Khrushchev’s secret speech and end of communism

Daily Times ^ | 3/5/06 | Roy A Medvedev

[BW2221]

I often think the government would be better off if it had no Ivy Leaguers or graduates from other elitist schools.
We might be better off with graduates from less prestigious colleges with "real-life" backgrounds and common sense making decisions.

[BW2221]

I can see a George Clooney movie now ... with Alger Hiss as the hero.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Interesting that Khrushchev died on September 11th of 1971.

[BW2221]

Might you say an "intellectual" is a learned fool?

[Calpernia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579182/posts
Russia: Khrushchev's 'Secret Speech' Remembered After 50 Years

[rzeznikj at stout]

Nah, methinks communism was doomed from the start.

And as time progressed, it became increasingly difficult for the Politburo and the inner Communist Party to hold its death grip on whom they governed--until the very cores that held their system shattered under its own weight.

Reagan did have a big role in accelerating its demise.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Yes and no. Communism and Marxism by themselves are on life support and are dying out as widespread doctrines. Socialism as a whole is flourishing in Europe and among the American Left.

How can this be?

Simple. Socialism isn't communism. Socialism isn't Marxism. Socialism isn't even American Liberalism. But all three are different faces off the same body--Socialism.

Socialism is a broad word that implies any economic or political system (or ideology) in which the state is the primary determinant of the economic, political, and social decisions for a people--as opposed to a democracy or a true republic, where the people are the ultimate determinants of policy.

Thus Communism, American Liberalism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism, Islamism, totalitarianism, dictatorships, et al. are all considered to be Socialist in nature.

[Moonman62]

Obviously, Communism is flawed, and can't survive on any large scale by itself. But the Soviet Union was propped up by leftists in the West. That could have gone on indefinitely without someone like Reagan. And it wasn't just leftists. People like Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger and other Republicans were perfectly happy to coexist with the Soviets.

[rzeznikj at stout]

and can't survive on any large scale by itself.

Exactly my point.

But the Soviet Union was propped up by leftists in the West.

Clearly that helped to sustain it, and one of the reasons why the USSR managed to last as long as it did. It took Reagan and the classification of the USSR as the Evil Empire to spur reforms in the Eastern Bloc--leading to people like Gorbachev. This in turn accelerated the death of the Soviet Union and brought the Cold War to an end with the US as the lone victor.

[Moonman62]

No mention of Reagan's military buildup? Strategic Defense Initiative, a huge Navy, Peacekeeper missiles, and the resurgence of the American economy. It was a very uncomfortable time to be a Soviet.

[rzeznikj at stout]

No mention of Reagan's military buildup?

In my honest opinion, I believe that because we all know Reagan rebuilt the military, the economy, and the social orders back up to where it needed to be, mentioning this would be merely stating the obvious--especially when Soviet Russia was rightfully branded as the Evil Empire.

It is an extremely valid point nonetheless, and thank you for mentioning it.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I agree Communism is on the decline. China's economy is more free enterprise than state owned/controlled. Vietnam is moving down the same road. Only N. Korea and Cuba cling to the old Communism of total state ownership and central planning with a secret police (like the KGB) killing or imprisoning anyone that might oppose the regime.
Venezuela is moving in the wrong direction, but still far from Communism.

Socialism is not Communism, but I disagree that it isn't Marxist. Marxist theory is based on what is called economic determinism, that the end state of Communism must go through Socialism prior to pure Communism (the withering away of the state). Of course as a part of this process, "The Dictatorship of The Proletariat" is to insure that Capitalism was eliminated/destroyed moving to Socialism and then Communism. What happened with Communist states is that they all got stuck at the Dictatorship of the Proletariat stage. Yes, they murdered, killed and vanquished the capitalists, but replaced them with dictators and secret police that never intended to move to a pure communist state (eliminating the state). Their excuse was that the State could not go away until capitalism (USA, UK etc.) were destroyed.

The Socialism that has been widely adopted in the West came about because of Marxism and philosophers like Rousseau that believed that the State needed to remake the economy and the framework of society. While socialism is no where near as destructive and harmful (not may have been murdered in Sweden for Socialism), it is essentially watered down Marxist theory. The USA adopted much of the Socialist agenda under FDR and later LBJ. People like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy believe that they know how the state should run our economy and country. Conservatives believe that the free market should prevail over state control.

[rzeznikj at stout]

but I disagree that it isn't Marxist.

I digress.

You are correct in saying that socialism isn't Marxist in and of itself. However, we all have to remember that Marxism is Socialism by definition and by nature, albeit one type of Socialism. The same holds true for Communism.

Socialism is the general group--much like how we'd define a car as a personal means of transportation. Communism, Marxism, etc. are merely specific brands of Socialism--in my car analogy, these would be the specific brand names (Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc.)

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I suppose that Socialism existed prior to Marx, as in Plato's Utopia.

I sense that we are in general disagreement. Clearly, Socialism is a different animal (or car model) from Communism. I do believe that Marxism was the collectivist catalyst for modern Socialism and Communism. Marx's determinist theory was that Capitalism would be replaced by Socialism and ultimately Communism.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Clearly, Socialism is a different animal (or car model) from Communism

Socialism is different from what most of us think of when we hear socialism-- the latter is what you refer to. Thus confusion typically exists--even among scholars. Hence, let us differentiate Socialism and socialism. Common socialism is what we usually think of when we hear socialism. Socialism is the greater encompassment.

Having said that, Common socialism and Communism are different car models and Marxism leading to common socialism and ultimately Communism are both correct. But since Communism is Socialism, they are not two separate things--Communism is merely a specific kind of Socialism. Just like the American Left is another specific kind of Socialism.

[spanalot]

"Unfortunately, sometimes the higher the intellect, the lower the common sense. Believe me."

Ha - thats the truth.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx - an anticommunist is someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx"
President Ronald Reagan

[spanalot]

"I suppose that Socialism existed prior to Marx, as in Plato's Utopia."

Whosawha??!?!???!

Do you mean Platos Republic? Platos dialectic is the exact opposite of Marx's material dialectic.

And Communism is never mentioned in Das Kapital - he talks about a Workers Paradise as the final state after Capitalismand Socialsim where people do what they want due to automation.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Plato's Republic includes a kind of communalist utopia. I did not mean to assert a Marxist thinking. However, Plato was very idealistic and something of a collectivist.

Communism is clearly mentioned in Marx's "The Communist Manifesto."

[spanalot]

Platos Republic is really forecasts so many of the problems we are having today - right down to the mexican invasion.

Youre right - he did believe in ideals and perfection.

This si good because the sob Marx came along and turned it upside down saying in effect might makes right.

Thats why Marxist relativism is such a terrible affliction.

[spanalot]

Platos Republic is really forecasts so many of the problems we are having today - right down to the mexican invasion.

Youre right - he did believe in ideals and perfection.

This is good because the sob Marx came along and turned it upside down saying in effect might makes right. Manifesto is a cop out when Marx realized that the Germany and England were not going to fold like a cheap camera, he modified theory to allow for communism to spring from less developed countries.

Thats why Marxist relativism is such a terrible affliction.