" but Marxists claim that the Soviet Union's Leninist and Stalinist policies were only superficially similar to Marx's theory. Marx analyzed the world of his day and refused to draw up plans of how a future socialist society should be run saying he did not "write recipes...for cook-shops of the future". " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx Maybe that's part of the problem? Since Marx didn't write a "recipe" for just how exactly a socialist country should be run,the other socialists had to "fill in the blanks" with their own ideas.
What that is a recipe for is being able to say you are never wrong. No matter how many failed socialist/communist/anarchist/castro-beardist states we have to suffer through, the die hards will always be able to say "No, no, that wasn't how it was supposed to be!" I.e. after defining marxist societies as being utopian, then any crap society can't be socialist, so we have a perfect circular argument. Marxism can never be wrong. What this reminds me of mostly was a young muslim woman who said that under Islam women are truly free, so if they weren't free under the Taliban or in Iran, then that is because Islam wasn't properly applied. So the communists/islamists will keep hope alive forever because of this circular logic.
That's why I asked if Marx had actually ran a country, because it's easy to sit back and theorize about how an economy should be managed when you don't have to actually manage one.
He didn't actually theorize very much how an economy should be managed. He studied how society works, how changes in history occur, progression in society, how classes react to each other (especially under capitalism) etc. Marx was a scientist. You don't need to sit in a rocket in order to figure out how the earth looks from the ouside.
What you just said come from people who have no idea what communism is, nor the difference between communism and socialism. Do you know the difference between socialism and communism?
It seems to not matter at all how much truth you're saying when the other person’s truth is the opposite of yours.
Ok, i see that most of you guys don't know what you're talking about and first i gotta tell you to buy some history books... and second of all i think that you lost the topic of thi thread... it's about che, and not about comunism... in 1965, while he was a rich cuban minister, che gaved a letter to fidel saying that he resings from his position of minister and giving away his cuban nationality... he also sent a letter to his parents saying that he still has an urge of liberating poor people. he was cought by the cia in bolivia in 1967 and executed the same day he was cought... he never urged for money, he did this only to liberate poor people, if he loved money he should have stayed home with his parents, who were very rich pople for those times... And please stop mentioning communism and che as they were the same things, because the weren't....
Cuba had 4million people back then... you really think that che(who really had nothing to do with this) would wipe out half of the cuban population
My wife was raised on the Island of Cuba. Of Course, we saw the Che movie this past summer It was a good study of Che's early life. Che's Spouse still resides in my wife's hometown of Santa Clara, Cuba. Che represents the early, idealistic side of The Revolution. How fortunate for his legacy that he died before the failures of The Revolution became well known.
Che represents the early, idealistic side of The Revolution. How fortunate for his legacy that he died before the failures of The Revolution became well known.[/QUOTE] True
What have you got against Chavez? I agree with the points raised about Guevarra, and Pressed Rat's satire on Che lovers seems apt. But Chavez has actually brought about some genuine reforms for the good of the poorest sections of Venezuelan society. Much of the negative reporting on Chavez comes from an extremely biased media. Watch 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' and it presents an alternative take on developments in Venezuela. No he's not perfect, but I'd say he's a damn sight better that a lot of world leaders out there, I'd certainly favour him over Bush or Blair....
Wow. I'm really happy that you don't live and vote in the United States. I'm friends with a family from Venezuela, and they have nothing but horrible things to say about that thug.
