then it completely contradicts my feelings, and please, don't hit it, this is a belief.

–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 20:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why do you even need Marx - he wrote more than a century ago, and most people who swore by him have brought nothing but destruction, I refuse to comment on his writings, there are not much of those I've had as compulsory reading imposed by an old-school philosophy instructor.

I do not have a reason to believe that those minority of "good Bolsheviks" was not just a random group in their traditional in-fighting, today it is easy to review those distant events and it looks completely different from different POV, you can not see it well today nor can I. I'm against bashing Bolshevisks mindlessly, but I think I know enough not to like them as a whole and particular personalities also.

But anyway thank you for enlightement on the matter.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discusion is nice. Like many indepth talks, there will be replies so here are some:

reply #1: Trotsky was anti-soviet, and anti-communism as we all know it, but not anti-communism as those (like me) who support communism or simply anti-capitalism. He spoke such truths and I respect him, he was outspoken, he wasn't a polotician, and he was so true...

reply #2: Marx is a philosopher, but philosophical truths are eternal and this doesn't matter how long ago they were written. Plato wrote repulic SOO long ago, and we model most of our governments on it! Marx's writings are only 150 years old, and MUCH more contemporary than Plato. His writing will be true for a long time and are much more relating now. Here are some Marx quotes... "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them" (to this day, the only ones that I can vote for are those of the highest class... the fact that his writings are still SO true merits Marx with much credit... even though he is a critic!) Also consider that "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. " And yet Marx still has so much credit by so many (becuase he spoke the truth, as all philosphers do, and wasn't out to fill others with propganda-- people truely see through propganda and respect a true voice), he is often considered one of the greatest contemporary philosophers in very western countries (eg: England recently did such a poll). more quotes at marx quotes.

reply #3: Communism, even in theory, back in the 19th century, was meant to be a applied to advanced industrialized societies, not in backwards undeveloped nations, where the slightest disprution will cause massive famine. When a new government, any goverment, is first founded, it is very rough phase (simply consider the all powerful USA, they owned slaves and killed british officials (treason) and native americans (mass civilian casualties) with pride). Now, imagine these factors when the USSR first came into power: a) No mass produced supplies from industrial production, if a war breaks out so many die because of such little food/supplies. b) All of the strongest western powers (90% of all the strength in the world...?) are against your country c) every other factor that comes with setting up not only a new government, but an ENTIRE new method of government... d) a 3 year civil war just occured in a very ruined nation... I'm supprised they even did so well with the power of Europe, USA and Japan against them.

reply #4: During the Russian Civil War, western countries helped fight the red army by sending troops to Russia, thus prolonging the war, and prolonging the state of civil war which caused a massive amount of civilian casualties (all in the effort of capitalist counter-revolution ideology indirectly killing civilians, very common)-- these are yet more killed by western powers. Western powers are also very responsible for killing massive ammounts of civilians... The CIA was relentless in installing brutal dictatorships in south america-- which resulted in many civilian casualties. And simply one more small example, Luis_Posada_Carriles who was employed by the CIA while he killed 73 people in a jetliner bombing-- the CIA-- the very actions of USA are the most ideological of all of history-- the nation that currently wants to forcibly (ie: against any soveirgn will) install "american democracy" in all nations-- is the most ideological and interfering nation of all history (not to mention what they do after they make countries dependant on them, see neocolonialism for one example)

reply #6: Before there was capitalism, there were monarchies and a very strict class system. The transition from this system to capitalism was rough, many died because when price controls where moved, many couldn't afford bread-- like with implementing any completly new system, people die as a result of change. This didn't bother Adam_Smith or others who promoted capitalism (ones who wouldn't starve from it, but would only gain because they were rich). And capitalism had a rough start, many were thinking it would turn into a form of slavery, where workers had no control and worked nonstop in factories.

reply #7: The ruling elite hate communism. They love to say communism = Soviet communist party, and that because the collapse of the USSR, that communist is dead and that capitalism is the only way, even if there are problems. I think if there is one thing that I could change here at all, it would be that communism is alive, capitalism isn't the *only* way and that communism isn't the USSR.

And last, I feel sorry because of how the USSR failed (long, long ago) at implementing communism, and only existed as a brutal relic of a failed attempt from so long ago... only to be used by capitalists as a weapon against anti-capitalist thought.

Fears of capitalism turning into slavery...aah thats Marx.

Monarchies were not good - ask anyone, Russian exceptionally, but they were all passing away, transition to capitalism was rough but capitalism did not turn into such massive slavery as USSR was. If you wish - not that harsh, actually much better.

Look, I know this is a not a solid argument, I do not want to endorse war of any kind, but it was USSR who precedented use of subversive tactics and proxy-wars, so CIA defaulted to support any opposition to USSR if any. Again who wanted to make world revolution?

You may think it is double standard to allow panic tactics for one side and disallow for another, but and I do not want to side with guys exploiting a backwards country for their massive plans.

I know I give Bolshevikls a single chance - not to be themselves or not to exist.

Capitalist society is real and does not have an option not to be "truly capitalistic" and evade your blame. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last note, every Chechnyan separatist leader is rumored to have some KGB history...interesting. If you think that current USA policy has anything to do with ideology, I recommend looking back at history and seeing which countries had proxy wars backed by USSR and USSR-backed leaders making threats. You can see anti-communism as ideology, but it is Communism which by default has enemies, fear is no ideology.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for using the word to signify Soviet version of it, but since we speak of reality... –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Marxism or Marx himself that saw workers becoming slaves, it was things like the great depression and children working in factories which prompted this, and at the time it was very sound thinking, capitalism was killing people and was only getting worse, and most importantly of all, it was rather new... which inherently means it is going to be difficult.

well... you say that, "USSR who precedented use of subversive tactics and proxy-wars, so CIA defaulted to support any opposition to USSR if any. Again who wanted to make world revolution?"... they used to want revlution, and it was still part of their "cause", but not really so after Lenin died and Stalin took over.... when Stalin dismantled the comintern, the very essence and creation of Lenin's revolution, USSR was nothing about revolution anymore. CIA topled leftist governments, of which had nothing to do with USSR. And since when did the KGB go into far away countries and set up communist countries like the western powers did so often?? So... the USA can topple governments foricbly and set up brutal, facist dictatorships to their own south, but the USSR couldn't even help communism in their own south? And then, somehow now the USA has the right to wage war in all of these countries? Since when did the USSR ever set up a proxy war?? I don't recall them helping any South American countries... USA has and currently probes and enforces itself everywhere in the world. CIA and the ruling elite described themselves as counter-revolutionaries, and with their abundant resources, they have done far more than communist-- no, all types of revolutionaries put together.

and... these so called communist revolutions (the only classless revolutions, in all previous revolutions there was a class which gained from and lead the revolution... ie: the rise of the bourgeosie and their triumph over monarchies...) could only happen in backwards countries, away from countries which used such pervasive and anti-democratic forms to protect capital and the capitalist... Besides, the united states lynched, jailed and censored people who even sympathised with communist ideas during 2 red scares. The European churches promoted facism simply because it was a means to counter communism. Members of the commuist party of Germany (Spartacus_League were brutaly slaughtered, and their bodies dumped in a river. Is it any wonder that if any communist revolution would occur, it would occur in countries with weakest elites?--4.152.102.39 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is fear, and there is no smoke without fire and fire was there. And making revolution in Russia is an exploitation of a country, if that is the only chance for an ideology than it must accept it and NEVER TAKE IT, the chance of success of unverified social theory and chance of total chaos which was the actual result.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa were both editing this at the same time heh. So about the last comment that I missed, "If you think that current USA policy has anything to do with ideology, I recommend looking back at history"... Doesn't american say they did it for democracy? And doesn't prez bush always say that "american democracy" must be in all countries everywhere? (ie: purely and very ideological, esp now that no other superpower can balance their aggresion) I'm just citing it, straight from their mouthes... The truth is, that neither the USSR or the USA were fighting for ideology after 1921, by then it was just a fight for power and capital... the never ending struggle all groups of people partake in at all times of the year and all hours of the day... Neither the USA nor the USSR fought for ideas after 1921, although, some in the Communist party felt it was important for there to be international revolution, and some in USA felt that democracy must be protected and then put into all nations... however, these people weren't in charge... and it was only rhetoric. --4.152.102.39 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this can not be, USSR was finacing millitary of many countries, and sponsored many countries' conversion during Cold War, you can claim any motives on their part, but they(we) apparently won nothing but millitary presense and could win not too much.

I see a trap in this argument

you want me to stand up for USA democracy which I am willing to because I have hope in the political system here, not in Bush or Kerry in particular, it is harder to do because I have to take responsibility for Bush.
You want me to accept that communism is a good ideology but not the one which was real but the theoretical one and because fear of it resulted ideology which is worse

I can not do that because the real one resulted in disaster and I see immediate benefits of keeping things, as they are, actually I see how countries benefit from converting from that USSR-type rotten state into capitalism. Sure there is a lot of inequality in those countries, but for that matter Russia ceased to mass-import grain during the droughts we are experiencing - production slowly climbs.

Sorry for bringing this thing back to this but for me the Communism it is memorials to heroes who exiled my grand-grands for being kulaks, leaving 6 childeren to relatives to grow, food by cards, unreadably writen history books, so you can not really figure out anything you learn, bookshelves of nonsense like "Atheists' handbook" sold bundled with The Three Musketeers after you bring 10kg of recyclable paper, it is work which nobody actually needs and nobody actually does, "international duty" in Afganistan(not done by me - I was too young to be drafted), next dumb-faced politician proposing nonsense policies because they sound contradictory to Yeltsin anti-people regime, then (post-Soviet) philosophy taught exclusively through Marx and arguments of Engels with others.

This all comes bundled, you can find many other bad things in current state but unfortunately I'm closed, I do not like the Soviet ideology and I do not care about the one which shares the name, and I see hope in current. Call me a conservative, call me borgeouise. I'm really sorry if that insults your feelings. It is good that you can agree with me about Soviet, but I can not agree on Bolsheviks. An we will never agree on USA - you attack it, but I can not return you that favor because you want to establish equality of it to USSR and make my accounts to it to it a null. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 12:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would seem we are both ending discusion soon. And we are both reasonable thinkers who agree on reasonable things and disagree on things that many other people disagree on.

== A few ending points ==

I am attacking the USA in this context here, I do not "attack" the USA whenever I speak. I wouldn't call it attacking though, but it that is what others will call it, I have no problem with that and I will continue to do such. So, how is it okay for the USA to be the first to engage in such aggressive counter-revolutionary interferences all around the world, and it is wrong for the USSR to promote communism in their world? I'm not saying the USSR is fine, but the USA seems to be much worse... And how can USSR start a proxy war, it is the USA that sticks its nose everywhere and starts wars. You are critical of USSR's support for local countries, which was nothing but simple foreign policy compared to USA's aggressive counter-revolutionary cause.
I'm not interested in changing people to communism. I support communism, and I enjoy exchanging ideas. This is a great advent of the internet-- I can talk about simple things regarding to communism without fear of being blacklisted.
Yes, you are a conservative in regard to preserving current existing structure of capitalism; whereas, I am radical in that I wish to see this end one day, replaced by anything better than capitalism-- even fuedalism was once broadly considered the "only way" and "good"... the way I see it is, slavery based societies -> fuedalism -> capitalism -> ???????... end of world or begginning of a new system?

so you also live in USA? I took Russian in college... (not at all to do with communism!!, my interest in communism started in my sociology studies... I chose to learn Russian because in America, it is such an interesting and mysterious language/culture... also a very beautiful sounding language too) I continued to learn more and can speak a little but now am too busy to study right now.--4.152.102.222 20:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]