generic image
Processing...
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
  • Search in Players
  • Search in Games
  • Search in Catalog
  • Search in Groups
  • Search in Library
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
   
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Global Chat
Home Search
 

Re: Crazy Stalinist party in England

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
10 Feb 2014 07:10 PM
Here are some excerpts from the party platform / party newspaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist,) or CPGB-ML.

"Under the guidance offered by the teachings of Marx, Lenin, and their disciples, socialism liberated fully one third of the world's territory. We believe that these teachings, and the experiences of a quarter of humanity who have known the benefit of living in socialist societies free from capitalist exploitation and oppression, hold the key to achieving a secure, meaningful, cultured, and productive life for all.

We support socialist countries, both those that are newly emerging and those that were able to fend weather the counter-revolutionary tide of 1989."

on Syria:

"As the leaders of the Nato imperialist alliance meet for their Chicago summit, the question of how to step up the all but declared war against Syria and its progressive government is doubtless high on the agenda.

For 15 months, this heroic and dignified Arab nation has faced a relentless campaign of destabilisation, ranging from media demonisation and crippling sanctions to terrorist bombings that have targeted civilians and the military alike, backed by imperialist special forces and other foreign aggressors.

In the face of this onslaught, the latest instalment of the imperialist blitzkrieg that has already laid waste to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other states in the region, the Syrian people and their leadership have stood firm, combining commendable resolve with a magnanimous willingness to make sometimes painful concessions in order to bring about a peaceful solution and relieve the people’s suffering."

on North Korea:

"Free medical care, free housing, full employment, free education and safety for your children. These things are desired by all working people – and they are being achieved for people in north Korea in spite of US aggression and economic sanctions.

Despite the further stepping up of sanctions at the time of writing, the achievements listed above, unattainable for ordinary people in even the richest imperialist nations, were clear to the CPGB-ML’s delegation during its recent visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

Our party’s delegation was privileged to spend a week in the DPRK at the invitation of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) in the early part of September this year. In a short time we were able to have very valuable discussions with our hosts (as reported in the last issue of Proletarian), and we were also able to visit many places in Pyongyang and outside it that gave us a huge amount of information about the country’s cultural, educational and historical development since the US-led aggression against the north was defeated in 1953.

From the very outset, we were impressed by the beauty of north Korea and the fact that this beauty is allowed to flourish because Korea is a socialist country. Indeed, part of that beauty comes from the obvious unity and determination of a people in the process of building socialism.

Driving into Pyongyang from the airport, we were immediately struck by the clean air, lack of billboards exhorting one to purchase the latest variation of Coca-Cola or washing powder, and a countryside tended and cared for, from roadside flowers to irrigated rice fields, by a population actively participating in the construction of a new society. In short, the difference in the quality of life for ordinary people between imperialist Britain and socialist Korea was immediately apparent. "

On Gaddafi:

"The CPGB-ML calls for support for the Libyan government in its fight to crush attempts to take control of Libyan oil out of the hands of the Libyan people.

We must resist attempts by foreign powers, especially western imperialists, who, in the interests of gaining control over its oil resources, want to Balkanise Libya, or to turn it into a client state and a base for attacking the democratic movements now surging in the rest of the Arab world and Africa.

Attempts by the imperialist media to portray the Libyan government in the same light as those of the puppet dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain are totally fraudulent, as are attempts to depict the opponents of the Libyan regime as rising up in the interests of freedom alongside the peoples of those Arab countries that are clients of western imperialism.

To compare Libya with Tunisia, Egypt or Bahrain is to compare chalk with cheese. To start with, Libya has a standard of living comparable to Britain's - one of the highest in Africa. Not bad for a country that in 1951 was officially the poorest in the world.

Yes, Libya has acquired oil wealth since then, but this does not lead automatically to a high standard of living for the population: one has only to look at Nigeria or Equatorial Guinea, where the exploitation of oil resources has led to a dramatic fall in general living standards.

Under the Gaddafi regime in Libya, women have gained full legal equality with men. Everybody has enough food on the table and every Libyan is provided with decent rent-free housing, has free access to good quality health care and to education services. This is hardly the situation in those countries of the Arab world that meet with imperialist approval!"
Report Abuse
Gordielad is not online. Gordielad
Joined: 02 Apr 2012
Total Posts: 585
10 Feb 2014 07:16 PM
they have my vote111
Report Abuse
GladiatorChampion is not online. GladiatorChampion
Joined: 31 May 2012
Total Posts: 597
10 Feb 2014 07:17 PM
[ Content Deleted ]
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
11 Feb 2014 10:13 AM
NO!

I will vote only for Marxist parties, or Labour!
Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
11 Feb 2014 11:33 AM
Dear BCGP-ML

1) If you have a computer with which to create this website, you have materials other than your labour power. You are thus not proletariat. Stop calling yourselves proletarians.

2) You don't have to support despotic regimes to be a communist. Nor do you have to use a dead language from a dead origin. Be accesible. You obviously don't believe what you say. This is your only way of falsifying a sense of belongingness.

3) Stay away from Madiba, he was not even a communist :'(! He respected the SACP, because they had a common goal of equality and they were 'the only people who treated us like human beings'. But his primary goal was equality and democracy and he had no strong political views other than that. You support North Korea. So stahp.

I'm a huge leftist but what is that website? Sorry, but seriously ;_;..



Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:02 PM
@re

This IS a Marxist party. Marxist-leninist to be exact. Why don't you vote for them?
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
11 Feb 2014 02:03 PM
ISn't Marxist-Leninist combining both Marxism and Leninism...
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:03 PM
Yes. So therefore it's a type of marxism.
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
11 Feb 2014 02:12 PM
@Mid,

I detest other forms of Communism except Marxism. Even Marxist-Leninist.
Report Abuse
DarakkenVonGray is not online. DarakkenVonGray
Joined: 23 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 1750
11 Feb 2014 02:13 PM
BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH.
commies and their silly principles
#hypocritical-irony
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:14 PM
But you're aware Marxism-Leninism is a type of Marxism, yes? It combines the theories of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
11 Feb 2014 02:17 PM
Mid, I made my point clear. I detest any other parts of Communism.

I only like Marxism.

Now, please respect my wishes as I respect yours.
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:19 PM
But Marxism encompasses many ideologies, such as Marxism-Leninism.
Report Abuse
JamesGalt is not online. JamesGalt
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Total Posts: 13607
11 Feb 2014 02:21 PM
the Communist Party of Great Britain hasn't existed since 1991.
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
11 Feb 2014 02:22 PM
Mid, I made my point now..
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:23 PM
@james

I am talking about the new and modern Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist.) It was founded in 2004 after splitting from the Socialist Labour Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain_(Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist)
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:26 PM
@re

No, you haven't. You say you only like Marxism, but yet you don't like Marxism Leninism despite it being a type of Marxism. If you want to have a discussion and refute my claim that it is a type of Marxism, we can do that. But you're not doing that; you're just repeating what you said earlier despite my objection to it. You have not answered my objection.
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
11 Feb 2014 02:30 PM
Mid, what you are saying, sounds like this;

"Blah blah blah, Marxist-Leninist blah blah blah."

I get the point.
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:36 PM
@re

Apparently not, as you have failed to refute my point as I have done with yours.

> CPGB-ML is Marxist-Leninist
> You only support Marxism, but don't support CPGB-ML
> Marxism-Leninism is still Marxism

Marxism-Leninism is the combination of Marxism and Leninism. The definition of Marxism is as follows:

the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

You can argue about how well later communist leaders implemented this, but it describes their views well. Particularly the necessity of class struggle, labor theory of value, and dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marxism-Leninism is defined as:

An expanded form of Marxism that emphasizes Lenin's concept of imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifts the focus of struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.

From this, we can gather that Marxism-Leninism is still a type of Marxism, albeit one that has been modified slightly. You could argue Marxism was the theory, and Lenin merely used practical methods to implement that theory.
Report Abuse
re567 is not online. re567
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4550
11 Feb 2014 02:40 PM
Mid, I told you. I hate Marxist-Leninist.

If you want to keep on flaming me, you're just wasting your time.
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
11 Feb 2014 02:42 PM
So you're completely ignoring my arguments? You say you only like Marxism. But for the fifth or so time, I have told you that Marxism-Leninism is STILL Marxism.

I am not flaming you; I am fairly calmly discussing this with you. It seems to be a very one-sided discussion as you don't seem to even be reading my posts and just assuming I was flaming you.
Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
12 Feb 2014 11:44 AM
Sorreh, just goign to boing into your conversation :)

I have to agree with Midymyst, though. He's just civilly disagreeing with you. On the other hand, you are sort of right. Whilst he was sort of following Marx's outline for the revolution, a lot of their views contrasted.

1) Marx said that the revolution had to happen in an industrial, wealthy country, so that each person could be able to take according to their needs and abilities. Lenin ignored this

Oh, cool website :D

following the news of the Bolshevik coup, the Socialist Standard (official organ of the Socialist Party of Great Britain) wrote:

"Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160 million and spread over eight and a half million of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the north, the struggling peasant proprietors of the south, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces and the wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity for, and equipped with the knowledge requisite for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life? Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place or an economic change immensely more rapidly than history has ever recorded, the answer is 'NO!'"(August 1918).

Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
12 Feb 2014 11:48 AM
2) He established state capitalism. But permanently. Too much, and the government still said this was okay with Karl Marx's.. ghost...

3) He did not believe in communism without leaders. Communism is fundamentally an anarchy.

4) "Socialism, he affirmed, would be achieved by a band of revolutionaries at the head of a discontented but non-socialist-conscious working class. The Bolshevik "revolution" was a classic example of Leninist thinking; in fact it was a coup d'état carried out by professional revolutionaries and based on the populist slogan, "Peace, Land and Bread". Socialism was not on offer, nor could it have been."

5) "Lenin and his Bolsheviks wrongly thought their Russian coup would spark off similar revolts in Western Europe and, especially, in Germany. Not only was this a monumental political error, but it was based on Lenin's erroneous perception of socialism and his belief that his distorted conceptions could be imposed on the working class of Western Europe which was, generally, better politically organised and more sophisticated than the people of Russia."

Okayz. Hope that makes re's point a bit clearer for you.



Report Abuse
diamondmark is not online. diamondmark
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 1779
12 Feb 2014 11:52 AM
I don't know why they bunched the two up into a word. So they were all communists. Their views remain separate. Marxism-Pol Potism would not go down too well, but they were both communists too ._.
Report Abuse
Midmyst is not online. Midmyst
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 4803
12 Feb 2014 02:59 PM
1) Marx said that the revolution had to happen in an industrial, wealthy country, so that each person could be able to take according to their needs and abilities. Lenin ignored this

This is legitimate difference between Marxism and Leninism. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that Marx did not have much experience in leading a revolution, so he did not know where it would happen. Lenin ignored Marx and adapted socialism to fit the developing countries and monarchies. Marxism was a theory, while Leninism was just adapting Marxism for the real world.

2) He established state capitalism. But permanently. Too much, and the government still said this was okay with Karl Marx's.. ghost...

However, Lenin intended this to be a temporary thing until full communism could be established. I don't see this as being inconsistent with Marxism.

3) He did not believe in communism without leaders. Communism is fundamentally an anarchy.

This would describe the end state of communism, but before communism comes socialism. Marx supported, as Lenin, a period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Marx: "Above all, during and immediately after the struggle the workers, as far as it is at all possible, must oppose bourgeois attempts at pacification and force the democrats to carry out their terroristic phrases. They must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement is not suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible.
Far from opposing the so-called excesses—instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated—the workers' party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction."

Lenin: "The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won, and maintained, by the use of violence, by the proletariat, against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.""

4) "Socialism, he affirmed, would be achieved by a band of revolutionaries at the head of a discontented but non-socialist-conscious working class. The Bolshevik "revolution" was a classic example of Leninist thinking; in fact it was a coup d'état carried out by professional revolutionaries and based on the populist slogan, "Peace, Land and Bread". Socialism was not on offer, nor could it have been."

Let's look at this excerpt from marxists
.
org.

"The Marxist theory of the vanguard, in relation to class struggle under capitalism, holds that the working class (the mass) needs to be militantly lead through revolutionary struggle against capitalism and in the building of Socialism. The Communist vanguard is made up of those who are in the forefront of workers' struggle, engaged in struggles against the capitalist state and the management of the firms which are “branches” of the ruling class.

An early archetypal implementation of the Marxist vanguard was formed in the Russian Revolution, namely, the Bolshevik party. Shortly before the revolution, the Bolsheviks made their position clear: "All power to the Soviets". Since the soviets were progressive representatives of the Russian masses, the Bolsheviks knew the Soviets would follow the Socialist path. In short course however, after the onset of the civil war, the Soviets were suppressed by both the Red and White Armies – their diversity was such that, at times they sympathised with either side."

So Marxism seems to allow the vangaurdist views of Lenin and even encourage it. While Marx himself may not have written much on the idea of the vanguard; this can be attributed to the theory/practice distinction I made earlier.
Engels also had this quote, which seems to imply he thought a vanguard movement needed to educate workers on socialism.

"The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul.
The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work that we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair."

However, we might be able to make a difference based on how large or small both Marxists and Leninists wanted the party to be. Leninists of course wanted a very small party. Not sure on Marxists.

5) "Lenin and his Bolsheviks wrongly thought their Russian coup would spark off similar revolts in Western Europe and, especially, in Germany. Not only was this a monumental political error, but it was based on Lenin's erroneous perception of socialism and his belief that his distorted conceptions could be imposed on the working class of Western Europe which was, generally, better politically organised and more sophisticated than the people of Russia."

Could you clarify a bit how this makes Marxism-Leninism opposed to Marxism?

>Okayz. Hope that makes re's point a bit clearer for you.

It did; thanks. :) From what I read, I have gathered that while Leninism and Marxism might be different, most of the differences are about theory vs practice. Lenin modified parts for practical use of Marxism while keeping the chunk of it - the revolution, the labor theory of value, the nationalization and worker ownership, the dictatorship of the proletariat; that stuff. So they combine very well into Marxism-Leninism.
Report Abuse
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1
 
 
ROBLOX Forum » Club Houses » Global Chat
   
 
   
  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Blog
  • Parents
  • Help
  • Terms
  • Privacy

©2017 Roblox Corporation. Roblox, the Roblox logo, Robux, Bloxy, and Powering Imagination are among our registered and unregistered trademarks in the U.S. and other countries.



Progress
Starting Roblox...
Connecting to Players...
R R

Roblox is now loading. Get ready to play!

R R

You're moments away from getting into the game!

Click here for help

Check Remember my choice and click Launch Application in the dialog box above to join games faster in the future!

Gameplay sponsored by:
Loading 0% - Starting game...
Get more with Builders Club! Join Builders Club
Choose Your Avatar
I have an account
generic image