🚀 go-pugleaf

More of an anti-marxist rant than an explaination of the differences
between marxism and communism... 
___________________________________________________________________________
BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK cur boy Mosley AND STAY THERE!    
___________________________________________________________________________

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Neville Lindsay wrote:

> 
> "Jacques Chester" <jacques.chester@student.usyd.ee-dee-you.au> wrote in
> message news:8lous6$7t$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > > Marxists
> >
> > Can someone please explain to me the differences
> > between marxism and communism? And no sniping,
> > please :)
> >
> 
> Marxism provided the theory for communism. The practitioners took over from
> there and stuffed it. Marxism is therefore back in vogue along with a pack
> of other euphemisms to provide boltholes for those who made a life out of
> communism and like big Malcolm were caught with their pants down when
> communism collapsed as an undeniable failure and atrocity world wide.
> 
> Marxism is of course thoroughly discredited as an economic theory - having
> been built by Marx and Engels on the basis of economic conditions of
> sole-proprietor capitalism of the 19th Century, it has no relevance to
> today's global economy. After Marx's death, Engels recognised the beginnings
> of this in a visit to Germany where he acknowledged that workers' position
> had progressed far more by negotiation in a decade than by 50 years of
> revolutionary struggle. This of course didn't stop the ideologues, and we
> still have rabbits acclaiming Marxism to this day. When you have spent a
> lifetime as a public Marxist-Leninist proponent, where else do you go when
> the failure and brutality of Leninism is exposed? This is particularly bad
> in Australian universities where these dinosaurs still exist in numbers.
> Western European counterparts got rid of this rubbish in the 1970s.
> Practical communism got its chance in Lenin's successful takeover of Russia
> in 1917 and ruthless demolition of opponents in the Party. Having got this
> power, he waited for the expected takeover in industrialised France and
> Germany so that the fraternal parties could pool the goodies. Their
> revolutions failed in 1919 and subsequently the industrialised countries
> were too smart to get caught, building prosperity out of capitalism and
> producing housing, services, amenities and welfare for their people.
> A devastated Lenin then invented state capitalism so that poor isolated
> Russia could industrialise and so provide the prescribed conditions and a
> viable working class to make Marx's theory work - the lazy bourgeoisie of
> Russia had not fulfilled their historical task of doing this and presenting
> goodies on a plate for the distributionist socialists to distribute. So we
> had Marxism-Leninism to make Marxism work in peasant-based countries, which
> is all the communists could get hold of. And to make all this go, they
> substituted for politics a doctrinaire monolithic party and a huge unfeeling
> bureaucracy which treated people as statistics and serfs.
> And so the communist countries began their long march on the backs of a
> groaning and put-upon people to fulfil mad-Marx's dream. About 100 million
> were killed in the process, and it finally began to collapse under its own
> contradictions, inefficiency and brutality 70 years later. Communism is
> dead, but the wolves have gone back to the sheep's clothing of 'pure'
> Marxism (with a human face - look for the teeth) or called themselves
> something fancy. Still unreconstructed, claiming to know how to do better
> next time. Would you buy a used totalitarian bureaucracy from these men?
> 
> NL
> 
> 
> 
>