I think that Marx never addressed how the post-capitalist communist society would specifically be organized and turn from the proletarian dictatorship to full communism as the dictatorship was just a transitory phase. — ssu
You seem to want to argue that authoritarianism is always right-wing — jamalrob
The "right-wing" during the French revolution was where the conscientious defenders of the constitution sat. Don't think that the supporters of the Ancien Régime sat there during the French Revolution.As as libertarian socialist, I stand by the original notion of left and right, with the left being for both liberty and equality and the right being opposite both — Pfhorrest
Liberalism from the Age of Enlightenment was against absolute monarchy, divine rights of kings, hereditary privilege, state religion, the mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, and promoted representative democracy and the rule of law and free trade. — ssu
You seem to have ignored the word "just". Was this a mistake? — jamalrob
As as libertarian socialist, I stand by the original notion of left and right, with the left being for both liberty and equality and the right being opposite both — Pfhorrest
I guess what worries me here is the desire to describe Left vs Right as Good vs Bad guys*. — jamalrob
That was 18th century liberalism. Later, liberalism has become the doctrine that accepts any junk dictatorship as long as it allows capital to do business. What matters to the new (?) liberal is the market, and if that requires a police state in order to eliminate a few thousand opponents, it does not make him sick. (Pinochet, Videla, etc.)Liberalism from the Age of Enlightenment was against absolute monarchy, divine rights of kings, hereditary privilege, state religion, the mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, and promoted representative democracy and the rule of law and free trade. — ssu
They seem to think strength can solve anything, and yet it is intelligence that accounts for the quality of life. — JerseyFlight
I am not sure, maybe you can cite some concrete actions that Stalin and the party took that legitimately moved the Soviet Union in the direction of a democratic, liberal society? I do not see this. — JerseyFlight
... the government's actions to destroy the old social structure and institute a completely new one — jamalrob
Actually the 19th Century was when liberalism had it's major successes. Yet once the objectives had been achieved, classic liberalism became part of what is now part of conservatism.That was 18th century liberalism. Later, liberalism has become the doctrine that accepts any junk dictatorship as long as it allows capital to do business. — David Mo
Have to say a lot of references to Stalin from many people here.I know all that. It's not the point. — jamalrob
Wouldn't that have been the perfect moment to have this democratic Marxism as surely Khrushchev was a confident marxist-leninist? — ssu
Have to say a lot of references to Stalin from many people here.
Yet the Soviet Union lasted after Stalin for nearly 40 years. Surely when Nikita Khrushchev came into power the Russian Civil War was ancient history and the Communist Party was firmly in control. Krushchev denounced Stalin, relaxed the repression and cencorship in an era which is called the "Krushchev Thaw".
Wouldn't that have been the perfect moment to have this democratic Marxism as surely Khrushchev was a confident marxist-leninist? — ssu
The challenge for you is to understand that Marxism-Leninism has something to do with Marxism and that Marx did have influence on history. Hence we indeed can reflect how the theory has worked in reality.The challenge for you is to get serious, try interacting with the ideas of Marx! — JerseyFlight
Comrades,
Today, we gather here filled with reverence to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx, remember his strong character and historical achievements, and review his eminent spirit and brilliant ideas.
Marx is the revolutionary leader of the proletariat and the working people the world over, the principal founder of Marxism, the founder of Marxist parties and of the international communist movement, and the greatest thinker of the modern era. Two centuries have passed, during which human society has undergone massive and profound changes. However, Marx’s name continues to be met with respect around the world, and Marx’s theories continue to emanate their brilliant rays of truth.
-
Today, Marxism firmly advances the progress of human civilization; to this day it continues to provide theoretical and discursive systems of major international influence, and Marx to this day continues to be acknowledged as the “number one thinker of the millennium.”
-
I once said that China’s great social transformation is not a masterplate from which we simply continue our history and culture, nor a pattern from which we mechanically apply the ideas of classic Marxist authors, nor a reprint of the practice of socialism in other countries, nor a duplicate of modernization from abroad. There is no orthodox, immutable version of socialism. It is only by closely linking the basic principles of scientific socialism with a country’s specific realities, history, cultural traditions, and contemporary needs, and by continually conducting inquiries and reviews in the practice of socialism, that a blueprint can become a bright reality.
The vitality of theory is in its continued innovation, and promoting the continued development of Marxism is the sacred duty of Chinese Communists. We need to be persistent in wielding Marxism to observe and decipher the world today and lead us through it, applying the lively and plentiful experiences drawn from contemporary China to drive the development of Marxism, and utilizing an extensive worldview to draw on the civilizational achievements of all of humankind. We need to be persistent in protecting our foundations while constantly innovating to continually outdo ourselves, and learning widely from the strengths of others to continually improve ourselves. Finally, we need to continually further our understanding of the laws that underlie governance by a communist party, the development of socialism, and the evolution of human society, and open up new prospects for the development of Marxism in today’s China and the 21st century.
Many.What liberal objectives had been achieved? — David Mo
Yes. We really have to stick to the real definitions as otherwise they become just derogatory adjectives without any clear meaning.I've been arguing against the idea that the Soviet Union was a Right wing or fascist tyranny, and I think you're on my side in that debate. — jamalrob
Had it the potential? It is actually a good question. "No potential" might be too narrow minded. Remember that Western economists were indeed worried of Soviet Union, led by Khrushchev, really passing the US. Sputnik did dent that feeling of American technological superiority.Otherwise, maybe you want to suggest that the Soviet Union was both Left-wing/Marxist, and had no potential to become democratic. — jamalrob
And are Marxist-Leninists humanitarians and democrats? Let's remember that Khrushchev did face a Stalinist opposition and faced a challenge with the Hungarian uprising. The historical fact is, if a country has had a totalitarian system and that then is tried to do away with, you do have to have all that bread and butter to keep the people happy. Just giving people a voice but not anything else is destined to create trouble.But, taking your last question seriously, here's the way I see it. The thinking of the party at that time was that there could be no democracy or true communism in the Soviet Union until western Europe and the rest of the world had their own proletarian revolutions, or rather Soviet-style, Soviet-dominated Communist rule for mutual security. Before that happened, democratization wasn't on the cards. Krushchev denounced Stalin and eased up on the repression because he wanted to be the one to do what everyone knew had to be done to ensure the country's survival. He was very far from being a democrat or humanitarian. — jamalrob
Starting from things like representative democracy and universal suffrage, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the ending of mercantilism and feudalism. Or starting from things like a conservative will not say that the monarch has supreme power because he or she is anointed by God and because the Bible says so. — ssu
Even if the economic system is more closer to classic fascism than theoretical marxism. — ssu
Apparently not, just look at the speech from Xi Jingping. So quoting Marx and Engels is giving up Marxist rhetoric?They long ago gave up Marxist rhetoric for pure capitalism. — David Mo
Well, A. James Gregor thought otherwise of fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism", but as I've argued here that Stalin was a leftist dictator, I'll go with the mainstream definition of fascism being right wing. Here are some definitions:The comparison with fascism is superficial. They have in common that they are capitalist police states and state interventionism in the economy. — David Mo
form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy
Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.
Apparently not, just look at the speech from Xi Jingping. So quoting Marx and Engels is giving up Marxist rhetoric? — ssu
Well, A. James Gregor thought otherwise of fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism", — ssu
These characteristics serve the Chinese regime, Mussolini's fascism and all dictatorships that have always existed. To talk seriously about fascism, we need to refine it a little more.form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy
Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. — ssu
They did try, didn't work, then changed things.It is rhetorical. Because they limit themselves to generalities and avoid entering into the fundamental concepts of Marx's thought, which would leave them with their asses in the air, as they say in my country. — David Mo
But do you imply that the Chinese Communist Party wasn't before Marxist?
Or does this mean that Marx is beyond criticism to Marxists? Marxists really put him on a pedestal for worship with anyone straying of the path of wisdom is a heretic? — ssu
Ummm....Ok. :smirk:I know Marxists who do not put Marx on a pedestal. They simply think that he was fundamentally right. That's why they consider themselves Marxists. — David Mo
Seriously, it is very different to say "I think X is right" than to say "X is infallible in everything he says or does". — David Mo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.