[Maxim Litvinov]

Person - I don't think it sounds that bad. Anything sounds bad if you do a word-for-word translation and don't account for syntax.

But "Klubok" isn't 'ball of thread' so much as a mass, a combination of items massed together, isn't it? I'm not sure how often it's used in the sense of a small 'club' of people, although can't see why it can't be used as a diminutive form of 'klub'. For one, I've got a book "'Klubok' vokrug Stalina, which has nothing to do with a ball of thread.

So, while it wasn't a great sentence - I acknowledge that - I'd translate it as "I think that I'm also in small club 'without grammar'".

grrr.

[malachi151]

Gorbachev was a man on a mission to deeply change Russia and either bring lasting reform and a new era of open democratic, and more Marxist Socialism, or else die trying. He knew the stakes, he knew what could possibly happen, but he also knew that the USSR simply was no good at the point when he took office and it had to change one way or another, and that anything would be better than what they had.

He obviously showed himself to be the most compotent leader that the USSR ever had, since Lenin, and his heart waws in the right place as well.

What screwed it all up for him was the stupid hard liners, and then Yeltsin just totally "capitalized" on the kidnapping to his own advantage for personal gain, but the guy was an incompotent.

The collapse of the USSR was a disaster on many levels. If nothing else one of the big problems for world was the lack of organization that resulted in the flood of arms and scientists into the hands of terrorists and "rogue states". Under Gorbachev had people decided that they simply didn't want the Soviet system anymore he could have at least brought the system down in a more controlled manner.

Again, Gorbachev was robbed, he had the potntial to be one of the greatest leaders of the post WWII era IMO. I think he really could have gotten the USSR on track if it was not for the lack of cooperation from the hardliners.

Gorbachev is the one who brought Perestroika and Glasnost. Yeltsin was busy getting drunk while Gorby did all the work, then Yeltin just came in at the end like a vulture.

[jaakko]

Gorbachev was a man on a mission to deeply change Russia and either bring lasting reform and a new era of open democratic, and more Marxist Socialism, or else die trying.

This is funny. You really seem to be confused by the bourgeois idolisation of the man who lead the revisionist development of USSR to its climax. Here it is from the horse's mouth, as if the actions of the man didn't speak enough for themselves:

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... orbach.htm

[malachi151]

Well he is right IMO. What we have in the world today called "communism" is crap, and Gorby could have done a good job at stabalizing the USSR and making it to a democratic socialism. I'm not pro-communist, I'm sympathetic the the ideals of the early communsits, but I dont' agree that a communist system is workable, nor do I support any of the present day "communist" regimes.

[jaakko]

Yeah, if "democratic socialism" is defined as the completion of the capitalist restoration process which was launched during Khruschev and Brezhnev.

But earlier you said:
"Gorbachev was a man on a mission to deeply change Russia and either bring lasting reform and a new era of open democratic, and more Marxist Socialism."
What exactly is Marxist about Gorba's political line?

[malachi151]

Yeah, if "democratic socialism" is defined as the completion of the capitalist restoration process which was launched during Khruschev and Brezhnev.

But earlier you said:
"Gorbachev was a man on a mission to deeply change Russia and either bring lasting reform and a new era of open democratic, and more Marxist Socialism."
What exactly is Marxist about Gorba's political line?

The Russian "Revolution" was over before Stalin even came to power, it had no chance of "success". Realistically the Civil War took the wind out of the Marxist revolutionary sails. After the Civil War things were already too messed up to have any chance of success, by the time Trotsky left it was all over, the intentions of the revolutiounaries had been lost forever never to be regained.

The West was happy to see Stalin take power and for the "real revolutionaries" to be defeated. What was the saying "Stalin is the biggest enemy of the Communsits", or something like that...

I wouldn't call Khruschev one who was restoring capitalism, Khruschev was very much a believer in Socialism, Marxism, and humanism and of course launched a large scale global campaign of action, putting misiles in Cuba, advancing the space program, etc...

As for Gorbachev, he believes in democracy and government by the people. Marx would not have supported the oppressiveness of the Soviet Union. Obviously what they were doing wasn't working and wasn't achieving the purpose of Marxism, emancipation of humanity from oppression and exploitation. Gorby is a materialist and humanist, that, as far as I know still believes in the theory of class struggle.

[jaakko]

First of all, your reply hardly addressed anything in the post it was supposed to be replying to.

The West was happy to see Stalin take power and for the "real revolutionaries" to be defeated. What was the saying "Stalin is the biggest enemy of the Communsits", or something like that...

Yeah, RIGHT!

I wouldn't call Khruschev one who was restoring capitalism, Khruschev was very much a believer in Socialism, Marxism,

What makes you think so? Maybe you should take a look at these:
About the capitalist restoration process:
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html
About Khruschevite revisionism specifically:
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?ht ... hrush.html
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?ht ... ushch.html

Just so you know whate we're talking about.

As for Gorbachev, he believes in democracy and government by the people. Marx would not have supported the oppressiveness of the Soviet Union. Obviously what they were doing wasn't working and wasn't achieving the purpose of Marxism, emancipation of humanity from oppression and exploitation. Gorby is a materialist and humanist, that, as far as I know still believes in the theory of class struggle.

You still haven't presented anything to suggest Gorbachev was a Marxist.

[malachi151]

So funny, I agree with everything to reformers say

What is important about Marxism is not dogma, or holding to some stupid sentance, Marxism is first and foremost abou lcass struggle. If beuocracy is working AGAINT the class struggle and against the proletariat then it should be abolished, even Stalin wrote in opposition to the growing beuocracy.

Anyone defending Stalin is an idiot in the first place IMO anyway.

Stalin was nothing more than an enemy of the people and an nationalist who persued the moronic "ideology" (if you can even call it that), of "Socialism in one country", which was stupid, doomed to failure, and in the first place just a guise for the reinstatement of Czarist nationalism, which inevitably led to "Soviet" imperialism.

Centralized planning is stupid, it can't work, will never work, and these guys are complaining about the implimentation of a fix to a problem that would have done nothing but devistate the country even more, just as moronic "Libertarians" complain about the implimentation of the New Deal and the rise of "Americna fascism", which was inevitable and without which the American economy would have stagnated in ruin.

[Ixa]

Anyone defending Stalin is an idiot in the first place IMO anyway.

Wow, what a convincing argument

Stalin was nothing more than an enemy of the people

Defend this claim.

and an nationalist who persued the moronic "ideology" (if you can even call it that), of "Socialism in one country",

Leninism is moronic? Lenin, who said:

`NEP Russia will become socialist Russia.'

Who said:

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately".

This is moronic? Is this not the only sensible option?

I suggest you read this:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node14.html

No, on the contrary, a systematic world revolution is absurdly idealistic, and has nothing in common with Marxism - it is this which is moronic.

stupid

moronic

which was stupid,

[...] is stupid,

[...] can't work,

How convincing.

[malachi151]

Yeah, except that Russia was not a capitlaist country

Lenin was asmart guy with lots of good insight, but the whole Bolshevist thing was stupid, and quite obviously as has been proven out, the wrong thing to do, a total failure and has lead to the complete destruction of the revolutionary proletariate.

It failed, wake up and smell the coffee, now that its like 50 years old....

I'll defend Marxism all day long, but not Bolshevism, and certianly not Stalinism.

[jaakko]

I'm not going to follow your maneuvring.

Either defend your claim that Gorbachev was a Marxist, and counter the Marxist-Leninist critique of the capitalist restoration process initiated during the Khruschev-Brezhnev era, or else this debate ends here.

[malachi151]

The subject of Gorbachev's Marxism is a difficult one. I've seen arguments on both sides, what I have not seen is Gorbachev plainly stating his views on the matter.

I would say he definately was not a Leninist, but one does not have to be a Leninist to be a Marxist. I credit Lenin and Trotsky both with expanding and better explaning the core concepts fo Marxism, however one does not have to accept their radicalism and doctrine of conflict in order to be a Marxist, the Mensheviks, being the obvious example.