tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post1940802582334210356..comments2023-11-05T03:12:10.925-06:00Comments on Renegade Eye: What Is Bonapartism?Frank Partisanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-62829802179867487502011-03-14T20:56:04.221-05:002011-03-14T20:56:04.221-05:00Sonia: You are correct about the nature of Poland ...Sonia: You are correct about the nature of Poland before WWII. Fascism never occurred in a majority worker country.<br /><br />Pilsudski was for a period a weak fascist.<br /><br />Your question leads me to believe, the use of thugs, is the main aspect of fascism.<br /><br />Thee are dozens of dictatorships that aren't fascist.<br /><br />Ross: A measure to stop bureaucratic planning, is democracy and worker's control. Stalinism fell because bureaucratic planning breeds inefficiency.<br /><br />Speedy G: Are you capable of being concise?<br /><br />It seems you are arguing against liberalism, not socialism. Neither free trade or protectionism is a principle, they are too sides of the same coin.<br /><br />Titan: I'm not arguing for liberalism, or speculation as cap and trade. This blog is not progressive.<br /><br />Sentinel: I believe the Russian experience, can be analyzed, on the basis of history and theory.<br /><br />Lenin and Trotsky knew from the start, for socialism to work, the revolution in Germany had to win.<br /><br />Marx wrote about abundant societies. He didn't think much of a country like say Cuba, as a place to have a revolution.<br /><br />We now have the technology and wealth to make socialism work.<br /><br />The social basis of Stalinism doesn't exist anymore.<br /><br />Joe Conservative: When conservatives talk about less state, they talk about defunding tsunami warning systems, closing health centers and schools etc.<br /><br />All the state does is road building and defense. That is why they have to be dishonest about their intentions as Walker.<br /><br />Pagan: Cynicism is not analysis.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-38370203448793672342011-03-14T20:31:47.312-05:002011-03-14T20:31:47.312-05:00Capitalism already is a global system, and was so ...Capitalism already is a global system, and was so in concept even when empirically it only existed in Britain. Marx recognized that from the beginning. It has since expanded to encompass the entire world, even though national polities continue to claim legislative autonomy. They are all intricately interconnected already, as part of the capitalist global system. In many ways, the socialist world revolution would be the realization of a promise that was already inherent in capitalism. A single isolated socialist nation surrounded by hostile capitalist nations will never survive long. Think Paris 1871. If an ostensibly socialist country survives long in the absence of a revolution in the major capitalist nations, it is only by the fundamental perversion of its principles and institutions. That is why Stalin's abandonment of the commitment to cultivating world revolution, "Социализм в одной стране" (Socialism in One Country) was the ultimate betrayal. It degenerated into authoritarian bureaucratic structures maintained by a police state. Pretty much every "communist" or "socialist" nation that took its inspiration from the Soviet Union after that point basically copied this same disgusting model.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-17572126229315934892011-03-14T14:18:05.145-05:002011-03-14T14:18:05.145-05:00Renegade Eye:
“I agree with Ross, that there hasn...<strong>Renegade Eye:</strong><br /><br /><em>“I agree with Ross, that there hasn't been a socialist country”</em><br /><br />Then I would ask the same question: How do you know it could ever work then? <br /><br />It is and remains just an untested theory that has already cost many millions of lives in experimentations.<br /><br /><em>“I would say Russia under Lenin and Trotsky were closest”</em><br /><br />Then just on that basis alone I would argue that it is doomed to failure. These people were the bloody mass murderers of the workers – hundreds of thousands killed in the Red Terror and beyond, including striking workers.<br /><br /><em>“They had severe problems to deal with, they couldn't really start”</em><br /><br />That’s one way to put it – essentially they couldn’t kill enough dissenters to move on.<br /><br />But they did make a great start on it anyway in establishing the Gulags and first Soviet Secret police terror organisation, the Cheka – by 1921 just one branch of this organisation (Troops for the Internal Defense of the Republic) numbered 200,000.<br /><br />It paved the way for Stalin.<br /><br /><em>“Even Stalin admitted in the first printing of Foundations of Leninism that socialism can't work in one country”</em><br /><br />I have no doubt you know your stuff and are most likely right about Stalin, but so often I hear socialists purport to believe that socialism can only truly work when implemented globally - and use that premise to distance themselves from Stalin and his ’socialism in one country’ polices.<br /><br />But that ideology opens itself up to many questions: For instance, how will global socialism be achieved politically? By election? Extremely unlikely, not many (if any) radical socialist leaning regimes have ever bothered with anything as tedious as a democratic mandate. So how will it be done?<br /><br />Even if global socialism was somehow achieved, how would it be maintained and enforced? What would happen to dissenters, as this ideology is dependent on all encompassing approach? <br /><br />And if only a select few countries had governments ideologically geared to ‘global socialism’ but were unable to practice it, what would they do in the interim? Would they form a one state socialist system anyway? And could people opt out of the all pervading policies?<br /><br />We only have to look to the (not too distant) past to find answers to these questions.The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-64189214692035427392011-03-14T14:16:01.468-05:002011-03-14T14:16:01.468-05:00Rosswolfe
“Now just to distinguish this from &quo...<strong>Rosswolfe</strong><br /><br /><em>“Now just to distinguish this from "socialist" states: in my opinion, no truly socialist state has ever truly existed.”</em><br /><br />Then how do you know it could ever work in reality then? <br /><br />It is and remains just an untested theory that has already cost many millions of lives in experimentations.<br /><br /><em>“There, I think that more or less wraps it up. At least I hope it clears up a lot of the idiotic confusion that surrounds the issue of capitalism vs. socialism”</em><br /><br />But all in all, your three post piece was merely your own opinion, merely your own take on socialism – many before you have had their spin on it: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro etc and each one of them will undoubtedly tell you that their version is the right one, backed up with whatever evidence they feel supports it.<br /><br /><em>“Fascism …. It's the most hideous ideology the world has ever known.”</em><br /><br />And it was brought to life by a prominent Italian Socialist. <br /><br /><em>“Also, socialism is anti-state”</em><br /><br />Socialism is the complete anti-thesis of ‘anti-state’ – it can only survive by massive bureaucracy controlling every aspect of everyone’s life and every facet of business, all backed up by a large security apparatus.The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-54043944715088820532011-03-14T11:38:29.296-05:002011-03-14T11:38:29.296-05:00This discussion has been good.
Make your final st...This discussion has been good.<br /><br />Make your final statements, late tonight I'm switching to another topic.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-23834342722404529112011-03-14T11:22:15.033-05:002011-03-14T11:22:15.033-05:00Schumpeter was certainly right about one thing. I...<a href="v" rel="nofollow">Schumpeter</a> was certainly right about one thing. It's the liberal elites that will bring down capitalism from with with all their fairy-tale fantasy thinking. The Division of Labour has rendered them entirely incompetent and unable to think rationally. And ultimately <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogeneity_(economics)" rel="nofollow">endogeneity</a> takes hold, then we're off pursuing economic unicorns in the form of hydro-carbon free "green jobs" and shunning necessary "<a href="http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/08/black_hydrogen.html" rel="nofollow">black hydrogen</a>" technologies.<br /><br />Any fool since Lazare Carnot knows that real progress can only be made if develop energy sources of higher and higher energy densities, and that "sustainability" is NOT a progressive value.Titan Uranus 2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03493362442009006550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-82600319424079890252011-03-14T10:41:55.240-05:002011-03-14T10:41:55.240-05:00There is no such thing as a "Will to Power&qu...There is no such thing as a "Will to Power"... there's just a "Will to Do Good Things".<br /><br />...the droids you are searching for are NOT here!Joe Conservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696367580635901992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-47029198546075775582011-03-14T10:39:46.444-05:002011-03-14T10:39:46.444-05:00"We don't seek power over you"
&quo..."We don't seek power over you"<br /><br />"We will CONTROL everything... and then return the power to you"...<br /><br />"Nietzsche is DEAD!", the new anti-state non-power seeking communist idols have decreed it.Joe Conservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696367580635901992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-10998451090881694272011-03-14T10:32:54.755-05:002011-03-14T10:32:54.755-05:00btw -That was a GREAT plug for a Society of Contr...btw -That was a GREAT plug for a Society of Control.<br /><br />Or as I like to think of it, a society <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k" rel="nofollow">of the controlled</a>.Joe Conservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696367580635901992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-85115762384348804402011-03-14T10:30:48.156-05:002011-03-14T10:30:48.156-05:00Anybody that supports socialism and thinks its goi...Anybody that supports socialism and thinks its going to lead to the end of the state are going to be spending the rest of their lives whistling past the graveyard, for good reason. You are always going to need some semblance of official government control in order to insure protection of minority rights, and equal protection under the law. <br /><br />Otherwise, the first thing you are going to have to eliminate is not mere class distinctions, but racial, religious, and ethnic ones as well. <br /><br />It will never happen. Nor should it.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-82553616530132911462011-03-14T10:25:07.560-05:002011-03-14T10:25:07.560-05:00The state would become superfluous.
That's th...<i>The state would become superfluous.</i><br /><br />That's the point. With laissez-faire capitalism, <i>the state is already superfluous</i>. The gods of picking economic winner and losers and assigning people their safe-government protected "values" are DEAD!Joe Conservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696367580635901992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-83251617811606747632011-03-14T09:26:48.594-05:002011-03-14T09:26:48.594-05:00Also, socialism is anti-state, though not in the f...Also, socialism is anti-state, though not in the facile anarchist fashion. As Marx wrote, the state is always just the tool by which the dominant class oppresses all the other sections of society. According to Leninist Marxism, the kind I am most sympathetic with, socialism acknowledges that the State is a temporary necessity for a transition to a stateless society. At first it would have smash structures of the old society that enslaved people or constrained their freedom. Thereafter it would assume a more administrative function, planning the distribution and circulation of goods. Sure, skeptics will say that this centralized planned economy would seek to become a permanent vast bureaucratic institution (and this is what happened under Stalinism) rather than "wither away" as Engels and Lenin wanted, but with careful leadership these processes of governance could become more and more automatic, and society would govern itself of its own accord. The state would become superfluous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-23742622257135645272011-03-14T08:00:48.964-05:002011-03-14T08:00:48.964-05:00Socialism can now be defined as the tyranny of &qu...Socialism can now be defined as <i>the tyranny of "good" intentions divorced from the reality of desired results.</i><br /><br />Individual citizens will no longer have a say in what their lives are "worth" (it's values). The State will do that FOR you. And if they don't keep their promises?<br /><br />Meh, no big deal. You'll never know what "could have been".Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-75748879115317827262011-03-14T07:56:54.786-05:002011-03-14T07:56:54.786-05:00I hope it clears up a lot of the idiotic confusion...<i>I hope it clears up a lot of the idiotic confusion that surrounds the issue of capitalism vs. socialism.</i><br /><br />Indeed it does. The "choice" now is clear.Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-90690568144457482342011-03-14T07:55:36.783-05:002011-03-14T07:55:36.783-05:00Another goal of such a society would be to elimina...<i>Another goal of such a society would be to eliminate as much degrading and potentially dangerous labor as possible.</i><br /><br />Read - Eliminate the sources of higher-paying jobs like mining, oil drilling, nuclear reactor maintenance, etc. We will wrap you in a shrink wrapped perfect worl where everybody lives to be 103 years old and nobody can go helicopter skiing, or take a "space" vacation (too dangerous)!<br /><br />Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD, in the year of our FORD, 125.Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-16344437613713313212011-03-14T07:51:33.672-05:002011-03-14T07:51:33.672-05:00the goal would be production for the betterment of...<i>the goal would be production for the betterment of society, the fulfillment of its needs and the benefit of its population. </i><br /><br />Not to be determined by the people themselves through their own direct purchases, but by the arbiters of a good life in government who now assign their own "values" to the new artificial lives people "MUST LIVE" under the arbiters of worth's all-powerful and all-knowing cognizance.Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-13209847973828368352011-03-14T07:47:03.317-05:002011-03-14T07:47:03.317-05:00the goal would be production for the betterment of...<i> the goal would be production for the betterment of society, the fulfillment of its needs and the benefit of its population. Not production for the sake of endlessly producing more value. </i><br /><br />lol! The goal is not to do EXACTLY what laissez-faire capitalism does in actuality... but to TWIST those values from the "happiness" of the <i>customers</i> who buy products, to the "happiness" of the <i>population controllers</i> who control what they now deem suitable for people to have....through giving THEM "CONTROL"... the people's happiness be damned (for they don't what's "good" for themselves).<br /><br />Value for who is the question you should ask yourself. Value for the "buyer" or value for the "government arbiter and critic of purchases"?<br /><br />"I'm sorry, Miss Jones, but your daughter is NOT allowed to buy rap music CD's anymore because we have determined them to be harmful to your child's future integration into our absoluteley controlled assembly-line society. What you and she want is of no concern to us. Only what WE want for YOU matters."Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-13076025245759369262011-03-14T07:37:29.030-05:002011-03-14T07:37:29.030-05:00...not even the capitalists control capitalism
I...<i>...not even the capitalists control capitalism</i><br /><br /><i> If the capitalists truly could consciously control capitalism, you would think...</i><br /><br />Like human "desire" can be "limited" by something that's "free"? It's all about "control" with you idiots, and YOUR need to LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES to within the narrow little sphere that YOU think is appropriate because you are so jealous of their success. A single SOCIETY OF CONTROL is what you seek.<br /><br /><i>In fact, much of what you call "socialist" was actually <b>just the attempt of society to gain some sort of hold over</b> the chaotic hyperproductivity and market crashes of capitalist society.</i><br /><br />Yep, CONTROL. You want to pick the Winners and Losers, and thereby "call the game". Like the Caesars of old, you want a "thumbs up or down" on determining who will succeed and fail in life. YOU want to be the gods.<br /><br /><i>Ultimately, parliamentary Social-Democracy simply wanted to save capitalism from itself...</i><br /><br />And create housing bubbles and education bubbles and credit bubbles and prioritize unprofitable energy sources and provide "social justice" to unproductive social leeches through 8-A affirmative action set-asides...<br /><br /><i> it opted instead to try and "control" or "correct" the volatility of some of its symptoms.</i>...and in so doing, undermined the ENTIRE world economic system and perpetuate the current "jobless" recovery by refusing to change and face economic realities that insulate union workers from harsh necessities (GM/Chrysler & public service union sectors).Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-72727607123457715382011-03-14T07:04:06.987-05:002011-03-14T07:04:06.987-05:00And the capitalists are powerless to stop the need...<i>And the capitalists are powerless to stop the need to acquire new value, exploit new raw materials, find cheap new sources of labor. </i><br /><br />Yes, human desires are "infinite". Produce product A and soon, all will want product B. You generally no longer desire that which you already possess (and will continue to possess). You want to experience something "new", the "next movie" being released from Hollywood.Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-5231920421197524822011-03-14T07:00:38.382-05:002011-03-14T07:00:38.382-05:00Capital is infinitely self-relating value, product...<i>Capital is infinitely self-relating value, production for the sake of production...not production for the sake of society's need.</i><br /><br />lol! What else is "demand" but societies "need"? There's no demand for products that have no use. They clutter up shelves and are a waste of everyone's time AND money.Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-40328755053471856142011-03-14T06:56:29.112-05:002011-03-14T06:56:29.112-05:00State-interventionist capitalism aka "merchan...<i>State-interventionist capitalism</i> aka "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism" rel="nofollow">merchantilism</a>" is its' OWN economic system. Adam Smith was AGAINST it as a perversion of his classical free-market economics and called it's basis the <i>"popular folly of confusing wealth with money."</i> Merchantilism is also the British Fleet sailing into China saying, "Buy our opium, OR ELSE!" or into Boston saying, "Buy our Tea, OR ELSE!"<br /><br />But free trade is not a zero-sum game of cutthroat competition (as most socialists still believe) because both sides can and DO benefit (Plato, "Hipparchus") from a free-market exchange (WIN-WIN).Speedy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640242783952822072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-54915343750040048282011-03-14T06:32:52.931-05:002011-03-14T06:32:52.931-05:00Ren,
Fascism only occurred in Poland,
Germany, I...Ren,<br /><br /><i>Fascism only occurred in Poland, <br />Germany, Italy and Spain.</i> <br /><br />You're completely contradicting yourself when claiming that fascism is based on ''total annihilation of working class as a prerequisite'', and then mention Poland, which hardly had any industry (far less than the Czech Republic) and was 80% agricultural.<br /><br />Besides, Japan was way more fascist than Spain ever was. Argentina under Videla was just as fascist as Italy under Mussolini. Poland only became 'fascist' when it ceased to exist in 1939 and was swallowed by Germany. Before that, under Pilsudski, it had an authoritarian regime supported by the Jewish minority and denounced by local fascists. France under Petain was pure fascism. So was Hungary under Horthy, Portugal until 1974, Slovakia under Tiso, Greece under the Colonels, etc. etc.soniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938174968325568608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-82651382484887473452011-03-14T01:33:13.521-05:002011-03-14T01:33:13.521-05:00Ross: The Soviet Union, itself a sort of state-int...Ross: <i>The Soviet Union, itself a sort of state-interventionist capitalist regime, also prospered during this time.</i><br /><br />I don't support the Schachtmanite thesis of Russia being state capitalist. I would describe it as proletarian Bonapartist, a transitional society, not capitalist or socialist. See <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a>. The ironic part is Ted Grant originally believed the state capitalist thesis, and taught it to Draper. If Russia was state capitalist, where was the capitalist class? If there was one, Stalin would have been history.<br /><br />Trotsky predicted capitalism would return to USSR, because bureaucrats would want inheritance rights (Yeltsin).<br /><br />Trotskyists called USSR a degenerated worker's state. The other countries as Poland were called deformed workers state.<br /><br />I will save the comments, because at this blog, that subject comes up all the time.<br /><br />I would add the principles of the Paris Commune, as the definition of the Marxist state.<br /><br />Sentinel: I agree with Ross, that there hasn't been a socialist country. I would say Russia under Lenin and Trotsky were closest. They had severe problems to deal with, they couldn't really start. Even Stalin admitted in the first printing of <i>Foundations of Leninism</i> that socialism can't work in one country. Needless to say first editions of Stalin's book, are not easy to find.<br /><br />Social programs are used to prevent revolt. They certainly are part of Keynesian thought.<br /><br />Hitler romanticized small business, as opposed to evil monopolies.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-51647273387157993422011-03-13T20:34:05.891-05:002011-03-13T20:34:05.891-05:00Rosswolfe:
“The foundation of fascism was typical...<strong> Rosswolfe:</strong><br /><br /><em>“The foundation of fascism was typically in some sort of combination of rustic Volkisch nationalism and biological racism.”</em><br /><br />The real foundation and manifestation of Fascism came through Benito Mussolini – who started off and spent 13 years as a big influence in the Italian Socialist Party. <br /><br />Mussolini described Fascism as the ‘mergence of corporation and state’ and it was all in all a pretty rambling and nihilistic ‘ideology’ - but biological racism wasn’t a feature. <br /><br />In 1933 Mussolini had this to say about race: <br /><br /><em>“Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. Amusingly enough, not one of those who have proclaimed the "nobility" of the Teutonic race was himself a Teuton. Gobineau was a Frenchman, Chamberlain, an Englishman; Woltmann, a Jew; Lapouge, another Frenchman.”</em><br /><br />And in 1943:<br /><br /><em>“The Racial Manifesto could have been avoided. It dealt with the scientific abstruseness of a few teachers and journalists, a conscientious German essay translated into bad Italian. It is far from what I have said, written and signed on the subject. I suggest that you consult the old issues of Il Popolo d'Italia. For this reason I am far from accepting (Alfred) Rosenberg's myth"</em><br /><br />--<br /><br /><em>“It's the most hideous ideology the world has ever known”</em><br /><br />Certainly not pleasant by any definition – but then certainly not responsible for the greatest state mass murders in the history of man either.<br /><br />That distinction falls to regimes of the socialist bent.<br /><br />But again, out of interest, which regimes do you consider are / were either socialist / communist or in a transitive state working towards either?<br /><br />Its a very simple question.<br /><br /><strong> Renegade Eye:</strong><br /><br /><em>“Are you saying, rightist regimes can never have social welfare programs? That only the left uses them?”</em><br /><br />I am saying that these were socialist tenets that they implemented – are you saying they are not?<br /><br />The Nazis cannot be classified on either wing by traditional definitions. The Nazis were not nationalists either – they were pan-Europeans. <br /><br />But I would like to ask you the same question as Rosswolfe:<br /><br />Which regimes do you consider are / were either socialist / communist or in a transitive state working towards either?The Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18407669804421969164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-2050033692508372192011-03-13T20:17:09.692-05:002011-03-13T20:17:09.692-05:00This era of capitalism, which came after the so-ca...This era of capitalism, which came after the so-called "heroic era" of 19th-century laissez-faire capitalism, has been termed by most Marxist scholars as Fordism. It consisted mainly of Big Business, Big Labor, and Big Government. From the end of the Second World War through the 1960s, Americans and most Europeans enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. The Soviet Union, itself a sort of state-interventionist capitalist regime, also prospered during this time. But then came the Oil Crisis of 1973, and Fordism all came crashing down, inaugurating the age in which we are still living -- neoliberalism (or flexible accumulation, as Jameson calls it).<br /><br />Now just to distinguish this from "socialist" states: in my opinion, no truly socialist state has ever truly existed. This is because the revolution was intended to be a <i>world</i> revolution, or at least a revolution in the most advanced capitalist nations, which would then spread its new form of social relations from the former core of the capitalist world-system to the periphery. Now, in terms of policies, though it would be utopian to speculate in too much detail, the goal would be production for the betterment of society, the fulfillment of its needs and the benefit of its population. Not production for the sake of endlessly producing more value. In terms of the state, true communists despise the bureaucratic monstrosities of most European-style Social-Democracies. Lenin and Trotskii even referred to them as "deformities." Another goal of such a society would be to eliminate as much degrading and potentially dangerous labor as possible. It would not be some sort of Stalinist industrial hellhole dominated by manly, muscular Stakhanovites with their shirts bursting at the seam. It would more likely be technicians and specialists coordinating production and overseeing a self-conscious plan by which society could economically provide for itself.<br /><br />There, I think that more or less wraps it up. At least I hope it clears up a lot of the idiotic confusion that surrounds the issue of capitalism vs. socialism. Ren, if you agree with most of what I've written, feel free to post it as an article on here. I'll clean it up if necessary. If you'd rather not, that's fine too.<br /><br />And so ends the epic triple-post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com