Why does Marxist-Leninist Socialism fail?

[High Nigga Pie]

No, Vegan is just more well versed and passionate. Why do you keep on bringing up human rights violations? Get past it. Going by a correlational standard, every political and economic system would therefore correlate with violece, as history has shown us, violence and violation appears everywhere. Stop focusing on it.

[matt romney]

(11-19-2011 02:57 PM)marioalosangeles Wrote:  I believe that till this day, Marxist communism has not been achieved. Not if we see it from an economic point of view. Classless societies have existed for a long time, though I wouldn't call that communism because communism is a specific set of ideas beyond a classless society. Native Americans used what is called a barter economy, which gave everyone the chance to have something, as long as they had something to give in return. According to Marx, man is a "Social Animal" which means we have the ability to work in groups to assure our survival. This has been a fact before the idea of communism even existed.

sentiment and message is right, but it was marx and engels who were inspired by the landmark anthropological piece "ancient society" which laid the basics of primitive communism. so in a way, marxist analyzed communism has existed, just not the movement marx himself predicted. the only difference between the two is technology and internationalism, both were unnecessary in the primitive communist era

(11-19-2011 02:57 PM)marioalosangeles Wrote:  A have learned a lot about Cuba since I joined this forum. To be honest, no one can ignore the mistakes Castro made with his people. No one can ignore the mistakes America has made with it's own people either. The occupy movement is a great example. The question is... Which countries are truly progressing towards freedom and equality? Read up about Cuba's progress no days. You would be surprise as to how much they have been able to achieve. As soon as that embargo is cut, we'll see what real progress Cuba can make.

somewhat agreed. i think cuba needs to be more democratic and less republican in leadership selection. and you were missing a key part in that, castro has apologized and seeks to fix former mistakes.

(11-19-2011 02:57 PM)marioalosangeles Wrote:  The Soviet Union never gave into Hitler, but they fell prey to their own power. From what I've read, they're military spending was at about 35% of their GDP. I'm not sure what to say about the USSR, but I can tell tell you that they were digging their own grave. The Cold War put a lot of pressure on them.

cosigned. this was a direct effect of stalin's adaption of socialism in one country.

(11-19-2011 02:57 PM)marioalosangeles Wrote:  I don't consider myself a socialist, although I tend to lean more towards it's ideas. On behalf of Socialism I can say this. It is not a political party, or economic systems that fails. It is the people who run it who fail. Monarchies failed, dictatorships failed, capitalism failed, socialism failed, Imperialism failed... See the pattern? Socialism is a more modern idea of equality... While Capitalism preaches "freedom" Why can't there be a balance?

to balance it, capitalism would have to first reflect freedom. but i get you, here is a dialectical analysis bobby seale used when i heard him speak

thesis:
overgrown capitalist fascism
anti-thesis:
statist stalinist communism
synthesis:
democratic, community marxism

marxism is the answer!

(11-19-2011 06:15 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  China is no longer Socialist, Soviet Union was a good socialist country before it defected into Nazism

stalinism, not nazism. and on the cuba part, castro has apologized and corrected past mistakes.

(11-19-2011 06:15 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  What the fuck just happened here? Are you suggesting that China is a model for socialism? Or are you being sarcastic?

no, he believes we need authoritarianism is necessary for economic achievement, then technology will replace leadership and communism will arise organically. siggggggggh.

(11-19-2011 08:45 AM)Sean Wrote:  the USSR failed because of economic problems and Khrushchev's reforms.

economic problems are a symptom of a greater problem, you have to find the cause. and while krushchev delivered the deathblow, stalinism defeated the soviet union.

(11-19-2011 06:11 AM)Rio-Leonardo Wrote:  It has failed because most countries that tried to implement communism through Socialism left out a very important stage -> Capitalism! China has recognized their mistake and corrected it.

planned economy trumps bourgeois competition any day

[Rio-Leonardo]

(11-19-2011 06:15 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  China is no longer Socialist, Soviet Union was a good socialist country before it defected into Nazism ( not sure the conditions of human rights in the 20's and 30's), ande North Korea is a very scared and lonely country because it has isolated itself from the world. Every contry kills dissedents, America has a whole bunch of Black Panters, Cubans, and Puerto Rican Nationals in jail, why not bring that up? At least Cuba has the balls to say whats what. You can't fault them for being scared. They have been ostrichized by the world, drastic measures must be taken. People don't talk about it, because there is nothing to talk about. If you want to play this human rights violations game, lets look at the violation in the "civilized" countries, and see how they stack up against evil Cuba.

---

(11-19-2011 06:11 AM)Rio-Leonardo Wrote:  It has failed because most countries that tried to implement communism through Socialism left out a very important stage -> Capitalism! China has recognized their mistake and corrected it.

What the fuck just happened here? Are you suggesting that China is a model for socialism? Or are you being sarcastic?

As Marx said himself, you cant go from Feudalism to Socialism...!

[High Nigga Pie]

I do not understand what you are saying.

[matt romney]

marx was obviously imperfect and could not expect everything. a theorist, not a prophet. it is necessary for modern marxists to revise his theory, like trotsky with the theory of permanent revolution. which debases that leo

[shakur420]

(11-20-2011 12:44 AM)Patrick Bateman Wrote:  Shakur, so would you say that there is a correlation between marxist-lenin socialism, and breaches in human rights/censorship. If so, do you still support Socialism/Communism, knowing that if it occurs there may/will be massive breaches in human rights/censorship?

Is Socialism a success if if the economy is strong, but the people have limited rights?

Personally, I think that Marx's vision of the socialist period has to include repression. Maybe not too severe, kinda like what we have in parliamentary/republic societies but the top down management specifically implies coercion and repression from above, not freedom. Lenin, taking it further, actually stripped economic freedom by killing the workers committees, workers control over production, when he got in. Whether, again, that translates to severe repression and human rights violations, I don't think I could say that, at least not any more than our "western", "free", "democratic", "open", and otherwise mislabeled societies.

I think the natural course though, of marxist ideas and following in the footsteps of Lenin (having a top down vanguard party that demands unquestioned loyalty), will inevitably lead to something like Stalin and the dictatorships in the Soviet satellites. When you have conflict, war, poverty, etc., it's very easy to convince people that stripping your freedoms is Ok. Everyone knows this and uses Bush jr and the terrorists as an example but it's literally an old, broken record that's been replayed all throughout history. Nicaragua, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Rome, Cuba, Turkey, Iraq, Ireland, to name just a few examples I'm familiar with. And the Bolsheviks were no exception. I mean fear is used this way all the time and when you hold economic/political weight, when your policies include complete submission to the ruling class, it's hard to be surprised at the outcome of the Soviet Union.

Bakunin practically predicted that shit decades before Lenin came around, never mind Stalin. That's why I just can't get down with right wingers, whether they call themselves "marxists" and accept submission to a ruling class of enlightened and politically conscious revolutionaries, or "libertarians" who accept submission through the concentration of economic power, allowed to accumulate through the absence of regulation.

It's not so much the economic failures that get me, a lot of that has to do with simply not implementing a socialist economy (workers control), but most of it has to do with attacks and attempts to crush any independent economic course. Haiti, Cuba, Russia, Palestine, Greece and Italy are some examples I know of, which also don't happen to be socialist economies so really, they fail in terms of providing for their people because they get strangled and shit, not because "Socialism/Communism doesn't work". That's a false framework.

Like Cuba for example, has apparently done wonders for it's people. There's a report from Oxfam about their healthcare and why it's so good and shit. So that's great, especially since it was talking about how many healthcare policies are derived from local decisions, local needs and wants that are then passed up through to the National Assembly. That's a socialist principle. On the other hand, you'll have dictates about production and quota levels from the party leaders, say on like sugar cane or something. That's not really a socialist principle, unless you consider top down decisions about production and working hours, conditions, etc. to be compatible with workers control over production. How? With party dictates, the decision is made above and dictated to the workers. The other, workers make that decision.

This is the disconnect that Marx and Lenin - right wing socialists - have with other socialists. It's why people like me don't consider them, their theories andall these different policies based off that shit, to have anything to do with Socialism. It's pretty uncontroversial.

So, to answer the question, lol, I don't really see how any socialist economy - which would have workers control over production, and so they would control the economy and therefore the political/social decisions - could be repressive. The people would actually be in control of the state. How could they be repressed? Just cause some fakes attribute their economic models and policies to Socialism, doesn't make it so.

If there's no workers control - or very minimal, like how my employees have some level of autonomy and their pay is largely based on production - it's not Socialism. The countries you mentioned, we all mentioned, are not, and have never been, socialist economies. Their human rights records and repression do not reflect on Socialism. At the same time, like I said, I don't think that repression can be attributed to Marx and Lenin's models (the severe violations you're talking about were not carried out by, or under, Marx or Lenin) but personally, I don't see how their methods could lead to anything but repression.

I really think you might find this interesting. It's a wicked read. If you get to it, take a few of the things that are mentioned and start reading about them, lol, or better yet, make a few threads. I be down to read people's thoughts on some stuff.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm

[matt romney]

another quote from marx leo:

"democracy is the road to socialism"

marxist leninism failed because it manipulated its nicknames' ideology as a euphemism for stalinism.

to zaki:

can you back any of that up with evidence or facts?

http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pd...ninism.pdf

[Fuzzly Bear]

cba reading but has anyone suggested that it failed/hasn't even come about in practice because it is an internationalist ideology yet it only ever came about in isolation

[matt romney]

well socialism in one country is a part of marxist leninism...

[Fuzzly Bear]

aye, a part

[matt romney]

so saying marxist leninism wasn't represented because it wasn't international is itself a contradiction

[1871]

I think what Hamish might be referring to Lazarus - and if he isn't I will - is the fact that the ideas in Marxism might not have come to fruition because of the weaknesses in the strength of international Socialism. This is certainly true in Spain in the Civil War when it was blockaded and when there was a policy from the Stalinists to control and eradicate people of the left. However I am not sure that this really could be applicable to the Soviets since their authoritarian tendencies were in place well before then.

Anyone who says 'human rights can't be used as a measure' to determine why systems fail should read Zamyatins 'We'. Written before Orwells book, it pretty much well defined why both the philosophy, economy, and social system being practiced would fail.

The 'dictatorship' of the proletariat is problematical but it has to be considered also in the context which Marx used it. It would be interesting to hear examples of how in other ways Marx was autocratic.