Comments on: Immortal Feats Shining in History of Juche-oriented Party Building

By: Fabián from Israel

Fabián from Israel — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:17:43 +0000

And Mao was writing about China!!!

Talking about completely deluded individuals.

By: Fabián from Israel

Fabián from Israel — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:16:54 +0000

“Mao stated quite bluntly that they (the Chinese Communist Party) wanted to build state capitalism” (gray)

“obviously, what was said and what was done can be completely different things. Karl Marx mentioned that you should look at what happens, rather than relying on what people said they were doing ” (gray, again, somewhat incongruosly)

It was you NKPR-Gray who explained what is happening in 2009- North Korea by a writing by Mao in 1939!!!!

By: spgb gray

spgb gray — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:57:52 +0000

Field

once again you are inventing positions we don’t hold. The SPGB is not going to run production; it is not out to win political power either.

It puts the case that a socialist working class can change society using the ballot box. It is precisely because the working class should not take on the forces of the state in street battles and from the barricades that we say the state and armed forces must be captured via a political process. As it happens, Marx and Engels were already making that argument in 1880 and on. The working class had begun to win the franchise everywhere; a process that could be said to have been completed with votes for women.

By: field

field — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:47:13 +0000

Ask the SPGB how they will organise production. That’s always good for a laugh.

Ask them what policy they advocated in June 1940.

Ask them how disputes between a national parliament and workers’ councils would be resolved.

SPGB is essentially for people who want to believe in full on socialism without having to get their skulls cracked in street violence.

If by some miracle the SPGB were ever to gain political power through the ballot box I am sure the membership would be appalled and thoroughly put out.

By: spgb gray

spgb gray — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:58:48 +0000

Chas

the party I belong to (the Socialist Party of Great Britain) has a lot of material on-line, discussing your questions, so I’ll point you in that direction
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb

A quick answer is that we argue the majority of the working class (the great majority in society) must understand and desire socialism, organise politically and democratically and can use the vote and elections in order to establish socialism. Therefore, a socialist revolution can be peaceful. Democracy is an integral part and indeed essential for socialism.

By: David All

David All — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:28:58 +0000

And yes, Gene, those reviews of Kim Jong Il’s books are indeed classical.

By: chas

chas — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:00:03 +0000

So do you think that socialism/communism could be created without this ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ phase or do you believe that it is neccessary in order to change the fundamental ideology of society? Also what form is this dictatorship supposed to take (ie is it nonviolent or repressive) and do you define working class by their income or by their lack of access to the means of production? sorry for all the questions i dont know much about Lenin/Marx but have studied the French revolution quite a lot at university and I believe that in both cases the failure to implement full democracy (i believe the Bolsheviks allowed one election but subsequently closed the parliament after they didnt get a majority) meant that some sort of dictatorship was inevitable although in a way, with the French revolution, i can see how the Parisian electors probably were more enlightened than the peasants (dont know if this is comparable to Russia) and so full democracy would probably have lead back to aristocracy and absolute monarchy. Again sorry for all the questions am just curious as i do believe the current world economy is far from ideal but im not sure whether a socialist/communist system could work in practice if it needs to curtail democracy and peoples fundamental rights in order to establish itself. Cheers!

By: spgb gray

spgb gray — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:32:19 +0000

Chas

the Russian Revolution was never going to result in socialism for a number of (related) reasons: a backward, semi-feudal economy; a mass of the population were peasants who wanted peace and land, not socialism; Russia was isolated; socialism cannot be established by a minority, a vanguard.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat means the rule of a class or the capture of political power (the state) by the working class, during the abolition of capitalism and establishment of socialism and not the rule of an individual or a party. Socialism does indeed mean creating greater democracy; apart from freedoms of speech and such, there is also the fundamental freedom of free access to what one needs (food, water, etc) to live.

By: David All

David All — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:11:09 +0000

Gene, did you know that Kim Jong Il had also written a book entitled: “Kim Jong Il on the Art of Opera: Talk to Creative Workers in the Field of Art and Literature, September 4-6, 1974″?

According to Amazon the two books are frequently bought together.

By: chas

chas — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:43:09 +0000

cheers spgb gray, just out of interest do you believe that Russia failed to become truly communist (if you do believe that) because not enough control was ceded to the people as a whole (i might be wrong but im sure i read somewhere that Marx only mentioned the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ once and then not neccessarily in the sense that Lenin applied the term) or for a different reason. I dont really
know a lot about Russia but as i understand it (bearing in mind that i havent really read Marx in his own words bar the manifesto) Marx thought that the way to a communist society was simply a massive increase in democracy whereas in all the revolutions i can think of (Russia, France) this has begun to happen but has been crushed before it could fully develop by the government of the day. Anyway sorry that rambled on a bit but basically Im just wondering whether you think the Russian revolution was doomed from the start? cheers!