1 of 2
1
SO-CALLED COMMUNIST “MORALITY”
Posted: 06 August 2011 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  96
Joined  2011-08-05

Soviet communists, members of the Bolshevik party, created a new kind of “morality.” That was done to facilitate activities which most of us would consider immoral. The party leader, Lenin, believed that capitalism could not be defeated without violence. Strict top-to-bottom discipline was a precondition for party membership. The difference between Bolsheviks and ordinary people was described by Juri Pyatakov. He wrote:

“We are not like other people. We are a party who makes the impossible possible… And if the party demands it, if it is necessary or important for the party, we will be able by an act of will to expel from our brains in twenty-four hours ideas we have held for years. Yes, I will see black where I thought I saw white, or may still see it, because for me there is no life outside the party or apart from agreement with it.” It is ironic that in 1937 Pyatakov, the deputy minister of heavy industry, was accused of anti-party activities. He confessed and was at once executed. The same happened to many other Bolsheviks, such as Bukharin, Radek, Rykov, Zinoview, etc. Together with Lenin they led the revolution, became top party leaders, authors of books about communism, etc. Were their confessions extracted under torture or were they persuaded to sing in order to serve the party for the last time?

According to Lenin and Stalin, morality should be subordinated to the ideology of proletarian revolution. Denying the validity of religion-based morality, they believed that all acts useful to them were moral, and all acts harmful to them were immoral. Morality became a weapon in class struggle. Party members were drilled to accept that position, and to act accordingly.

The justification was simple. The world is full of injustice and immorality. We want to replace it by a much better social structure—communism. That is why what we do is right, by definition. Here is a good illustration. An act of torture committed by our enemy should be exposed as unspeakable barbarism. We do this to gain sympathy and support of naive people believing in “bourgeois morality.” But an act of torture committed by us, to punish an enemy of revolution, is not immoral. It is a historical necessity. Likewise, slave labor and killings in German camps were considered immoral while slave labor and killings in Soviet gulag camps were considered moral. Stalin declared that the gulag camps served the interests of revolution and this made them moral.
.

 Signature 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia), a retired nuclear physicist from New Jersey, USA. A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book: “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is an autobiography based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24

Food for thought.  Communism sounds very dismal.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2011 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 06 August 2011 07:45 PM

Food for thought.  Communism sounds very dismal.

Unfortunately for many layered reasons communism got off on a really bad foot.
Communism as it was practiced by the Bolsheviks, in a country like Russia near the turn of the century was dismal.
The huge amount of accomplishments communism made for Russia(USSR) probably didn’t have to involve anywhere near the amount of suffering…
Except maybe the massive readjustment of population bases. These crop up in all the major communist histories…USSR, China, Cambodia,(Poland under different auspices)...massive peasant kill-offs! Very interesting dynamic of Communism.  Surely not coincidental, probably very beneficial to a planned economic system. Main reason being part of the planning in a Planned Economic system is planning on what to do with the workers(or the excess workers!).

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2011 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  96
Joined  2011-08-05
VYAZMA - 08 August 2011 11:38 AM
mid atlantic - 06 August 2011 07:45 PM

Food for thought.  Communism sounds very dismal.

Unfortunately for many layered reasons communism got off on a really bad foot.
Communism as it was practiced by the Bolsheviks, in a country like Russia near the turn of the century was dismal.
The huge amount of accomplishments communism made for Russia(USSR) probably didn’t have to involve anywhere near the amount of suffering…
Except maybe the massive readjustment of population bases. These crop up in all the major communist histories…USSR, China, Cambodia,(Poland under different auspices)...massive peasant kill-offs! Very interesting dynamic of Communism.  Surely not coincidental, probably very beneficial to a planned economic system. Main reason being part of the planning in a Planned Economic system is planning on what to do with the workers(or the excess workers!).

Some say that Marxism (proletarian dictatorship) failed because it was implemented in wrong countries. Others say that it failed because it was intrinsically bad social engineering. I tend to agree the second point of view. Marxism must be revised, by those who are still promoting it. Soviet experimental data must be studied, not ignored.
.

 Signature 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia), a retired nuclear physicist from New Jersey, USA. A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book: “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is an autobiography based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2011 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

Karl Marx had a few good ideas, but his political theory is based completely on fantasy. People will not willingly give up their dreams, those who contribute more to society deserve better compensation than those who contribute less, and dictatorial leaders will almost always abuse their power. Our capitalistic system has many flaws, but it works a lot better than Marxist philosophy.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2011 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 08 August 2011 11:38 AM
mid atlantic - 06 August 2011 07:45 PM

Food for thought.  Communism sounds very dismal.

Unfortunately for many layered reasons communism got off on a really bad foot.
Communism as it was practiced by the Bolsheviks, in a country like Russia near the turn of the century was dismal.
The huge amount of accomplishments communism made for Russia(USSR) probably didn’t have to involve anywhere near the amount of suffering…
Except maybe the massive readjustment of population bases. These crop up in all the major communist histories…USSR, China, Cambodia,(Poland under different auspices)...massive peasant kill-offs! Very interesting dynamic of Communism.  Surely not coincidental, probably very beneficial to a planned economic system. Main reason being part of the planning in a Planned Economic system is planning on what to do with the workers(or the excess workers!).

  Has communism ever been successful anywhere?  The life of peasants seemed like it stayed the same, or got worse.  The upper classes may have been killed , but then their place was taken by the slightly lower upper class like Lenin, or by brutal slobs like Stalin, or Mao , or Pol.  Maybe the former Yugoslavia under Tito, was a little bit nicer, but as I understand it, Tito had to split ideologically from the Soviet Union in order to be that way. Overall, I think Darron is right; Marx may have had a few decent ideas, but basically Marxism is wishful thinking.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2011 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

What are you judging success by? Longevity?  Communism had a hard road internally and externally!
As fate had it, it couldn’t get hold in Western Europe-France and Germany and Italy. WWI first prevented that, then probably promoted that after the shocking, horrifying end to that first piggish, bloodfest in which the proletariat were sick and tired of being put through the grinder both in labor and war!
It might have had a chance to catch there-it came pretty close.  It wasn’t for lack of trying on The USSR’s part or internal promotion in Germany and France(much of which emanated from USSR).
Then Hitler and WWII. And after that….who was now the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World?  That’s it!  Communism’s days were numbered.
Who knows what would have happened if history had followed a slightly different path?  We might not be speaking so harshly of Communism.
If the entire European “Island” would have went red, I think Communism would have had a different dynamic.  Cooler heads might have prevailed, WWII might have been avoided.
Again how do you measure success?
The US had a revolution 150 or so years earlier than the Reds.  Millions got killed.(Indians).  It was a revolution of liberty…yet thousands of existing slave labor combines were allowed to continue.(and they continued right on into the 20th century)
Now today we have ghettos with literally millions and millions of disenfranchised impoverished people.
This was a country that was rabidly anti-communist.
Whatever the case,  I think all the in-between countries who found a happy medium between communism and capitalism have been better off. It is my belief that ideas and countries like these have been impatiently waiting while the big clowns are romping around destroying the world with their ideological spats. In other words…we could be much farther along now!
Much farther!!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2011 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 09 August 2011 08:50 AM

What are you judging success by? Longevity?  Communism had a hard road internally and externally!
As fate had it, it couldn’t get hold in Western Europe-France and Germany and Italy. WWI first prevented that, then probably promoted that after the shocking, horrifying end to that first piggish, bloodfest in which the proletariat were sick and tired of being put through the grinder both in labor and war!
It might have had a chance to catch there-it came pretty close.  It wasn’t for lack of trying on The USSR’s part or internal promotion in Germany and France(much of which emanated from USSR).
Then Hitler and WWII. And after that….who was now the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World?  That’s it!  Communism’s days were numbered.
Who knows what would have happened if history had followed a slightly different path?  We might not be speaking so harshly of Communism.
If the entire European “Island” would have went red, I think Communism would have had a different dynamic.  Cooler heads might have prevailed, WWII might have been avoided.
Again how do you measure success?
The US had a revolution 150 or so years earlier than the Reds.  Millions got killed.(Indians).  It was a revolution of liberty…yet thousands of existing slave labor combines were allowed to continue.(and they continued right on into the 20th century)
Now today we have ghettos with literally millions and millions of disenfranchised impoverished people.
This was a country that was rabidly anti-communist.
Whatever the case,  I think all the in-between countries who found a happy medium between communism and capitalism have been better off. It is my belief that ideas and countries like these have been impatiently waiting while the big clowns are romping around destroying the world with their ideological spats. In other words…we could be much farther along now!
Much farther!!

I would judge success by lack of misery; Communism seems to go hand in hand with misery.  I think you’re right that “cooler heads” would have prevailed if all of Europe went Commie, but it might just have ended up like the moderate socialism that they have now anyway!

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2011 06:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2010-09-07
DarronS - 08 August 2011 05:32 PM

Karl Marx had a few good ideas, but his political theory is based completely on fantasy. People will not willingly give up their dreams, those who contribute more to society deserve better compensation than those who contribute less, and dictatorial leaders will almost always abuse their power. Our capitalistic system has many flaws, but it works a lot better than Marxist philosophy.

I think Marx’s greatest failing (as far as his theory is concerned) is in overemphasizing the economic roots of inequality at the expense of all the other factors involved. Other than that I beleive he did a pretty good job in analysing the workings and origin of the capitalist system. Granted that virtually all socialist experiments embarked on have been dismal, socialism still has one quality to recommend it: the fact that it entails planning, the want of which has plunged capitalism in the numerous disasters that it has experienced.

P.S. There can’t be any more talk of a truly capitalist state in the true sense of the word. Since the advent of the Keynesian doctrine, capitalist regimes have frequently resorted to socialistic measures in times of crisis.

 Signature 

If you see God, tell Him I’m looking for Him.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2011 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2011-07-07

Bah, the debate against Communism has always been one of populist rhetoric in a Capitalist globe. The truth is that TRUE Communism has never been practiced, and when Lenin died, so did the true Soviet Union. Stalin degraded the word, and left a blood stained legacy to tarnish the ideal for ages. Most Communist nations that claim their legitimacy are indeed Oligarchal hell-holes, but that does not give voice to the common idea that it is unfeasible. Communism had plenty of potential in the Soviet Union, the only reason it turned into what it was known for was because Stalin embarked on a smear and cut campaign of every competent civilian and military administrator.

And even if you decide to ignore that, and use the timeless “But how many nations have practiced it and failed”

Haha, no. How many Capitalist nations have practiced Capitalism and worked?! No, North America and Europe are not the pinnacles of Human society. Africa, for the entirety of it’s Capitalization, is a failed CONTINENT. South America is on the decline over a war raging about a PLANT. Profits over a plant justify both the U.S and narco traffickers intervening in inopportune moments and massacring innocents?!

Capitalism might sustain itself, but that sustainability is marked with far more bloodshed and violence than Communism ever possessed. Stalin’s gulags, Pol Pot’s murder camps, Mao’s cultural revolution, etc…. cannot explain or de-criminalize the systematic slaughter over the millenia that Capitalism has brought to dozens of countries, and millions upon millions of people.  There are far more failed capitalist nations than Communist ones. Population figures are useless, because the reality is that Communism became a popularized tool for dictators in heavily populated/impoverished nations. Lenin and Ho Chi Minh were intriguing exceptions, but Lenin’s dream was crushed by the ambitions of one of his own.

 Signature 

Ignorance and Reason are two sides of the same defunct coin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2011 11:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
QuantumFrost - 09 August 2011 11:20 PM

Bah, the debate against Communism has always been one of populist rhetoric in a Capitalist globe. The truth is that TRUE Communism has never been practiced, and when Lenin died, so did the true Soviet Union. Stalin degraded the word, and left a blood stained legacy to tarnish the ideal for ages. Most Communist nations that claim their legitimacy are indeed Oligarchal hell-holes, but that does not give voice to the common idea that it is unfeasible. Communism had plenty of potential in the Soviet Union, the only reason it turned into what it was known for was because Stalin embarked on a smear and cut campaign of every competent civilian and military administrator.

And even if you decide to ignore that, and use the timeless “But how many nations have practiced it and failed”

Haha, no. How many Capitalist nations have practiced Capitalism and worked?! No, North America and Europe are not the pinnacles of Human society. Africa, for the entirety of it’s Capitalization, is a failed CONTINENT. South America is on the decline over a war raging about a PLANT. Profits over a plant justify both the U.S and narco traffickers intervening in inopportune moments and massacring innocents?!

Capitalism might sustain itself, but that sustainability is marked with far more bloodshed and violence than Communism ever possessed. Stalin’s gulags, Pol Pot’s murder camps, Mao’s cultural revolution, etc…. cannot explain or de-criminalize the systematic slaughter over the millenia that Capitalism has brought to dozens of countries, and millions upon millions of people.  There are far more failed capitalist nations than Communist ones. Population figures are useless, because the reality is that Communism became a popularized tool for dictators in heavily populated/impoverished nations. Lenin and Ho Chi Minh were intriguing exceptions, but Lenin’s dream was crushed by the ambitions of one of his own.

True communism has never been practiced because it doesn’t exist. Communism is unfeasible.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2011 12:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1423
Joined  2010-04-22
mid atlantic - 09 August 2011 11:29 PM

True communism has never been practiced because it doesn’t exist. Communism is unfeasible.

This depends on what you mean by “feasible.” Communism still stands in Cuba, meaning that it does last at least for a while.

Also, it’s quite arguable that some small religious sects of no more than a few hundred people where everyone knows each other are actually communist communities. All it really takes is giving up all wordly possessions to whatever central religious authority exists, and this does happen sometimes.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2011 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2011-07-07

BLARG Communism was never meant to hold a central government as it’s pinnacle. You’re all confusing Communism with Socialism. Communism is an anarchic state in which the workers and other productive members of society control the manufacturing and industrial equipment and factories. It’s more locally organized. Socialism is a state in which the central government provides for the people while the workers control the means of production, and are regulated by the central gov. parliament a.k.a Politburo.

 Signature 

Ignorance and Reason are two sides of the same defunct coin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2011 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
DarronS - 08 August 2011 05:32 PM

Karl Marx had a few good ideas, but his political theory is based completely on fantasy. People will not willingly give up their dreams, those who contribute more to society deserve better compensation than those who contribute less, and dictatorial leaders will almost always abuse their power. Our capitalistic system has many flaws, but it works a lot better than Marxist philosophy.

I think this is spot on. Although I believe it can and has worked in very small communities. I can’t see it ever working at the level of a nation or even a large region. It has to be something people can choose to opt in or out of, IMHO.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2011 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
FreeInKy - 10 August 2011 09:40 AM
DarronS - 08 August 2011 05:32 PM

Karl Marx had a few good ideas, but his political theory is based completely on fantasy. People will not willingly give up their dreams, those who contribute more to society deserve better compensation than those who contribute less, and dictatorial leaders will almost always abuse their power. Our capitalistic system has many flaws, but it works a lot better than Marxist philosophy.

I think this is spot on. Although I believe it can and has worked in very small communities. I can’t see it ever working at the level of a nation or even a large region. It has to be something people can choose to opt in or out of, IMHO.

  You can’t let people choose Freeinkee, because they always end up doing what they want! tongue wink

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2011 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4573
Joined  2007-08-31
FreeInKy - 10 August 2011 09:40 AM

I can’t see it ever working at the level of a nation or even a large region.

As I can’t see it with any other system… Look what is happening in the USA now with the Republicans and the tea party! And by the way, in Switzerland too.

Democracy is wearing out in many countries, because many people forget that democracy is more than somehow getting a majority of votes. It means:

- equal treatment of all citizens
- always look for the interest of minorities
- conform to the human rights
- separation of powers
- etc.

Churchill’s ‘bonmot’:

democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1