Unions, Lenin, and the American Way (Part I)
My earlier article “Obama the Pitchfork Operator: A Remake of the Soviet Classic” pointed out the similarities between Obama’s and Stalin’s methods of governing by pitting unions against businesses. Many readers have emailed me asking to write more and compare the roles of the unions under socialism (as it existed in the USSR) and capitalism (as it exists in the USA). This essay is an expanded response to their questions.
The “card-check” debates in the U.S. Congress reminded me of my own experiences with trade unions in the USSR, where organized labor was part of the official establishment and union membership was universal and mandatory. It also reminded me of how that system’s seemingly magnanimous goals — fairness, economic equality, and social justice — in real life brought forth a rigged game of wholesale corruption, forced inequality, and grotesque injustice.
Years later, the same Orwellian misnomers are catching up with me in America. One of them is called the “Employee Free Choice Act” — a piece of legislation that deprives workers of free choice by replacing private balloting with publicly signed cards in the presence of pushy union organizers. Bad as it is, card check is only a means to a larger end. Proponents of “redistributive justice” would love nothing more than to use a forced expansion of labor unions as a vehicle to deliver America straight into a utopian swamp, where they will gain extraordinary powers while the rest of the nation will be doomed to repeat the Soviet scenario of slow death from social, economic, and moral decay.
Defeating the card-check bill alone will not affect the ideology that has spawned it, just as curing a symptom of a disease will not remove the infection. It is the ideology that we must address and learn to recognize in its various manifestations.
No matter where I worked in the USSR, I was always a union member without so much as a formal notice — starting with the student union in college and then on to whatever union was assigned to the state-run enterprise that hired me, regardless of the job description. The only indicators of this one-sided relationship were monthly union dues, automatically deducted from my measly wages. It was like paying alimony for a fling I never had. To be fair, in the early 80s, I did go on a union-subsidized one-week tour of Uzbekistan — mostly because a friend knew someone at the union office who owed him a favor. But that was it.
Every time I visited a union office in the USSR, I saw the same prominently displayed poster: “Trade unions are a school of communism — V.I. Lenin.”
At the time it seemed like a sweeping exaggeration, similar to other Lenin gems like “communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country,” which any student of arithmetic could reformulate as “Soviet power is communism minus the electrification.” But recent events in American politics have made me wonder whether the union movement might actually be all that Lenin’s quote implies and more — a school, a workshop, and a gateway to communism.
Ideologically, both unionists and communists share the slogan of “economic equality and justice” — two incompatible concepts, given that just rewards make people economically unequal, while forced economic equality leads to great injustice. The pursuit of these contradictory goals in real life results in a dreary outcome. Since absolute equality is unattainable for reasons we will discuss later, forcing it on a society only replaces natural inequality with forced inequality. In this sense, the difference between the two movements is in their radius: communists fancy a forced “economic equality and justice” for all, while the unions limit it to the select group composed of their members.
Although the early 20 century American unions were a legitimate response to the unbridled oppression of workers by totally powerful corporations, by the time the American Communist Party was formed in 1919, their goal was to organize and control the growth of the union movement to pursue the Leninist
plan for a world-wide Communist revolution The CP was successful in the building of the CIO in the Thirties and greatly influenced their political life.
Their was a ongoing debate between Marx and Engels in mid-ninteenth century regarding the tactics of communist activities in the Trade Unions in Europe. Should the purpose of “Vanguard of the Working Class” be to fight for petty improvements in working conditions and wages or to educate the workers about class struggle and fight for Socialism?
One hundred years later in 1947 when I was working as a Communist cadre at a well-known perfume plant who’s union leadership was Party dominated, we had a replay of that Marx/Engels debate.
We had a cell meeting of the Party members that worked in the company to discuss the upcoming union negotiation. Still the naive idealist, I was amazed to find the President of the company as a quest. He was addressed by the other members as “Comrade”.
I reported to the group that the workers in the factory were expecting considerable wage increases, but the consensus was that the company could not afford that right now and beside, we are not there to gain “nickel and dime benefits” but to build the union and educate the workers.
Sixty-three years later Our leader,Barack Obama is aware of the usefullness of the Unions as an ally in the march toward Collectivist Socialism.
What more would you expect out of Obama. He is a full blown Marxist, anything other than running the country like a communist would be unforgivable in the eyes of his masters.
“common good” as an excuse for voter fraud, coercion, intimidation, and diverting membership fees to support anti-business policies
EXCELLENT WRITING OLEG
…unfortunately “inequality or death” doesn’t sell on a tee-shirt.
Oleg I am sure you know that the socialists/marxsits have controlled the school system in most american schools for well over a generation. NOW a lost generation or more are wandering around …you can see some of them commenting on these sites …the vivo,jharp, now and again, BC etc. they will be our jailers.
still I am somewhat optimistic …because with all the resources the marxsits have put into this they still have not been able to gain more then a fleeting 50% of the population.
good luck Oleg …keep writing
“[U]nbridled oppression of workers by totally powerful corporations.” What tripe. Workers had the option of taking their labor elsewhere. Except where government imposes its will on one group or another (e.g. chattel slavery or government supported monopoly) you have no case whatsoever.
This series looks to be very interesting btw.
…obama gave the unions the best deal on the car manufacturers bailout.
…obama is neck deep in the corruption called acorn.
…obama is distancing himself and foriegn policy from our traditional democratic allies.
…obama is destroying capitalism purposefully (I don’t think he is so stupid as to do it unaware)(I don’t consider him to be particularly intelligent)
…he is abandoning the fight in afganistan. (for those who think otherwise …his vacilation shows the enemy they win as will don’t have the will to keep going)
…it is obvious to ANY free thinking person that marxsism is obama’s goal …or maybe that of his wife (I think she is as bad or worse for america)
Mr.Atbashian, you really do need to get into the habit of checking you information before you right about something. Seriously, you sound like a right-wing version of Moore. Anyway there’s no comparison to union activity in the USA verses the former USSR. The reason being is that the former USSR was not a socialist contry, it was a communist contry. The two ecomonic models are not the same. Socialism relies on democracy and communism does not. Finally, being anti-union is not just anti-American, it’s also anti-democratic. Afterall organized labor is just the workplace version of the a legislture. You don’t want Article One of the Constitution repealed do you?
health care reform will if passed create a super union.
Dear Mr. Independant (sic),
Communism is a subset of socialism.
“Socialism relies on democracy and communism does not.”
Social democracies are socialist, but feed on capitalism parasitically to fund the state. It is ultimately self-defeating, which is why countries like Germany must eventually make cuts in spending and taxes.
I believe that the largest, most powerful unions now are those in government. President Kennedy allowed government workers to unionize, although government workers are really part of the management as citizens and workers. These government unions use union dues to support political parties, in particular, the Democratic Party.
8. Anthony
you are correct …unfortunately it is ideology for the socialist. truth is not part of their vocabulary.
conservatives have been ignoring the socialists since it didn’t affect them dramatically. this has now changed and the more they get (socialist) the more they want and people who want freedom see that they have quietly been pushed to the abyss and now clearly are seeing the consequenses.
Mr. Pendant, Inde:
You do need to get into the habit of reading the article before you make a comment. Let me repeat this paragraph just for you:
“This is not an anti-union argument. To call it anti-union, one has to believe that a union’s main purpose is to siphon the nation’s wealth to its members. Or that the unions were created to provide logistical support to leftist radicals in their struggle for power. My argument is quite the opposite: since such overreaching by the unions is self-destructive and ultimately hurts the workers, ridding the unions of inappropriate functions and alliances would benefit everyone — the society, the workers, and even the unions themselves.”
Also the communist adage “unions are the transmission belt between the proletariat and the leadership” shows pretty well how the communist ideal world would work -
6. Mr. Independant: “Mr.Atbashian, you really do need to get into the habit of checking you information before you right about something. Seriously, you sound like a right-wing version of Moore.”
Are you kidding? He makes Michael Moore sound like Walter Cronkite. In other words, he fits right into PJM.
13 bileblio44
i do agree …michael moore is more like walter cronkite …and like you.
a useful idiot. not useful like you can fix a car or do your plumbing
My dad was a union man. I was not, as part of the military, but I am now a union guy in my current job. I agree with what my dad used to say, “workers do not create unions, poor management does.”
I also, have to agree with my more conservative friends that, in many cases, the unions are no longer relevant. However, those of us from working class backgrounds owe the unions a great deal.
The movement is on and the goal is becoming more apparent every day. Build civil forces that could force reform to a truly communist or Fascist form after the so called “Democratic Party” finishes destroying the economyb and brings about the collapse of America.
It may be possible to push back on the attemp to Unionize” the American work force. Just set up policies in your business that will not accept union workers. This of course woulod have to happen before “Card Check” passes.
Dear Anthony and Red Square,
You obviously don’t understand the concept of the point I was making regarding the article above. So let me try again. When you write about the pitfalls of socialism (and despite your lack of understand of the concept, there are many), it is inappropriate to compare those negative effects to the USSR. Once again the reason being is that the USSR was a communist country not a socialist one. It would be similar to comparing the economic abilities of the USA and present-day China. Even though China is ruled by the Communist party of China, it is a fascist country not a communist one. Both have capitalist economies but the USA is a democracy and China is a dictatorship. I don’t know how to make this point any simpler. So for those of you who just repeat phases you’ve only heard about, understand that socialism is NOT a subset of communism or visa versa. It would be similar to saying that capitalism and feudalism is a subset of communism since both are part of the progression espoused in Marxism. Finally, my comment regarding Oleg Atbashian’s anti-union attitude was not about the above article but simply a comment on anti-union attitudes in general which I consider both anti-American and anti democratic.
14. homero: “13 bileblio44 i do agree …michael moore is more like walter cronkite …and like you.”
Why thank you, hom-boy. And I’m sorry about the trouble you’re having with your car and your plumbing.
Before I retired I was a statewide elected union official working in the private sector. I was also President of my Local for 4 terms, union delegate, union steward, and various other positions. It may surprise some folks here, but I strongly disagree with unionization of public employees and card check.
The original understanding was that public workers had job security pretty much for life, and in return they agreed to not unionize. Because if public employees went on strike it would hurt everyone, not just one company. Further, elected officials find it very easy to give away public monies in order to avoid being trashed every day by strikers. After all, it’s not their own money they’re handing out. It’s yours and mine.
But unions always push for more. You can’t blame them. The result is that public workers are paid almost 50% more than equivalent private sector workers, plus they get much better benefits. Now they’re pushing for card check.
I’ve been a union organizer, and I understand exactly what’s going on here. When a new employee was hired, it was my job to sign him up in the union. I had all the arguments: you don’t have to be a union member. But our contract with the company requires you to pay dues as a condition of employment. Why give up the right to vote on contract issues, or for officers, or for your union steward, if you have to pay equivalent dues anyway? Non-members can’t vote in union elections.
Those arguments would get most folks to sign up. But some always resisted. How to get them to join? The really effective way was to have several of us befriend the new hire. We would be extra friendly – and then we’d put the peer pressure on. “C’mon, we’re counting on you. We really need your help.” Etc.
That almost always worked. And it will work with card check. Isolating someone and surrounding him with a group of friendly, persistent employees will get results: sign the paper here and everything’s fine. You’re our friend! Don’t sign, and you won’t be able to count on us for anything. Watch your back. The easy way is to sign up.
With card check most all companies will be forced to accept a union. Peer pressure works. Really well. And you don’t have to get them all. All you need is 50% + 1. With card check you’re not in a voting booth marking a secret ballot, like it is now. Everyone will know if you’ve signed.
But making it so easy to organize a union in every company will certainly hurt America. It will make us much less competitive – at just the time when we need to be more competitive because of a rising China, India, Brazil, etc. It’s a world economy. 40% of what you buy now comes from China. And there is no doubt that a union saps a company’s energy. I’ve seen it. We spent 90% of our time defending the 2% of employees who would have been fired by any non-unionized company.
Card check would make it way too easy to unionize every little mom and pop business. It gives far too much power to one side at the expense of the other. It must be resisted, for the sake of our international competitiveness. Which matters. A lot.
bilebilio44
when you learn to comprehend reading, you will understand what I said.
…incidently I can fix my car and plumbing when and if I need too.
I don’t need a community organiser to do it.
say hello to michael moore for me.
19. Mr. Hoffa:
where did they bury you ?
just kidding ..who said he was buried anyway.
you are one of the few union people to speak so candidly …I have always known what you say having been on both sides of the fence (closed shop and management)
what surprises me most is that this is happening in america …venezuela I understand ..the USA I don’t.
RE #6 Independent & #13 biblio44: “Mr.Atbashian, you really do need to get into the habit of checking you information before you right about something. Seriously, you sound like a right-wing version of Moore.” [...]
Inde & biblio44 – you two are a perfect illustration of liberal arrogant imbecility (Inde’s “before you right about” is telling also about the sludge of illiteracy you wallow in).
You’d howl and moo in ecstasy for days after reading about Rigoberta’s or Tutu’s imaginary passions at the hands of whatever imaginary enemy they might had, yet when it comes to Soviet Union or other former communist countries’ abuses you suddenly become dissmissive.
After Russia lost about 30 million people in the communist purges you still find that irrelevant (if not a falsehood), yet go ballistic about the Acaloufs being denied the right to marry their direct offspring – hey, not surprising that Polansky and Jennings rates so high amongst you.
Rotten lot you are, guys, and it’s heartening to see how Europe slides more and more to the right -
This argument about unions has been made since the beginning of unionization. Unions are almost nonexsistant. I was in the union for years and never joined the communist party.My family is Australian,very unionized,not communist.Russians I do know,and never found one I could trust or believe.
G-d bless you, Oleg.
(6. Mr. IndependAnt:
…the former USSR was not a socialist cOntry, it was a communist cOntry. The two ecomonic models are not the same. Socialism relies on democracy and communism does not.)
WOW. Now where do the Dems get their information? Oh, I know. Wikipedia! And Jon Stewart, o.c.! Stupid me!
For Mr. Dem pretending being an “independAnt”: the second “S” in the word “USSR” is “Socialist”. If your Wikipedia has “forgoten” to tell you that, the whole word goes: “Union of the Soviet SOCIALIST Republics”.
Now, about the difference between SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM. Neither Wikipedia, nor Jon Stewart will tell you that, so listen carefully, it’s classical marxist indoctrinational knowledge:
SOCIALISM: everyone gives to the government what he can and gets from the government what he earns (the government decides who earns what).
COMMUNISM: everyone gives to the government what he can and gets from the government what he needs (the government decides who needs what).
See? The difference is ECONOMICAL, not POLITICAL. I don’t see a word about DEMOCRACY in both definitions. And I still don’t understand why do we have to give any m… f… thing to the government! Where have you EVER heard any f… definition of SOCIALISM that would PRESUPPOSE democracy? Where have you ever found any socialistic cOntry that would have any trace of democracy? (And don’t start with Europe! They’re still SEMI-CAPITALISTIC = SEMI-DEMOCRATIC.)
Who the hell lies to you (and not only to you! I’ve met this nonsence before) that the USSR was a communist, but NOT socialist country? Remember the guy with a shoe in the UN, Mr. I-will-bury-you Khrushchev? Ever heard of him? He promised the USSR will “live in Communism in ten years” (it was in the 60s, and the promise stayed promise, ’cause COMMUNISM IS AN ECONOMIC UTOPIA). And he was the leader of the country. HE HAD TO KNOW. And he knew the USSR was not a COMMUNIST country YET. The USSR was an officially SOCIALIST country.
Listen carefully, ’cause you’ll never find it in Wikipedia, and those retarded braiwashing losers from the college (you will call them “professors” when you’ll grow up) will never tell you:
THE MORE GOVERNMENT, THE LESS DEMOCRACY.
Socialism is all about a government controlling your life. So is communism. So is fascim.
And remember: Hitler’s party was called “National SOCIALIST Party of Germany”. Because socialism is nothing about “justice”, it’s all about GOVERNMENT.
If this SOCIALIST government is built on a NATIONAL idea we have NATIONAL SOCIALISM, e.g. Nazi Germany, with concentration camps like Auschwitz.
If this SOCIALIST government is built on an INTERNATIONAL idea we have INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM, e.g. Soviet Union, with concentration camps like GULAG.
So, tell your school teachers from the Teachers UNION to take their f… socialism and shovel it up their Socio-Nazi a…ses.
And my personal advice: stay away from them. They – like other zombies – feed on brains of other people ’cause they have none of their own. Just like the vitamin insufficiency, but with brains: so many originally bright kids graduate from school without brain, and if there’s some brain left, it’s eaten up by college professors.
HAHAHA! God bless you, Marina! Excellent response.
Obama and the modern Democrats, favor a Eurpean mercantilist society, where the elite few, in government, business and labor unions come together and manage the economy and the rest of the “maggots,” as Cass Sunstein calls us. The 19th century Democrats were the true American libertarians of Jefferson to Cleveland, while the 20th century Democrats passed the interventionist policies of the GOP to follow Rousseau and Marx, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and http://www.claysamerica.com.
Dear Marina & Oleg,
You still don’t seem to understand the concept of what I’m stating. So I’ll try a different approach. To begin with I’ll point out the errors of you statements. Marina, the rational you gave in your response as proof that the former USSR was a socialist country and not a communist country was simply in it’s name. Forgetting the absurdity of that position consider this; the official name of North Korea is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. By your standard just because North Korea’s leadership says that their country is a democratic republic then it is. So I’ll ask you, do you think North Korea is a democratic republic? Of course not. By the same token the former USSR was not a socialist country. On your second point that the differences between communism and socialism are economic and not political, that is also false. In both instances the government controls the means of production, distribution, and finance. The only difference is the political mechanism that is used to achieve that. In the case of communism it’s a dictatorship and in the case of socialism it’s democracy. Your final point concerning my information sources is also false. The justifications for my statements are not based on an article in the Wikipedia or a comedy show but are based on the writings of the two men who invented the modern concepts. Perhaps you should try researching these topics before you try to discuss them. If you’re interested in learning for yourself what these concepts refer to I suggest reading the Manifesto of the Communist Party. And if you do find an instance where Marx or Engels actually do define communism and socialism as you do, please state the page number of where that is on this website. So in closing I would like to restate my point that if you want to discuss the failings of socialism (and as I’ve stated before, there are many) then you should at least understand what it is you’re talking about.
Obama is the Cobra inside his being
He that looks the other way and who trust his known enemies that would die for their cause .
Could just as well make and argument to trust a Cobra in his kind and understanding loving hands .
The old farmer found a Cobra lying on the road almost dead of the frozen cold . He gently picked if up and rapped his own coat around the Cobra to save the Cobra’s life and warm him up . The Cobra laid there almost dead in front of his warm fire place for weeks .
The old farmer feed and nursed the Cobra until it was warm outside . So one day he opened his door to set the Cobra on his way .
When headed for the door the Cobra suddenly turned and bit the old Farmer for no reason at all .
He said to the Cobra … I trusted you , saved you , feed you and warmed you, how could you kill me ?
The Cobra said I did nothing wrong you fool .
I did what Cobra’s naturally do .
As do all your enemies with a cause .
Any Country or person that Trust his known enemies hands his fate to the Cobra .
Obama is doing what Cobra Naturally .
The Art of War
(required reading) , countless hours of study )and test for ReCon Marines
Mr Independant:
Communists are simply Socialists in a hurry.
The Teamsters have been a real boon to organized labor.
And crime syndicates.
Jimmy Hoffa? Say . . . how’d you like to have a Chicago union plumber fix your toilet?
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
Mr. Hoffa,
No, not so much. If what you’re saying were true then you should also believe that fascists are just capitalists in a hurry. I think not.
And big business has it’s own little union going on forcing employees to contribute to their retirement funds buying stock that does not follow the curve of employment. Bringing workers in and out as the need be has been a game they have been playing for far too long. Wouldn’t it be nice if all workers were considered “Temporary” and you could shut them off, and when they have passed their time of the ratio of benefits to cost send them on. Your bean counters and scientists have worked it out, it’s just those pesky humans that insist they deserve dignity, purpose, and respect. Loyalty to the company doesn’t mean the company has to be loyal back, does it?
Workers are paying into a system that lay-offs, down sizing, and restructuring, profits the company and the stockholder unless of course you are the worker who was laid-off, down-sized, and restructured.
The Unions know what business knows. If it’s not in writing it doesn’t mean a thing. The conditions of the working man and woman were appalling and still are appalling in many parts of the world. Business Conglomerates has skipped every step they could because they have lived by the convenient mantra “Greed is good”, for them at least.
The Union wants to get rid of an extra hoop requiring them to get a majority of cards signed to even be exposed to the workers and show them what they offer and that is understandable. That businesses wants to keep the extra hoop that Unions go through is understandable.
Just for once be honest and admit that it’s all about the numbers and not about the workers. We see that now with the stock market rising while unemployment continues it’s climb. We see the stimulus money used to pay bonuses because business conglomerates know to keep the inner circle happy so that their free for them can continue. Bonuses are not paid for the performance of the company but for their performance in turning a blind eye to business as usual (wink, wink).
The Soviet Union did all it could to hang heavy yokes around the people for the benefit of the few. They used the workers and the workers union to benefit the party. The Soviet Union and now Russia have nothing to offer because they have sucked the soul from the people 360 degrees whether in the name of the people or in the name of the state. Of course there are the few insanely wealthy that continue to whoop it up in Moscow.
You are going to have to wait another few generations before the people will forget and the history books are erased telling the story of how the United States was built off the backs of ordinary people and their little children. Everything they asked for was begrudgingly given from schooling, to decent working hours, to decent working conditions, to half-assed job security. Even fighting and dieing and getting wounded in bloody wars did not guarantee fair treatment and many benefits that veterans enjoy today were fought for with tooth and nail.
You think that because you now live under the Constitution that suddenly it’s the big bad government that is out to get the lowly poor business man who just wants to make a living and help bring some others up with him. The bones on this Country are the Bill of Rights where all men are created equal endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Even the founding fathers knew to take the worth of a man out of the hands of other men. According to you that Union was somehow not necessary to establish and make sure this country did not fall into the same old world of the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.
Your living in a Real Union now buddy, not a fake Union where you came from. Get used to it. We still haven’t forgotten and some are learning now, that if it’s not in writing it doesn’t mean anything.
(28. Mr. Independant)
Sorry for being late. Not everyone gets payed for trolling on conservative / libertarian sites. Some have to work.
(26: Thank you Oleg, it’s very sweet of you.)
Now, back to you, Mr. IndependAnt:
(Marina, the rational you gave in your response as proof that the former USSR was a socialist country and not a communist country was simply in it’s name. Forgetting the absurdity of that position consider this; the official name of North Korea is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. By your standard just because North Korea’s leadership says that their country is a democratic republic then it is. So I’ll ask you, do you think North Korea is a democratic republic? Of course not. By the same token the former USSR was not a socialist country.)
You would have been absolutely right, if it had been my ONLY argument. “Democratic” in a name doesn’t make you a real democrat. The best exapmle is the s.c. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE USA, promoting marxist state-dictatorship.
(…Your final point concerning my information sources is also false. The justifications for my statements are not based on an article in the Wikipedia or a comedy show but are based on the writings of the two men who invented the modern concepts)
You mean Laurel and Hardy? You cannot be serious calling the concepts of Marx-n-Engels “modern”, can you? The monsters lived in the 19th (!!!!!!!!!!!) century. We live in the 21st, if you need to be reminded. “Back to the future”? Rather “Forwards to the past”. “Modern”. Don’t be ridiculous!
(If you’re interested in learning for yourself what these concepts refer to I suggest reading the Manifesto of the Communist Party. And if you do find an instance where Marx or Engels actually do define communism and socialism as you do, please state the page number of where that is on this website.)
You’re kidding me. Is the Manifesto the only thing you’ve read from your gurus? The monsters suffered from verbal diarrhea. The concepts are not from the Manifesto. They’re from “Die deutsche Ideologie” by Marx. Here’s the original text:
“Nun aber besteht eines der wesentlichsten Prinzipien des Kommunismus, wodurch er sich von jedem reaktionären Sozialismus unterscheidet, in der auf die Natur des Menschen begründeten empirischen Ansicht, daß die Unterschiede des Kopfes und der intellektuellen Fähigkeiten überhaupt keine Unterschiede des Magens und der physischen Bedürfnisse bedingen; daß mithin der falsche, auf unsre bestehenden Verhältnisse begründete Satz: »Jedem nach seinen Fähigkeiten«, sofern er sich auf den Genuß im engeren Sinne bezieht, umgewandelt werden muß in den Satz: Jedem nach Bedürfnis; daß, mit andern Worten, die Verschiedenheit in der Tätigkeit, in den Arbeiten, keine Ungleichheit, kein Vorrecht des Besitzes und Genusses begründet”.
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Marx,+Karl/Die+deutsche+Ideologie
I’m sure you’re able to find the English text yourself. This is the foundation of both s.c. PRINCIPLES, that of COMMUNISM (“to everyone according to his needs”) and that of SOCIALISM (“to everyone according to his abilities”).
That is the main difference between Socialism and Communism, NOT A WORD ABOUT DEMOCRACY.
Now to DEMOCRACY. (You say: On your second point that the differences between communism and socialism are economic and not political, that is also false. In both instances the government controls the means of production, distribution, and finance. The only difference is the political mechanism that is used to achieve that. In the case of communism it’s a dictatorship and in the case of socialism it’s democracy.) REALLY? Did “The Manifesto” tell you that? Or was it Jon Stewart after all? Roseanne Barr? Maaaatt Daaaaamon? Whatever. Listen to one of your disgusting gurus:
“Aber die bloße Demokratie ist nicht fähig, soziale Übel zu heilen. Die demokratische Gleichheit ist eine Chimäre, der Kampf der Armen gegen die Reichen kann nicht auf dem Boden der Demokratie oder der Politik überhaupt ausgekämpft werden. Auch diese Stufe ist also nur ein Übergang, das letzte rein politische Mittel, das noch zu versuchen ist und aus dem sich sogleich ein neues Element, ein über alles politische Wesen hinausgehendes Prinzip entwickeln muß.
Dies Prinzip ist das des Sozialismus.” (F. ENGELS, Die Lage Englands).
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Engels,+Friedrich/Die+Lage+Englands.
Find the English text yourself. What Engels says is the DEMOCRACY IS UNABLE TO CURE SOCIAL EVIL. “DEMOCRATIC EQUALITY IS A CHIMERA” The fight between the poor and the rich CANNOT be led on the platform of DEMOCRACY. The only way is to apply the principle of SOCIALISM. Tah-dah!
So, dear Mr. IndependAnt, you wanted quotes, I gave them to you. Now tit for tat.
I still wanna know where this bull…t about “communism is a dictatorship and socialism is a democracy” comes from. Quotes and links, please!
But be very, VERY carefull what you’re qouting. Remember, I can read it IN ORIGINAL and IN CONTEXT.
I will post and repost this entry untill you give me what I want, honey.
Bye.
Marina,
You stated in your last post that your justification for believing the USSR was a socialist country and not a communist one was not based on just the wording of the country. You neglected to state what your other justification(s) were though. I’m sure that was an oversight on your part. I’m still waiting for your explanation.
Concerning your reference to `The German Ideology’ I noticed you conveniently posted a “quote” and provided a link to a site in a foreign language. If you want to convince me of your position you’re not going to be able to do that with guile or deception. That book was originally published in Russian and had been translated into every major language spoken on the planet. If you wanted to you could have selected a quote written in English but you didn’t. If you’re going to try and lie I’m going to call you out on it.
Now the one thing that you did correctly state (but seem unable to understand) was that Engel’s did believe that democracy could not cure social evil, thus the goal of communism. So my question to you is what exactly is communism a transition from? And if you do decide to respond be sure to do so in English and provide the specific source your referencing (that’s means a site link or a manuscript with a page number).
I’ll be waiting.