The Berlin Wall

[Zhukov]

You're right in part with your first caustic comment. How many people HAVE read every single god damn volume of Das Kapital? How many of those few have grasped even part of it? The point of it is that people are disenchanted with how things are being run, and might make a comment like "Marx is still valid!" without meaning anything beyond "Fuck this shit".

"No material comforts" means that they didn't have a huge choice at the supermarket, or many TV shows to watch, or fashionable clothes. "didn't have to worry about money" means they didn't have to worry about not being able to make rent, or put food on the table, he doesn't mean that he had shit loads of money to buy mink coats and fast cars.

No there was no unemployment in the USSR. Of course there were people that must have fallen through the net, or lived outside the control of the government, but everyone that existed in documents and in files was given a job.


The blacksmith isn't complaining about not having a job. The guy is retired and complaining on behalf of everyone else. Maybe he doesn't get much pension, either.

Personally I'd rather be in a greedy capitalist society than a greedy communist one

Personally you haven't experienced both. East Germans have.

As far as a non greedy capitalist system goes... well if YOU had read all of Marx then you would know that by it's VERY NATURE capitalism has to be greedy to survive. I guess the closest thing would be the social democracies in Scandinavia, but that's just government and policies, rather than socio-economic structure.

Now, nobody can live in a communist society right now. It can't happen because people aren't ready for it. Socialism is the first step. Communism is a stateless society without money or classes, it's anarchy. Anarchists want it right away, Socialists want socialism first so that society can learn to live that way. Socialism (that "golden age") is where the state and it's means of production are run by everyone, rather than the oligarchy seen in the USSR. The Soviet Union never claimed that it was/is/reached commmunism, that's just a label used by the filthy west, although they did claim socialism, which you can take with as many grains of salt as when the USA says it is for Freedom and Democracy. When someone says they are a communist, it means that they want that to happen. The communist international was called that because it supposed to lead towards communism, not actually BE it. Karl Marx had never seen a "totalitarian communist government" so he couldn't give a criticism of it, but I'm sure he would understand that to be labeled such a thing would be a pretty big contradiction. Trotsky gave a critique and they put an ice pick in his head.

[kahljorn]

No there was no unemployment in the USSR

http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/...i4p613-32.html
?

means they didn't have to worry about not being able to make rent, or put food on the table

lol this doesn't sound anything like the USSR I've learned about (especially as far as food goes), but I'm sure you would know more about it than me. I always thought there was a lot of poverty there, but the people who are writing about communism act like its great for everybody.
Maybe it was different if you were one of the ethnic minorities?

Personally you haven't experienced both. East Germans have.

Only a percentage of them. A lot of old people in our country think THA OLD WAYS ARE BEST.

Karl Marx had never seen a "totalitarian communist government" so he couldn't give a criticism of it, but I'm sure he would understand that to be labeled such a thing would be a pretty big contradiction.

Karl Marx didn't see a communist or socialist government without totalitarianism either, yet he commented on them.
If i replace the word totalitarianism with authoritarianism will this be more obvious?

Karl Marx's magical transformation was basically described as this: SHITTHATISNOW(MAYBE CAPITALISM OR SOMETHING) -- TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM -- NON TOTALITARIAN COMMUNISM.

here's something from wikipedia since i can't find much else without reading a bunch of crap..:
Historical periodisation

Marx considered that these socio-economic conflicts have historically manifested themselves as distinct stages (one transitional) of development in Western Europe.[11]

1. Primitive Communism: as in co-operative tribal societies.
2. Slave Society: a development of tribal progression to city-state; Aristocracy is born.
3. Feudalism: aristocrats are the ruling class; merchants evolve into capitalists.
4. Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the true working class.
5. Dictatorship of the proletariat: workers gain class consciousness, and via proletarian revolution depose the capitalists to assume control of a socialist state.
6. Communism: a classless and stateless society.

Short of magic its difficult to imagine a communist society without some form of totalitarianism. Everybody has to be obedient to the state and its laws and rules or it wont work. People can't choose their own job and choose to live beyond their means.
Really even in the classless and stateless society people are just going to have a form of self-inflicted authoritarianism.

[Zhukov]

totalitarianism and authoritarianism are where one person, or a group of un-elected people run every aspect of people's lives.

I disagree with you about needing that to reach a communist society, it's the total opposite I think. As for the rest.. it's 2:30 am. I'll get back to you.