Is Communist's movement dead now?




 
--
 
July 14th, 2010  
gentleworm
 
 

Topic: Is Communist's movement dead now?


I was alway wonder about the word that Lenin said " One step backward and two step forward! ".
Was the communist thread to the world end when the USSR collapsed?
Or the communist still collecting what it need for the final war to take the world?
July 14th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
No it is not dead and a more subtle but massive leftist movement is still alive and well in various parts of the world.
July 14th, 2010  
Shmack
 
 
Communism as an utopic ideology will never die because ideology is immortal and people like to dream. It's just not all people realize what communism is. Just a simple example: while in the United States communist threat became a set phrase associated with stalinism and mass coercive expropriation, in Russia they say that Sweden for example is a country where communism has won, there's even an expression 'Scandinavian-like communsim'. Ironical misinterpretation of facts.

Communist threat to the world didn't end after Soviet Union collapsed. It ended when Lenin died and carried away his dreams about worldwide uprising. Marasmic state governing system that was erected in Russia after the October revolution didn't pursue an aim to overthrow all capitalist governments or contaminate people's precious bodily fluids. Its aim was first of all to stay at power in Russia and then help leftist governemnts in other countries survive because they were pro-Soviet, not because they were communist. Soviet foreign politics since 1930's had nothing to do with communism. Of course, nothing like that is possible nowadays. Today wars begin in the name of democracy.

By the way Lenin didn't say 'One step backward and two step forward'. 'Two steps backward and one step forward' was a name of his brochure dedicated to conflict between two major groups within then-illegal Social-democratic party.
--
July 14th, 2010  
Kruska
 
Hello Shmack,

I don't quite agree with you on that. Especially the confrontation between rich and poor in all these third world countries - were or became a battlefield for USA (democracy and capitalism) contra Communism. Uncountable "freedomfighters" and revolutionary leaders were trained and educated in Moscow in regards to communist principles and techniques. At the same time the USA and the West trained it's "partners".

The idiology of communism prevailed throughout the world from 1918 onward and has now stopped massivly due to a lack of funding and training via Moscow. As long as rich and poor remains an issue - a communist or nowaday's termed "the new left" will always find his feeding grounds and necessity in regards to actions.

Instead of Moscow supporting armed movements - it is now the liberal - social oriented countries and "rouge" nations that get involved into the poor and rich conflicts. And as such they get into a conflict or confrontation with the US or conservative European countries.

The game hasn't changed IMHO - just the players on the socialist part. Lenins communism is dead, but the socio-political content of Marx and Engels is still alive.

Regards
Kruska
July 14th, 2010  
Shmack
 
 
I agree with you, Kruska, but i don't think your words conflict with mine. What i am trying to say is that ideological confrontation was just a cover, outside appearance of a banal fight for spheres of influence. It's obvious for me that Politburo didn't care too much about the Vietnamese' prosperity when Russia helped them to fight against the United States occupation. I'm pretty sure Reagan as well didn't cry his heart out because of Afghani freedom fighters struggling against Soviet invasion. Vietnamese managed to pull out the Americans and didn't manage to build a prosperous society anyway, no need to mention fate of Afghanistan, which means that neither Russia, nor the United States ever cared of those peoples who were unlucky enough to find themselves between a hammer and an anvil.

It was not communism that moved on national liberation movements all over the world, it was the Soviet Union - Soviet diplomats and military. They didn't want those 'liberators' to swear an oath to Marxism, they wanted them to buy Soviet guns, tanks, tractors, machines, locomotives etc etc for diamonds, gold, forest, sugar and loyalty. The Soviet Union didn't have serious problems with most of other rich nations, except for the US. In the same way the US easily got along well with poor nations.

Marxist ideology of collective society with equal rights of every man, with collective property is of course eternal. Magnetism and absolute on-paper-fairness of communism was the exact reason why this ideology was exploited by the USSR in foreign policy. Simple people could believe that mighty and rich Russia is going to help them build a Heaven-on-Earth and protect them from the corrupt two-faced bourgeois, but that was very far from reality.
July 14th, 2010  
MikeP
 
 
Same ideology-different labels.

The creeping socialization is jut a step towards totalitarianism.

Mommy knows best-she will tell you what you can/cannot have/do.

Lots of bad things about capitalism, but it keeps up incentive and initiative.

I managed to retire with a decent but modest income.
I made the choice to get up and punch that damn time clock every day.
I also served my country for 4 years.
I earned what I have and am not enthused about "sharing it."
I was fortunte enough to live in a country where that is possible.
July 14th, 2010  
334
 
 
Canada , US ..also same label ? Dont think so too..
Travel around and see some of these 'Red' countries if you can Mike ..
you'llbe amazed .Vietnam or China are more capitalist states then you would ever have imagined . Even ideologies are dynamic today and mostly dictated from Casio calculators no matter its colour . Private business iniatives are well stimulated nowadays . China for instance made me feel i like I was from a third world country in many ways.
Todays 'red identity' stands miles away from the tradional 'leninist/moaists' doctrinal views from the 50ies.
July 14th, 2010  
03USMC
 
 
Now days it's packaged as Social Justice and Progressive thinking and policy.
July 14th, 2010  
Kruska
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmack
I agree with you, Kruska, but i don't think your words conflict with mine. What i am trying to say is that ideological confrontation was just a cover, outside appearance of a banal fight for spheres of influence. It's obvious for me that Politburo didn't care too much about the Vietnamese' prosperity when Russia helped them to fight against the United States occupation. I'm pretty sure Reagan as well didn't cry his heart out because of Afghani freedom fighters struggling against Soviet invasion. Vietnamese managed to pull out the Americans and didn't manage to build a prosperous society anyway, no need to mention fate of Afghanistan, which means that neither Russia, nor the United States ever cared of those peoples who were unlucky enough to find themselves between a hammer and an anvil.

It was not communism that moved on national liberation movements all over the world, it was the Soviet Union - Soviet diplomats and military. They didn't want those 'liberators' to swear an oath to Marxism, they wanted them to buy Soviet guns, tanks, tractors, machines, locomotives etc etc for diamonds, gold, forest, sugar and loyalty. The Soviet Union didn't have serious problems with most of other rich nations, except for the US. In the same way the US easily got along well with poor nations.

Marxist ideology of collective society with equal rights of every man, with collective property is of course eternal. Magnetism and absolute on-paper-fairness of communism was the exact reason why this ideology was exploited by the USSR in foreign policy. Simple people could believe that mighty and rich Russia is going to help them build a Heaven-on-Earth and protect them from the corrupt two-faced bourgeois, but that was very far from reality.
Hello Shmack,

yes - I think that about covers it pretty well.

Regards
Kruska
July 14th, 2010  
Kruska
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeP
Same ideology-different labels.

The creeping socialization is jut a step towards totalitarianism.

Mommy knows best-she will tell you what you can/cannot have/do.

Lots of bad things about capitalism, but it keeps up incentive and initiative.

I managed to retire with a decent but modest income.
I made the choice to get up and punch that damn time clock every day.
I also served my country for 4 years.
I earned what I have and am not enthused about "sharing it."
I was fortunte enough to live in a country where that is possible.
Hello MikeP,

as for my part, I am convienced that many Americans do not really understand the idea of socialism and it's huge difference to communism.

Socialism as it is practised in e.g. Germany or France is nothing more but to take a certain responsibilty towards the weaker patners in society. Be it a single mother, a pensionist or a low paid employee that couldn't affort a proper medical treatment if he had to pay it out of his own pocket.

Sure there are those who missuse the system but in general it is a fair and square thing. A good mix between capitalism/free market and some social attributes is what works out well for everyone.

Regards
Kruska
 


Similar Topics
Lithuanian anti' pedophile hero found dead
Dougals joke post. MODs please let back to back posts
Kamikaze shot dead in London, UK. Third attack.
Controversy Rages as TV Show Lists U.S. War Dead