Marxism (Split from RCC thread)

[Knobbyboy88]

Western Imperialism is from Leninism, not Marxism,

Jesus man...Are we going to have to have this conversation again? Leninism IS Marxism. It is simply a variation upon the core ideology presented by this system.

When the government seizes control of the property and runs it,

Which is basically what he did. He claimed to distribute land amongst the "people" who are essentially synonmous with "government" in Marxist ideology, and instead distributed it amongst the subordinates who make up the bulk of his government.

A corrupt Marxist is still a Marxist.

and they all enacted land reform policies.

Once again, nearly all uses of such policies in modern history have been at the very least Marxist/Socialist inspired even if they weren't explicitly Marxist/Socialist in intent. Once again, this needn't be a false dilemma. Ideology and politcial philosophy are complex and highly nuanced things.

It only became popular in Africa and Asia after the revolution because most of those nations were colonies until after the second world war.

Yes, because Marxism is a popular idea for oppressed minorities and impoverished peasants. How does this disprove my point?

Also, you mean economic systems- there is nothing inherent in dictatorships or one party states that prevents investment. However, socialist economies can still grow even if not as efficiently as capitalist ones. The problem would be foreign investment which really poor nations need to grow- none of these new nations was big enough to replicate the USSRs growth (although you can get the USSR to subsidize you).

Of course. However, the fact that many of the governments in Africa were effectively Socialist and practicing bad economics or only experienced civil war to begin with due to the actions of Leftist Revolutionaries (I'm looking at you Che) certainly didn't help matters. Growth requires a fairly stable environment. Africa has been denied this.

[K. A. Pital]

What in the fuck does Mussolini have to do with any of this?

He belonged to a leftist organization. Boo hoo! He must've been a Marxist, right? Because hey, Boris Yeltsin also belonged to a lefttist organization (the CPSU!), and so did many others!

Let me beat something into your tiny head - BELONGING to a leftist organization for your personal power-hungry goals does not make you leftist, or a Marxist for that matter. Especially so if you DO NOT follow with Marxist ideology and Marxist political order afterwards. Did Mugabe institute Marxism as official ideology, and install Marxist politics?

A corrupt Marxist is still a Marxist.

So Boris Yeltsin redistributed industries and lands of Russia to his friends the oligarchs. That makes him a Marxist? You're truly a moron.

Frankly, I could care less if Mugabe fits your obviously far too narrow definition of what constitutes a "Marxist"

A Marxist should at the very minimum officially state Marxist ideology in his nation, you dolt. All real Marxist states have done it (USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, East European socialist nations, et cetera). Did Mugabe?

I simply pointed out that Communism and homoseuxality have a sorted history.

They do. Not thanks to Marxist theory or Lenin's revolution theory for that matter, however; thanks to backwards tribal religious morons. Especially the ones who get in power (like Stalin).

I never claimed that some of these polcies weren't eventually changed!

Good for you, because some of them weren't initially even present (like I said, the USSR was one of the first nations to decriminalize homosexuality in the early XX century). "Sorted history" is a result of Stalin's personal intervention (and his later authority as the leader of USSR) than socialist or communist theory par se. Good you admitted that. And you lied about "all of Eastern Europe" still, so I'm awaiting admission just what you meant with your pathetic attempt. You arbitraily pick nations? Time periods? Well, I can play that game too, boy. Either you look at the history in entirety, and admit many nations were not anti-gay and the real reason of all anti-gay policies was Stalin and the backwards state of Russian society, heavily indocrinated by religion as well, or that you're just lying your ass out.

[Knobbyboy88]

BELONGING to a leftist organization for your personal power-hungry goals does not make you leftist, or a Marxist for that matter

Sure it does. Why needn't it? By this logic, I could claim that George Bush wasn't really a Conservative Republican because he didn't always act in ways that reflected his outwardly Conservative Republican stances.

Mussolini is a completely different case as he actually abandoned Marxism and the political Left and formed his own ideology.

A Marxist should at the very minimum officially state Marxist ideology in his nation

Could we possibly avoid being entangled in uselessly vague semantics for 5 seconds? Once again, he explicitly took power as the "Marxist" president of Zimbabwe representing a "Marxist/ Maoist" party. On top of this, he openly allied himself with the Soviet Union. What else do you freaking want?

He may not have been a dedicated Stalinist, but that does not change the fact that he was and still is very clearly a Left Wing oriented despot (i.e. a Marxist dictator).

[ray245]

BELONGING to a leftist organization for your personal power-hungry goals does not make you leftist, or a Marxist for that matter

Sure it does. Why needn't it? By this logic, I could claim that George Bush wasn't really a Conservative Republican because he didn't always act in ways that reflected his outwardly Conservative Republican stances.

Mussolini is a completely different case as he actually abandoned Marxism and the political Left and formed his own ideology.

Didn't Bush still declare himself as a conservative? And hell, what do you mean by Bush not reflecting his outwardly Conservative Republican stance?

[Samuel]

Jesus man...Are we going to have to have this conversation again? Leninism IS Marxism. It is simply a variation upon the core ideology presented by this system.

Not really. Marxism is "workers revolution is inevitable". Leninism is "we will make the workers revolution".

Which is basically what he did. He claimed to distribute land amongst the "people" who are essentially synonmous with "government" in Marxist ideology, and instead distributed it amongst the subordinates who make up the bulk of his government.

A corrupt Marxist is still a Marxist.

Or it could simply be rewarding his supporters.

Once again, nearly all uses of such policies in modern history have been at the very least Marxist/Socialist inspired even if they weren't explicitly Marxist/Socialist in intent. Once again, this needn't be a false dilemma. Ideology and politcial philosophy are complex and highly nuanced things.

I don't think 1870s Japan had ever heard the word socialist before. As for the rest... yeah, South Korea and Taiwan, both states opposite communist doubles are going to follow Marxist/socialist ideology. I just don't see how on Earth that would work.

Yes, because Marxism is a popular idea for oppressed minorities and impoverished peasants. How does this disprove my point?

My point was there wasn't necesarily a causation between "Russian Revolution" and "land reform". Because none of these countries existed yet so of course they enacted policies after the Russian Revolution.

However, the fact that many of the governments in Africa were effectively Socialist and practicing bad economics or only experienced civil war to begin with due to the actions of Leftist Revolutionaries (I'm looking at you Che) certainly didn't help matters

Having oppresive rascist regimes, ethnic conflicts, resource division problems, certainly provided enough problems. The leftists didn't help anymore than they did in Latin America, but I should point out that Cuba is not a shit hole unlike alot of the states in Africa.

Sure it does. Why needn't it? By this logic, I could claim that George Bush wasn't really a Conservative Republican because he didn't always act in ways that reflected his outwardly Conservative Republican stances.

He actually did. While his actions did not match what conservatives preach, conservatives in the country backed him.

Didn't Bush still declare himself as a conservative? And hell, what do you mean by Bush not reflecting his outwardly Conservative Republican stance?

He means Bush didn't practice things like a balanced budget. Reagan who conservatives love didn't do so either is ignored. The fact is that balanced budget is a stated goal of conservatives, just like the USSR was a pluralistic democracy was part of the Soviet Constitution.

In such cases we look towards what other members of the group say. And in the US the Republican Party backed GW even while he drove up a massive debt suggesting that balanced budget is something that American conservatives are willing to sacrifice as part of their desire to achieve the workers paradise.

[K. A. Pital]

Sure it does. Why needn't it?

You failed your logic class, right? You know about necessary and sufficient conditions, right? Being a member of a leftist organization is a necessary condition, but by far not a sufficient one. The sufficient one would be actually following the ideology, or publicly installing it as national ideology at the very least. Which you still haven't offered the slightest proof of.

Mussolini is a completely different case as he actually abandoned Marxism and the political Left and formed his own ideology.

So did Mugabe ("Black farming") and Kim Jong Il (Juche and Songun have no references to Marxism whatsoever and instead represent North Korean militaristic nationalism). Your turn, Knobby?

Once again, he explicitly took power as the "Marxist" president of Zimbabwe representing a "Marxist/ Maoist" party. On top of this, he openly allied himself with the Soviet Union. What else do you freaking want?

Vladimir Voronin became the president of Moldova as the head of Communist Party of the same nation. He has since not instituted neither Marxist ideology, nor Marxist policies. Kim Jong Il became the dictator of Korea after his father as the head of the Korean Worker's Party, but completely abandoned official Marxist ideology and instead formed his own ideology, which is remarkably omissing references to Marx (and in fact, Marx's works are now hard to come by in Korea), but instead professes nationalism and militarism (Songun, Army First, and Juche, National Autarky). Boris Yeltsin became the President of RSFSR as a Communist Party official. He formed a new ultra-capitalist ideology. So?

He may not have been a dedicated Stalinist

He was not Stalinist at all. Stalin would've collectivized the land, not re-distribute it among peasants privately in any fashion. How fucking dumb are you, fucktard?

On top of this, he openly allied himself with the Soviet Union.

Syria, Lybia, India allied with the Soviet Union openly, and received arms shipments and industrial support from the USSR. Are they Marxist? Are their leaders Marxist?

You're really the dumb fucktard I thought you are. You have no fucking clue that being a Marxist actually requires following and instituting a Marxist ideology. FOLLOWING and INSTITUTING. Not "allying with the USSR", not "being a member of leftist organization". Both of those can be done with a fully separate ideology from Marxism. The fact that Mugabe actually didn't follow to install Marxist ideology in his nation just shows he was no fucking Marxist at all.

[ray245]

I think that Knobby will say that Syria, Libya and India are Marxist nations as well, given his black and white view of the world.

[Knobbyboy88]

Not really. Marxism is "workers revolution is inevitable". Leninism is "we will make the workers revolution".

OK, Sam...Listen. I'm only going to repeat myself on this issue one more time.

If we were to get into a debate on whether or not Henry VIII was a Protestant Reformist, would it really be fucking relevant in the slightest whether he was a Lutheran or an Anglican? BOTH ARE FORMS OF PROTESTANTISM!

Why are you having such a hard time grasping this concept where Marxism is concerned? Do you honestly just not get it, or are you simply trying to be a smart ass in order to get a rise out of me?

Or it could simply be rewarding his supporters.

Did it ever occur to you that he might simply be a corrupt Marxist doing the exact same thing? Once again, why must you turn the question into a fallacy of False Dilemma?

Are you just trying to be as contrarian as humanly possible in order to irritate me? If that is the case, it's working. lol

South Korea and Taiwan, both states opposite communist doubles are going to follow Marxist/socialist ideology.

Both were essentially fascist dictatorships for the first several decades of their existence. Such regimes are hardly picky about the economic systems they are willing to endorse.

I don't think 1870s Japan had ever heard the word socialist before.

Source? I need more info on this topic before I can make a judgement.

My point was there wasn't necesarily a causation between "Russian Revolution" and "land reform". Because none of these countries existed yet so of course they enacted policies after the Russian Revolution.

Once again, Marxist revolutionary movements didn't simply spring up out of the ground in these countries.

Cuba is not a shit hole unlike alot of the states in Africa

Latin America in general is better off than Africa.

He actually did. While his actions did not match what conservatives preach, conservatives in the country backed him.

Exactly. You say this because it logically follows that Bush most likely was a Conservative Republican. The fact that he may not have always done things that all Conservative Republicans would have agreed with is irrelevant.


Why are you people having such a hard time applying the same logic to Mugabe?

You failed your logic class, right

No, but apparently you did. OK Stas...Where to start?


How about here...

Being a member of a leftist organization is a necessary condition, but by far not a sufficient one. The sufficient one would be actually following the ideology

By this logic, moron, half of the nations under the Iron Curtain wouldn't be truly "Marxist" by your absurdly strict definition of the word. How about you simply come to terms with the fact that Marxism in general is an incredibly irrational ideology which tends to spawn wildly divergent off shoots? It doesn't easily fit into the pretty little bow-tied box you'd lead us to believe it could.


Case in point...

Kim Jong Il (Juche and Songun have no references to Marxism whatsoever and instead represent North Korean militaristic nationalism).

Ok...So now you're trying to claim that North Korea isn't "truly" Communist/Marxist either. Where does this inane line of reasoning end Stas? Was Stalin not a "true" Marxist by your definition of the word?

You are basically using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. In other words, simply because something doesn't fit in with your ideal definition of what you think a certain item or idea should be, you are refusing to acknowledge it at all. This is also known as the fallacy of "Victory by Definition."

Example:

"China cannot possibly be the aggressor in Korea. China is, by definition, a peaceful nation."

Or....

"He couldn't possibly be Scottish! No true Scotsman would ever behave in such a manner!"


In any case, it is a dishonest and fallacious tactic. You are a fucking MORON.

I think that Knobby will say that Syria, Libya and India are Marxist nations as well, given his black and white view of the world.

Syria and Libya are nations which follow the ideology of Arab Nationalism and Ba'athism (an off shoot of Arab Nationalism). BOTH of these ideologies are rather blatant in their endorsements of Marx-influenced Socialism. They have always pushed for centralized, and to some degree, centrally planned economic systems and enforced social equality in the form of state enforced programs to redistribute wealth.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with India...Seeing as how it is actually significantly less regulated than the US.

Honestly, am I the only one here with any knowledge of Poli Sci at all?

[K. A. Pital]

Both were essentially fascist dictatorships for the first several decades of their existence. Such regimes are hardly picky about the economic systems they are willing to endorse.

Fascism is an economic system.

By this logic moron, half of the nations under the Iron Curtain wouldn't be truly "Marxist"

All of them would be Marxist. All of them explicitly installed and instituted, as well as publicly proclaimed, Marxist ideology. You're a fucktard who doesn't know history.

So now you're trying to claim that North Korea isn't "truly" Communist/Marxist either. Where does this inane line of reasoning end Stas? Was Stalin not a "true" Marxist by your definition of the word?

Stalin endorsed Marxism and officially instituted Marxism as his state ideology. So did Kim Il Sung. But not Kim Jong Il. Okay? You're either a fucking idiot, or what?

You are basically using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No, you're a fucktard who can't read. All communist nations endorsed and institutde Marxist ideology. Those which did not abandoned Marxism.

Honestly, am I the only one here with any knowledge of Poli Sci at all?

You're the only fucktard who can't read here and who lies his ass out. All communist nations were communist because they officially endorsed and practiced communism and Marxism as state ideology. You understand what that means? Or you can't read English, motherfucker?

[Knobbyboy88]

Fascism is an economic system.

Uh...No, moron, its not. Fascist economics have diverged so wildly as to make any blanket assessment impossible. Hitler and Mussolini were highly statist and claimed to represent the interests of a form of "Right Wing" Socialism. Pinochet and Franco, on the other hand; were rather open to the idea of "free markets."

Stalin endorsed Marxism and officially instituted Marxism as his state ideology

And North Korea hasn't? Honestly Stas, at least get your bull shit excuses straight. Is Castro a Communist by your assesment?

No, you're a fucktard who can't read.

In other words, you have no real comeback to my comment. You still refuse to acknowledge anything which does not meet your "ideal" definition of the Marxism even though I have pointed out the fallacious nature of such assessments.

Good to know...

[ray245]

Exactly. You say this because it logically follows that Bush most likely was a Conservative Republican. The fact that he may not have always done things that all Conservative Republicans would have agreed with is irrelevant.

Why are you people having such a hard time applying the same logic to Mugabe?

Because the majority of Bush's views fits the conservative ideology?

You still refuse to acknowledge anything which does not meet your "ideal" definition of the Marxism even though I have pointed out the fallacious nature of such assessments.

Says the person who has yet to make a clear definition on Marxism.

[K. A. Pital]

No, moron, its not. Fascist economics have diverged so wildly ... Hitler and Mussolini were highly statist and claimed to represent the interests of a form of "Right Wing" Socialism. Pinochet and Franco, on the other hand; were rather open to the idea of "free markets."

How were the economics of facist states "diverging wildly"? Hitler was a supporter of large-scale capitalism and an ardent protector of private property against "communist ideas", as was Franco, Mussolini and the Japanese military junta. You're an idiot if you think otherwise.

And North Korea hasn't? Honestly Stas, at least get your bull shit excuses straight. Is Castro a Communist by your assesment?

Kim Jong Il hasn't, he abandoned Marxism (which was the official ideology of his father Kim Il Sung). Castro is a communist. At no point he repudiated Marxism, and actually Marxism was instated, implemented and practiced as, and remains the official Cuban ideology last time I checked. Not so for North Korea, where it has been replaced by Songun (Military First) and Juche (National Autarky) and Marx is hardly even accessible from DPRK libraries.

Now, did Mugabe, like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim Il Sung, etc. and other REAL, outspoken and professed Marxists (1) install Marxism as official state ideology (2) implement Marxist ideology in political practice?

I await your answer, dipshit. No fucking weaseling out. Did Mugabe officially install Marxist ideology, and practice it?

In other words, you have no real comeback to my comment.

All communist nations were communist because they officially endorsed and practiced communism and Marxism as state ideology. You understand what that means? Or you can't read English, motherfucker?

[Edi]

This thread is the Marxism tangent split from here

[Face]

Says the person who has yet to make a clear definition on Marxism.

Ok let’s put a few definitions on the table

“Kim Jong Il hasn't, he abandoned Marxism (which was the official ideology of his father Kim Il Sung). Castro is a communist. At no point he repudiated Marxism, and actually Marxism was instated, implemented and practiced as, and remains the official Cuban ideology last time I checked.”

Actually no government in history has ever adhered to Classic Marxism seeing as Marxism called for a revolution of the proletariat (note this was meant to be natural event not carried out or instigated by a small number of operatives, which is Leninism) and the collective! (Note not government) Ownership of the means of production. However, all existing Marxist states tend to be one party dictatorships who rule BASED on a Leninist philosophy. E.g. Russia (past tense), North Korea, China, ect

With a few such as India continuing to hold democratic! Elections after the election of a communist party.

US Marx scholar Hal Draper remarked,

“There are few thinkers in modern history, whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike”.[6]

Next time you want to slander Carl Marx please read his communist manifesto FIRST

“No, you're a fucktard who can't read. All communist nations endorsed and institute Marxist ideology. Those which did not abandoned Marxism.”

Ok well that’s just plain wrong first of all as I’ve explained above NO NATION has endorsed classic Marxism preferring a Leninist and often Stalinist ideology to Marxism.

And Castro does not adhere to this philosophy though his nation is the CLOSEST in the world to original Marxist-Leninist! Ideologies.

“Compared with other ruling Communist Parties, such as the Communist Party of Vietnam, the Communist Party of China and the Lao People's Revolutionary Party, the Communist Party of Cuba retains a stricter adherence to the tradition of Marxism-Leninism and the traditional Soviet model.”

Note Soviet model not Marxist model.

“All communist nations were communist because they officially endorsed and practiced communism and Marxism as state ideology. You understand what that means? Or you can't read English, motherfucker?”

Bullshit, just because somebody claims to follow an ideology does not mean they actually do ever heard of lying? Marxism has become an origami figure head used to prop up regimes without actually unfolding properly.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually no government in history has ever adhered to Classic Marxism seeing as Marxism called for a revolution of the proletariat (note this was meant to be natural event not carried out or instigated by a small number of operatives, which is Leninism) and the collective! (Note not government) Ownership of the means of production.

Collective ownership is achierved through nationalization. All Marxist nations were implicitly Marxist-Leninist. The debate is revolving around Marxism-Leninism as the most influential current in Marxism. I hope you get that and don't fucking put your nose into the debate with your smug remarks, Mr. know-it-all.

With a few such as India continuing to hold democratic! Elections after the election of a communist party.

India is not a Marxist, neither a Marxist-Leninist nation.

US Marx scholar Hal Draper remarked

Who the fuck cares? You haven't fucking read Marx, or what? Why the fuck do we need general quotes from "US scholars"?

Ok well that’s just plain wrong first of all as I’ve explained above NO NATION has endorsed classic Marxism preferring a Leninist and often Stalinist ideology to Marxism.

Marxism includes Marxism-Leninism, which was the most influential current of Marxism. Want to dispute?

Bullshit, just because somebody claims to follow an ideology does not mean they actually do ever heard of lying? Marxism has become an origami figure head used to prop up regimes without actually unfolding properly.

Have you read Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels works? Those of Lenin? No? What the fuck are you talking about then? And yes, Marxism became an ideology of many regimes. However, not an ideology of Mugabe's regime, and no longer the ideology of North Korea. Which is what I was explaining to the moron.

[Face]

Collective ownership is achieved through nationalization. All Marxist nations were implicitly Marxist-Leninist. The debate is revolving around Marxism-Leninism as the most influential current in Marxism. I hope you get that and doesn’t fucking put your nose into the debate with your smug remarks, Mr. know-it-all.

Knobby wrote:
By this logic moron, half of the nations under the Iron Curtain wouldn't be truly "Marxist"

Stas Bush: All of them would be Marxist. All of them explicitly installed and instituted, as well as publicly proclaimed, Marxist ideology. You're a fucktard who doesn't know history.

Well based on the above I’m still not moving. As far as this shows it seems very clear what you were stating and that you were talking about Classic Marxism not Leninism. Note the “” around Marxist suggesting that this was a debate about Classic Marxism not Leninist-Marxism.

If you’re talking about Leninism then yes most of these countries did have some kind of Leninist ideology and government. Though generally only at their creation with only Cuba managing to remain even close to Lenin’s original ideology. Let alone bloody Carl Marx.

“Marxism includes Marxism-Leninism, which was the most influential current of Marxism. Want to dispute?"

True Marxism is the bases for Leninism however they are still very different animals. One is a massed rising of the proletariat against the bourgeois middle classes to take control of the WORLDS resources, one was a revolution by the people to remove a corrupt dictatorship, which Lenin high jacked in order to gain political power (and yes there are many views on how involved Lenin was in the October revolution that just happens to be mine that he merely stole the thunder) The aim of the game was and is still to work out were the hell you were standing on what Marxism is.

Have you read Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels works? Those of Lenin? No? What the fuck are you talking about then? And yes, Marxism became an ideology of many regimes. However, not an ideology of Mugabe's regime, and no longer the ideology of North Korea. Which is what I was explaining to the moron.

Ok first part yes I’ve red Carl Marx if you study the Russia revolution for any length of time you kinda have to. However I don’t see how that changes much about what I said before. As to the regimes North Korea is still nominally Communist in the same way that China is both paying only lip service to either Leninism or Marxism. However that’s been true of almost all modern communist regimes (again with Cuba as an exception that proves the rule)

However Mugabe did intend to try and create a Marxist regime when he came to power the fact that like all the rest he failed is fairly obvious.

[K. A. Pital]

Nah, Knobby mentioned that he only means Marxism-Leninism.

Frankly, not one "Marxist" (*Leninist, Maoist, Stalinist

He explicitly meant only Marxist-Leninist currents. Hence why I only debated them.

True Marxism is the bases for Leninism however they are still very different animals

No doubt, man. I'm not here to dispute that.

However I don’t see how that changes much about what I said before. As to the regimes North Korea is still nominally Communist in the same way that China is both paying only lip service to either Leninism or Marxism.

Well, that's about what I've been trying to bash into Knobby's head, that it's not enough to be part of some left wing party, a nation must not only proclaim an official Marxist-Leninist ideology but also follow it in practice.

The debate was never about theoretical Marxism though, but of practice; only Leninism was sufficiently potent to actually create vast political practice.

[Samuel]

Did it ever occur to you that he might simply be a corrupt Marxist doing the exact same thing? Once again, why must you turn the question into a fallacy of False Dilemma?

A corrupt Marxist would be appointing his cronies to run the state collective farms, not giving them private property.

Source? I need more info on this topic before I can make a judgement.

The 1870s one turns out to be different (it sounds like a Japanese version of the enclosure act). How about the 1946-1950 under the US occupation?
http://www.ruralnet.or.jp/E/rii/lrij.html
http://ssjj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/8/2/175

I'm not sure what you're getting at with India...Seeing as how it is actually significantly less regulated than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_ ... _(Marxist)
http://www.cpim.org/

[Knobbyboy88]

Hitler was a supporter of large-scale capitalism and an ardent protector of private property against "communist ideas"

No, he was a supporter of what could be termed as a sort of "State" Capitalism. This ideology was known as "National Socialism" and Mussolini decribed it as being a "union of state and corporate power." It basically preached to the idea that all aspects of society should directly contribute to the continued power and glory of the state. This highly statist ideology did not necessarily oppose private poperty, but had next to nothing in common with the liberal "free market" systems of today.

Furthermore, Franco and Pinochet had next to nothing to do with this movement! Franco was simply a staunch and authoritarian traditionalist, whereas Pinochet was basically a military appointed strongman meant to keep Soviet influence out of Chile. Neither of them endorsed the same kind of economic policies that the Nazis or Mussolini endorsed.

Once again Stas, these subjects are no where near as "pretty" or clean cut as you are making them out to be. Different (and often completely contradictory) ideologies can often run into one another in bizarre mishmatches of political and economic belief. "Fascism" is the best example of this I could possibly think of.

Kim Jong Il hasn't, he abandoned Marxism (which was the official ideology of his father Kim Il Sung). Castro is a communist.

If Kim Jong has abandoned Marxism, so has Castro. Are you even aware of the kinds of reforms Cuba has implimented since the fall of the Soviet Union?

Most of Cuba's income at this point in history comes from the money brought in by "decadent" Western tourists, and taxes taken out of the money Cuban politcial refugees send back to their families for Christ's sake! The Cuban government has also made substantial moves in recent years to deregulate economically viable sectors of its economy and open its borders to "Capitalist" foreign investment.

Once again, by your "ideal" definition of the word, there isn't a single "Marxist" regime left on the planet.

Now, did Mugabe, like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim Il Sung, etc. and other REAL, outspoken and professed Marxists (1) install Marxism as official state ideology (2) implement Marxist ideology in political practice?

You've confused the issue Stas. Mugabe need not necessarily follow every move in the Stalinist/ Leninist handbook in order to be considered a Marxist leader. There is simply more to "Marxism" than the mere policies of Stalin or Lenin.

As Face pointed out, we are discussing "Classical Marxism" in a broader sense here. Mugabe simply IS a Leftist/ Marxist leader.

Besides, as I have already pointed out, Mugabe blatantly established the Government in Zimbabwe as a "one party" Marxist regime. How much closer to "install[ing] Marxism as offcial state ideology" can you really get?

One again Stas, you've chosen to define "Marxism" in such an absurdly specific and unduly restraining manner as to render the term effectively meaningless.

I can only assume that you have adpoted this as a mechanism for "picking your battles" where your defense of Red ideology is concerned. In order to make things easier on yourself, you simply refuse to acknowledge anything which doesn't meet your "ideal" definition of Marxism as belonging in the same general category. This inherent selection bias on your part is both dishonest and impractical in any real discussion of political philosophy.

Case in point: By your definition of the word, Hugo Chavez wouldn't be a "Marxist" leader either.

Because the majority of Bush's views fits the conservative ideology

As do the majority of Mugabe's views fit ultra-Left Wing Marxist ideology. The fact that the man may be batshit insane and one of the most incompetent leaders in Africa doesn't change the fact that he blatantly has endorsed and been endorsed by the international Left within his own nation and around the world (i.e. the USSR during the Cold War).

Says the person who has yet to make a clear definition on Marxism.

Once again, I'm sorry, but "Marxism" isn't exactly a clear topic. You can thank Marx's intentional vagueness in clarifying just how exactly this economic system should have functioned in reality for this sorry fact.

Quote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at with India...Seeing as how it is actually significantly less regulated than the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_ ... a_(Marxist)
http://www.cpim.org/

India has a Communist Party. I already knew this. However, they aren't in power at the moment, so I fail to see how this would really make India a "Communist" nation.

A corrupt Marxist would be appointing his cronies to run the state collective farms, not giving them private property.

Once again, Chavez is rather blatantly a Marxist and has done many of the same things that Mugabe has.

"Marxist" does not necessarily mean "Stalinist."

[Samuel]

As do the majority of Mugabe's views fit ultra-Left Wing Marxist ideology. The fact that the man may be batshit insane and one of the most incompetent leaders in Africa doesn't change the fact that he blatantly has endorsed and been endorsed by the international Left within his own nation and around the world (i.e. the USSR during the Cold War).

A Soviet ally doesn't make him a communist any more than it makes Egypt communist.

Also, you haven't provided evidence for the whole Marxism thing. Has he been nationalizing the nations industry?

Once again, Chavez is rather blatantly a Marxist and has done many of the same things that Mugabe has.

"Marxist" does not necessarily mean "Stalinist."

Chavez has nationalized the oil companies, nationalized other companies. made ties with Cuba, coordinates with other left wing governments in the region and has expended social services. Mugabe has done...?

[Knobbyboy88]

Also, you haven't provided evidence for the whole Marxism thing. Has he been nationalizing the nations industry?

Agriculture was Zimbabwe's primary industry, and Mugabe has been rather heavy handedly seeking to "nationalize" it for quite some time. He has simply had trouble accomplishing this task due to international interference and the fact that he allowed a strong opposition movement to form right under his nose.

While he initially promised compensation for land owners (and was more than happy to provide such compensation so long as the British were footing the bill), history indicates that his real agenda seems to lie in evading these promises and seizing the land by force if need be.

2000: The government organised a referendum on [a] new constitution, despite having a sufficiently large majority in parliament to pass any amendment it wished. Had it been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation. Despite vast support in the media, the new constitution was defeated, 55% to 45%. There was wild jubilation by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)'s local and foreign supporters, prompting end-of-Mugabe headlines in the British and Zimbabwean media.
A few days later, the pro-Mugabe War Veterans Association organised like-minded people (not necessarily other war veterans, as many of them were too young to have fought in the Liberation War) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. As the march continued, seizing began. When the violence ended, a total of 110,000 square kilometers of land had been seized.

2004: The Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement John Nkomo had declared five days earlier, that all land, from crop fields to wildlife conservancies, would soon become state property. Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe


The bottom line remains, that, while Mugabe certainly isn't in the same ilk as Castro or Stalin, he is certainly a "Leftist" dictator and very likely a "Marxist" to boot. The fact that he is an utterly incompetent loon really holds no bearing on this fact.

coordinates with other left wing governments in the region and has expended social services.

He has done the former, and claims to be after the later. Once again, he simply happens to suck at it.

[ray245]

Agriculture was Zimbabwe's primary industry, and Mugabe has been rather heavy handedly seeking to "nationalize" it for quite some time. He has simply had trouble accomplishing this task due to international interference and the fact that he allowed a strong opposition movement to form right under his nose.

While he initially promised compensation for land owners (and was more than happy to provide such compensation so long as the British were footing the bill), history indicates that his real agenda seems to lie in evading these promises and seizing the land by force if need be.

Just because he nationalise one sector doesn't mean he is a marxist. Many aspect of his policies is still based on captialism as opposed to marxism.

The bottom line remains, that, while Mugabe certainly isn't in the same ilk as Castro or Stalin, he is certainly a "Leftist" dictator and very likely a "Marxist" to boot. The fact that he is an utterly incompetent loon really holds no bearing on this fact.

Tell me what is your defintion of Marxist. Are you saying a person who nationalise one sector of the economy makes him a marxist?

You've confused the issue Stas. Mugabe need not necessarily follow every move in the Stalinist/ Leninist handbook in order to be considered a Marxist leader. There is simply more to "Marxism" than the mere policies of Stalin or Lenin.

So kindly tell us to what extend does it take for a person to be a Marxist? Don't try and evade the question by being vague.

[K. A. Pital]

1) What is a Marxist?
2) What is a Marxist-Leninist?
3) What differentiates a Marxist government?

I'm tired and deathly bored of your evasions, Knobby.

[Knobbyboy88]

1) What is a Marxist?
2) What is a Marxist-Leninist?
3) What differentiates a Marxist government?

I'm tired and deathly bored of your evasions, Knobby.

I'm not "evading" anything. I am simply pointing out that this issue isn't any where near as simplistic as you are trying to make it out to be.

As far as "definitions" go, Dictionary.com (which is about as good a source as any given the circumstances) states that Marxism is...

the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

While it must be noted that there are "textbook" definitions where Marxism is concerned and then there is actual historical reality (the two blatantly contradict one another quite often in case you haven't noticed), even this extremely limited definition gives me more or less everything I would ever need to classify Mugabe as a "Marxist."

Obviously, Marxism is, in the broader sense of the word, a system which is fundamentally anti-Capitalist, endorses some form of "Socialism," and advocates the overthrow of existing societies through class warfare and other violent "revolutionary" means.

What part of the description above doesn't Mugabe fit? He is anti-Capitalist, he endorses "Socialism" (or claims to anyway), and he took control of Zimbabwe after a violent "revolution"(in which he was the leader of a "Marxist" group no less) and continues to utilize "class warfare" oriented rhetoric against white landowners and the "Western" World in general to this very day.


Once again, where in the Hell is all of the controversy coming from here? This should honestly be a "no-brainer." Mugabe might very well be a "soft" Marxist Socialist, but he is a Marxist Socialist all the same.

[Patrick Degan]

And you accuse Stas Bush of being simplistic? How comical.

Mugabe has used Marxist rhetoric but has demonstrably not followed a Marxist pattern in his misrule of Zimbabwe. Cronyist would better describe the machinery behind the Mugabe autarky. And his "class warfare" rhetoric is a refighting of the battle against the white colonialists but he very clearly has not extended class struggle analysis to the bulk of Zimbabwean society.

Now how about actually answering Stas' questions.