Marxists?

Post Reply New Topic

Just the fact that it lasted for over seventy years is something of an accomplishment, don't you think?



Hence why it was also an accomplishment that it went from being a poor, backwards, isolated post-civil war state into a superpower capable of projecting it's military might across the globe and sending rockets into space, putting itself on equal footing with the United States.

Furthermore, command economies never "failed." Before the Soviet Union, but during a period spanning roughly from 1917-1921, the Bolsheviks tried to build a stable economy while being hounded by foreign and domestic foes all intent on toppling the new revolutionary regime. By the 1930's following a period of internal stability, the USSR was still being hounded politically and had been isolated earlier due to the defeat of the German and Italian revolutions.

Only after WWII was the Soviet Union able to break out of it's isolation and project it's power on a global basis, and even then it was still hounded politically.

Such hatred of one such state has been unprecedented, and finds its roots in the struggle between communism and capitalism.

Two States have been especially loathed. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both were monstrous regimes ruled over by monsters.

ruveyn

I don't know what your point is, but I'd call it BS.

Demographics of Russia Life Expectancy
1991 63.41 (male) 74.23 (female)
2011 64.3 (male) 76.1 (female)

Demographics of Russia

Really? you are getting this worked up over someone disagreeing with you.......I disagree with your perspective yet I am able to do so without attempting to personally insult you. You've only proven that when you've run out of actual arguments you resort to personal insults. Have fun with that.

.

The European Union is a Marxist state in all but name.
Ruled by faceless, unelected, commissioners who (yes, it is true) get paid more than the President of the United States.

.

In what sense is it Marxist?

The EU acts largely on the interests of (big) business (and, being an institution, itself). It's why there was a big panic amongst the front bench when that anti-EU vote came up in the commons recently.

I am hearing opinions, not facts. Opinions are like ass holes. Everybody has at least one.

Your issue is with the voters who put this system into being. Argue with them.

ruveyn

IMHO

the problem that often comes up when peeps talk about marx, both marxists and non marxists alike is that their utterings is not informed with an acquaintence with much in the way of marxes writings.

David Harveys website which has a lecture course taking one through the entirety of capital volume 1 is a good place to start for peeps who dont want to fall into such pitfalls when it comes to thinking about marx.

Is that just a random, generic comment, or does this actually refer to the thread?

OK I'll bite. I'd say I'm a socialist.

Socialism seems to be working pretty damn good in Northern Europe. Better anyway then what we have here in the US where the 1% keeps getting richer and richer, and the 99% just keep getting poorer. Its like a giant international game of Monopoly.

I have a feeling that socialism will be getting a lot more popular in the future, as more and more people lose the Monopoly game.

Honestly, I hate when states with better welfare systems and social structures are called "socialist", and the reason for that is because it generates conceptual confusion, especially given that "socialism" was also the term for the USSR, and things like that. Socialism originally has meant that the people(and/or state) control the methods of production. That's not Europe. In fact, if you look at Sweden on the Heritage Institution's Economic Freedom Index, and compare it to the US, you have to realize that Sweden does BETTER on many of the conservative Heritage organization's market-oriented definitions of freedom than the US, they just tax more and have more labor regulations, even with that, they still are "mostly free" by their measure.

Meanings change. This definition of socialism was that of Marx et al. After orthodox marxist predictions failed to happen in the late 19th, there was a new revisionnist current with a more reformist stance. With the Russian Revolution, the term "communist" came to be and was used by those who followed the old orthodox line, while the reformists kept the name "socialist".

Not really.

Check out the figures for the years between those parameters you gave. I think you'll find a very pronunced dip after the departure of Gorbachev.

The main reason for the recent upturn you mention was the election of Putin (himself a former communist) who started reversing Yeltin's policies.

Here, i've saved you the effort.

Its democratic socialism. But thats the problem. Most people who hate on communism, or hate on socialism don't even comprehend that there is a difference between the two. They just lump it all together. Which kind of proves that their dislike for it is based on ignorance, not on any logical reason. Like right-wingers who consider the Democratic Party to be left-wing socialists.

Anyway, I don't think capitalism has any more future then communism does. There has got to be a balance in the middle. I don't see any scenario where democratic socialism wont replace capitalism. Its just a matter of time, and the right-wingers will be dragging their feet every step of the way, as usual.

FAIL. Nothing on that chart shows any drops by 10 years ever. A drop by 10 years from 1991 would = 53.41 (male) 64.23 (female). That would be off the bottom of the chart. As for the small dip you are talking about. It seems to mostly relate to males. Which would lead me to believe that it was probably some type of temporary social issue. Hardly remarkable.

well given that the subject matter is a disputation regarding issues surrounding marxism it would seem prudent to actually maybe bring some marx into the mix no??