Edrico, which type of communism do you support?

[SurlyPIG]

ACE, seeing your reaction to his sig, I was curious: what do you think about movements like anarchism? Also, do you know them?

Huh? I'm not aware of any significant anarchistic 'movements' at the moment. Are you accusing me of blurting withoug knowledge?

[Edric O]

Marx's original use of the word is dead to me. Perhaps not in the word 'communism' but when I hear communist, I think Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev and everyone up to Gorbachev.

Well, Ace, that's your problem. (no rudeness intended)

I am a communist, and I will not have the name of my cause usurped by disgusting traitors like Stalin. We communists generally refer to Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev & co. as "stalinists", or "red fascists".

[Caid Ivik]

Kruschev (how amazingly you spell it ;D ) was a stalinist? He turns in grave now. I can say he was just a less radical communist. Other commies were fanatical and impatient, so they tried to set the "rule of proletariate" too quickly, so it turned into a tyranny.

[Egeides]

ACE, seeing your reaction to his sig, I was curious: what do you think about movements like anarchism? Also, do you know them?

Huh? I'm not aware of any significant anarchistic 'movements' at the moment. Are you accusing me of blurting withoug knowledge?

ACE, heck, look at the movements that are going up presently! All movement has its more "weird" parts, some of them being violent, and the anti-liberalism protests we have have a serious rising of anarchists that forms a part of the "harder/harsher league" of "anti-mondialisation". Not all anarchists are windows breaker and so on but they DO include these people (communism does too). Why? Simply because it is an ideology that has some of its thinkers that push forward the idea of combat which is not necessarily always pacific.

Of course, we should never forget all the less known (and less evident on TV) that are totally pacific and maybe form even more people (no idea).

Personally, I have a problem with anarchism. They say that a good social structure would be a structure without a government, okay. But in fact it is a inherent to humans to ORGANIZE thus forming governments. You may call them whattever you want but it will be the equivalent!! Thus the stronger will be the one that organizes the best and maybe just takes over the other anarchist places around... Anyway, at least they are people of good will that believe in their ideas and are ready to act for them.

[Caid Ivik]

Altough I think anarchy is a nonsense nearly same as marxism, if you have any problems, see this:

http://www.csaf.cz/stara_verze/english/memorandum.htm

http://www.csaf.cz/stara_verze/english/manifest.htm

[Edric O]

The problem with anarchy is that it means, in essence, to go back to a prehistoric form of organization. That's all nice and pretty, but the problem is that our own present-day governments arised from that same prehistoric form of government.

So if we instituted anarchy everywhere right now, in some 5000 years we'll be right back at capitalism.

The difference between anarchy and marxism is that anarchy advocates going BACK to a better society, while marxism advocates going FORWARD to a better society.

As for Kruschev (we spell his name Hrusciov in Romanian), you are correct about the fact that he was a sworn enemy of iron-fist stalinism, and he would have taken extreme offense in being compared with the likes of Stalin. Kruschev was one of the 3 great leaders of the Soviet Union who genuinely believed in communism and tried to build a better world. They were Lenin, Kruschev and Gorbachev. But all 3 failed. Lenin died too quickly, Kruschev was too conservative and didn't do enough, and Gorbachev was simply too late.

However, despite Kruschev's hatred for stalinism, the fact remains that he couldn't (or more likely didn't want to) do away with the oppressive party and dictatorial government. That is why he remained a stalinist himself, albeit a slightly more liberal one.

[Caid Ivik]

It would be nice if all will live in small town-states with not more than 1000 citizens, just it's unreal. I can say it's like a primitive and more socialistic form of Aristoteles' work (how is it ironical he became a mastermind of one of the largest empires ever ;D ).

We spell him Chruščov (I don't know if you see letters in middle (soft "s" and "c"), in original russian alphabet it was "uu,"). What he really wanted, I don't know. But it's sure his main goal was to make USSR a first-class nuclear superpower, what he achieved. Brutal attack on Hungary after Imre Nagy's reforms are, however, putting blood on his ideas. He tried to open the Party for other people. Just the main problems were unsolved (human rights). Problem of human rights is the hardest in communism. Lenin did nothing for it. Some boyars of czaristic "samoderzavie" at least tried to care over their people. When Party arised, they first cared for state (which became de facto one with the Party) - by erarization of all valuable property.

[nemafakei]

That is a 'shch'.

Ususal English is Khrushchev.

[Davidu]

Hrusciov, Khrushcev, etc. It's nice to see a "culture clash". Each guy writes that name in his own language.

Fortunately we all now who we're talking about.

[nemafakei]

Unicode should be compulsory! And if the forum code doesn't support it, we should learn it! Ok, perhaps not