Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TS, If you were correct about the Moscow show trials (which I do not think for one moment that you are) by your admission all of these high level Bolsheviks were appointed to high position and were highly endorsed at one point or another by either Lenin and or Stalin.
Again if you are correct, this would mean that according to you, your two heroes, Lenin and Stalin made unbelievably spectacularly bad judgements about at least the following people:
Nikolai Bukharin (1888 – 1938)
Grigori Zinoviev (1883 – 1936)
Lev Kamenev (1883 – 1936)
Béla Kun (1886 – 1938)
Alexei Rykov (1881 – 1938)
Karl Radek (1885 – 1939)
Mikhail Tomsky (1880 – 1936)
Martemyan Ryutin (1890 – 1937)
Ivan Smirnov (1881–1936)
Ivar Smilga (1892 – 1938)
Arkady Rosengolts (1889 – 1938) —
Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (1886 – 1937)
Aleksandr Smirnov (1877 – 1938)
Nikolay Krestinsky (1883 – 1938)
Alexander Shliapnikov (1885 – 1937)
Andrei Bubnov (1883 – 1938)
Varvara Yakovleva (1884 – 1941)
Alexander Shotman (1880 – 1937)
Alexander Beloborodov (1891 – 1938)
Lev Karakhan (1889-1937)In fact of the 139 members and candidates of the Central Committee who were elected at the 17th Congress, 98 persons, i.e., 70 per cent, were arrested and shot (mostly in 1937-1938). Out of 1,966 delegates with either voting or advisory rights, 1,108 persons were arrested on charges of anti-revolutionary crimes.
You don’t need to take my word for the names and numbers of “traitors”, this information does not come from me, but rather from the minutes of The 18th Congress of the Russian Communist Party which was held during 10–21 March 1939 in Moscow and The Nineteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which was held from 5 to 14 October 1952. You are welcome to check my figures they are figures agreed on by Stalin and signed off by the Central Committe of the Russian Communist Party.
If you are correct, then your evidence would show Lenin and Stalin must be the worst political leaders and worse judges of character ever born.
AJ “so it will be easy for you to copy and paste the relevant facts that are irrefutable.”
TS – And why would I get into arguments about a criminal trial with you, Alan? You are a dishonest interlocutor.
TS is sidestepping questions, yet again.
Your fooling nobody (with the possible exception of yourself), it is clear you cannot produce the evidence you claim to have, in the same way you cannot explain why anyone should trust the Chinese “communist” Party’s claim that they will have achieved “full communism” by 2120, given their backtracking on their claims about “underdeveloped socialism”.
It appears, my friend that you are full of it.
Leaving aside your attempts to distract the issue.
With regards to the question of the Chinese “communist” Party declaration that Capitalism in China had been superseded by “underdeveloped Socialism” and the later admission that capitalism has been “reintroduced”, you have stated that “In the real world compromises must be made and challenges overcome. Mistakes will inevitably be made.”
Given that you agree that the Chinese “communist” Party made “mistakes” when declaring that “under developed socialism” would supersede capitalism and given that this mistake was one which related to the overarching basis of the Chinese economic system, why then should anyone believe the Chinese “communist” Party when it now states that “full communism” will be in place by the year 2120?
BD – “So can you please explain why did the Chinese “communist” Party introduce a system which, by their definition, was less effective than their claimed system of underdeveloped socialism?”
Ts “Unlike you and your pathetic band of misfits, sorry party, the CPC is actually responsible for improving the lives of 1.4 billion people. Their party is one of the few in human history to have ever made the attempt to bring about a socialist society. There is no manual for doing so. They operate in the real world not the utopian fantasy world you envision.
In the real world compromises must be made and challenges overcome. Mistakes will inevitably be made. As will advancements. Building socialism is a process. You will never understand this. Instead you live in la-la land with your fellow naval gazers believing yourself keeper of the holy flame of true Marxism. Such arrogance.
While the Chinese are busy building socialism you and your party are busy manufacturing liberals. You are obscurantist, broken brained memes of the sectarian left. Instead of good faith criticism for other socialist projects you only condemn. You are the enemy of Marxists everywhere and the ally of reactionaries everywhere. Your party is worthy of nothing but contempt and derision. You are hypocrites all and what’s more, haven’t a sense of humor between the lot of you. You are boring. LOL”
So I’ll take that’s a long winded way of you saying that you can’t answer the question?
In terms of power generation, all bets might be off in less than a decade-
“A US science institute is on the verge of achieving a longstanding goal in nuclear fusion research.From the BBC News Website
US lab stands on threshold of key nuclear fusion goal
A US science institute is on the verge of achieving a longstanding goal in nuclear fusion research.The National Ignition Facility uses a powerful laser to heat and compress hydrogen fuel, initiating fusion.An experiment suggests the goal of “ignition”, where the energy released by fusion exceeds that delivered by the laser, is now within touching distance.
Harnessing fusion, the process that powers the Sun, could provide a limitless, clean energy source……
An experiment carried out on 8 August yielded 1.35 megajoules (MJ) of energy – around 70% of the laser energy delivered to the fuel capsule. Reaching ignition means getting a fusion yield that’s greater than the 1.9 MJ put in by the laser.
“This is a huge advance for fusion and for the entire fusion community,” Debbie Callahan, a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which hosts NIF, told BBC News.
As a measure of progress, the yield from this month’s experiment is eight times NIF’s previous record, established in Spring 2021, and 25 times the yield from experiments carried out in 2018.
“The pace of improvement in energy output has been rapid, suggesting we may soon reach more energy milestones, such as exceeding the energy input from the lasers used to kick-start the process,” said Prof Jeremy Chittenden, co-director of the Centre for Inertial Fusion Studies at Imperial College London.”
If (and it is big if) fusion reactors prove workable large scale very clear power production will be possible.
If only we had a sane system of producing and distributing the fruits created by the work of the many thousands of workers who cooperated together to reach that goal.
BD“It is interesting that you have still not answered the question about the “reintroduction” of capitalism”
TS- Rubbish, I’ve answered the question multiple times. They’re developing the productive forces. This approach is consistent with Marxism.
-
Supersede
– Cambridge dictionary definition -“to replace something older, less effective, or less important or official:”
Why then was it necessary for the Chinese “communist” Party to reintroduce a system (capitalism) that it claimed it had superseded (i.e. by definition replaced by a more effective system) in order to develop the productive forces? If it had introduced a more effective system it would not need to use capitalism to build up productive sources, as by their own definition “underdeveloped socialism” was more effective than capitalism.
So can you please explain why did the Chinese “communist” Party introduce a system which, by their definition, was less effective than their claimed system of underdeveloped socialism?
It is interesting that you have still not answered the question about the “reintroduction” of capitalism (a system of exploitation of man by man), despite the Chinese “communist” Party having claimed to have “superseded the system of exploitation of man by man”
Your silence on this issue speaks volumes
TS, I have spent many years as a Social Worker working alongside and supporting people with intellectual disabilities, some of whom were the kindest, most insightful and thoughtful people I have met.
I find it no insult to be associated with those people.
As someone who purports to be a Socialist, you should hang your head in shame for using oppressive and insulting language about fellow workers who have become one of capitalisms most oppressed groups (operation T4, long term incarceration, institutionalisation, forced sterilation, murder, stigma, bullying, harrasment and your particular favourite, name calling and insult).
I’d far rather be associated with those kind, thoughtful, insightful people like that, than be associated with someone like you, who clearly takes the side of the oppressor and against the oppressed.
I suppose, given your posting and your attitude towards oppressed people, it should not be surprising that you take the part of the Chinese “communist” capitalists against the struggles of workers against the growing Chinese capitalist class. You are clearly no part of the working class struggle.
Re The nature of an Underdeveloped Socialist Society, as referenced by the Chinese Communist Party, as I have already quoted, from
Laws of the People’s Republic of China
Article 6
“The basis of the socialist economic system of the people’s Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people. The system of socialist public ownership supersedes the system of exploitation of man by man; it applies the principle of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his work’.”
If, as the Law of the People’s Republic of China states, that this principle “supersedes” the system of exploitation of man by man, why is it then that it was necessary to “allow capitalism to operate under tight constraints in order to build up the productive forces required to implement socialism.”. Either is superseded exploitation or it did not.
The dictators of your favoured system have claimed that China exists as an underdeveloped Socialist Society. (Their claim has been proven from their own publicity and has been shown beyond doubt on this thread).
They have claimed that it is a system based on “from each according to their ability to each according to their work”.
Yet as you have conceded Chinese society has all the hallmarks of capitalist society (billionaires, millionaires, surplus value, capital accumulation, rent, interest and profit).
As you have also acknowledged this is contradictory. You have also acknowledged that China has a mixed economy.
The only conclusions that can be logically drawn from this is that either:
1 China (which you characterise as a mixed economy) has retreated away from being an underdeveloped Socialist society (Mao’s theory stated that an underdeveloped Socialist economy is a one which has progressed beyond a capitalist or mixed economy)
or
2 China has never been a Socialist society of any type (in fact there is only one basis to socialism which is common ownership of the means of production)
Which option do you go for TS? You need to answer the question.
Also:
Laws of the People’s Republic of ChinaArticle 6
“The basis of the socialist economic system of the people’s Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people. The system of socialist public ownership supersedes the system of exploitation of man by man; it applies the principle of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his work’.”
“This principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to their work is still put forward by the Chinese “communist” Party as the basis of the current economic system within China.”
Provide evidence for this claim.
https://archive.org/details/ChinasSocialistEconomy1986/page/n3/mode/2up
So TS, you acknowledge that there is economic exploitation of workers within the Chinese economy and that the Chinese billionaires and millionaires acrue their capital through the use of accumulation of surplus value.
In orthodox Marxist terms so far so good.
You have also stated that “China’s is a mixed economy. They are in a transition period now.” (although the concept of a “mixed economy” is not one that would fit in with any published work of Karl Marx)
The “communist” party of China has historically stated that China was in a stage of “underdeveloped Socialism” a theoretical position put forward by Xue Maqiao in 1981, based on the Stalin’s Economic Problems in the USSR (1952) (Which I think it is fair to assume that you support fully)
In Xue’s work (currently regularly referenced and acknowledged by the Chinese “communist” Party as a leading work) he stated that there were principles that guided the socialist transition, the key one being the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work“. This principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to their work is still put forward by the Chinese “communist” Party as the basis of the current economic system within China. However you have already agreed that this is not the case and that captial accumulation, surplus value and expoitation of labour is a key part of the Chinese economy. (unless you go along with the propagandists of capitalism who put forward the idea that the capitalists got their wealth “through their own hard work”?)
So who’s wrong, you with your acknowledgement of capital accumulation, surplus value and the exploitation of labour within the Chinese economy, or the Chinese “communist” Party’s statement that China is an underdeveloped socialist society which is based on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work. The two things cannot both be correct.
To be honest, TS, I am a bit surprised that you are even able to post on this website, after all you have to complete a simple mathmatical problem in order to log in. From the evidence of your postings, you seem to struggle when it comes to adding 2 + 2 with regard to the so called communist party of China.
Given your failure to answer much more complex questions, a fairly simple question for you then.
As Alan has pointed out the top 30 Chinese Billionaires have accumulated $866.1 Billion. How have this top 30 capitalists accumulated that wealth, if not by exploiting the labour power of the employees that have worked for them?
An additional question to follow up is it possible for these exploitative individuals to achieve that wealth without out the active involvement of the Chinese State and by implication the Chinese “communist” Party.
If, as is clearly the case, these billionaires are able to accumulate their capital only through the exploitation of these workers and the Chinese “communist” Party is complicit with this expoitation, how can you, as self proclaimed Marxist support this historical and ongoing exploitation of these members of the working class?
