Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth v Zentai [2012] HCA 28 per Heydon J at [75]
Analysis should not be diverted by reflections upon the zeal with which the victors at the end of the Second World War punished the defeated for war crimes. The victors were animated by the ideals of the Atlantic Charter and of the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was about to peep over the eastern horizon. But first, they wanted a little hanging.
But for how long? Was there really any of this "equality" by the time the revolution stopped and the USSR was established? It certainly was for nothing if it was completely lost in the throes of dictatorship.
And so it was.Then take my family. We were minor nobility who defended the Tsars and defended the serfs during the legal reforms of Alexander II. Our wealth modest as it was compared to other nobility but was well-earned. When the revolution came, our family was shot for being noble, our church was burnt down, and what was left was forced to flee back to Estonia. The revolution was bad for people like us and was bad for the nation as a whole.
Yes, this is true.That's not true. The Moscow Supreme Soviet [sic] Lening ordered the execution because White troops were closing in on Yekatarinburg. The executioners were not censured they were given medals.
Education tainted with propaganda, poverty, and heavy state influence. Some advancement. And, what, the education systems in non-Communist nations weren't as good?It's clearly not all for nothing. Soviet education system is why all ex-USSR countries have 99% literacy rates. At least for people that were educated during Soviet times, since education has deteriorated post-independence in some central asian countries.
Of course there was propaganda. I just think the benefits of learning how to read, write, and basic mathematics outweigh the harm of their teaching being propagandistic.
And if you want to compare education systems, compare Russia to Russia: from 80-90% illiterate in Czarist Russia, to less than 1%. So no, non-communist education in Russia was not as good as communist education.
I don't think "propagandistic" is actually a word...
Nevertheless, I can't possibly imagine why. One of the main benefits of education is to teach people their rights. Whereas in the Soviet system, for most of it's history, they had no rights.
Education matters very little if you live in a hole, are led by a dictator, and make next to nothing to support yourself. And don't get started on Soviet entitlement programs, we all know they did little to help anything.And if you want to compare education systems, compare Russia to Russia: from 80-90% illiterate in Czarist Russia, to less than 1%. So no, non-communist education in Russia was not as good as communist education.
Well, I don't know, individuals such as yourself, jeering from the sidelines "y'all are just gonna be anuthur dictaturship" would probably provide excellent motivation to prove you wrong.
Also, if this is true, why has Cuba gone from a dictatorship to having a fully elected legislature? And are you familiar with work by a number of Soviet leaders to introduce elected leaders and term limits?
I suggest you consult the Soviet Constitution.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/...t/1977toc.html
Can you please source these holes you speak of? And the Soviet entitlement programs while you're at it.Education matters very little if you live in a hole, are led by a dictator, and make next to nothing to support yourself. And don't get started on Soviet entitlement programs, we all know they did little to help anything.
Of course education mattered - even more so if you're living in a "hole". It was the main means of pulling yourself out of that hole, and that was more than possible in the USSR for much of its existence. I mean for example, at the hight of Khrushchev's tenure as General Secretary, the USSR gained a higher literacy rate than the United States, which says alot considered throughout its existence the Soviet Union was basically a 2nd world country that had worked its way up from 3rd world status. In 1960, literacy rates were at 98.5%, while they were at 98% in the US. The lead continues to 1970, where the USSR has an even greater lead of 99.7% over the US's 99%, and to 1980, where the US still has 99% and the USSR boasts an impressive 99.8%.
Source: Communism by Leslie Holmes, Oxford University Press, page 91, table 5.
Last edited by Jingles; November 09, 2010 at 07:18 AM.
Why do people only think in contradictions?
Either black, or white, either communist heaven, or bolsevikh filth...
In the reality though communism remained alive not just because of sheer force, but because in undeveloped countries it meant a form of modernization and raised living standards.
For example Russia was always governed by feudal elites, with their nealy absolute, religiously backed authority.
All the while modern states tended to evolve towards being managed by a more effective technocratic burgeois elite.
In Russia where this eilte could never grab the power in lack of proper urbanisation, the bolsevikh elite played the same role. Of course, the institutions of civil society which enable the basics of democracy lagged behind. This was the price which late comers pay usually.
Therefore did say Lenin that "revolution is secularization+electric power"
Isn't it a way to say: revolution is more a technical change at thi stage than a truly complete transformation of society from" the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom"?
The terror during civil war, a stalinism with it's totalitarian features were just as reality (and somewhat a consequence of historical situation) than raised living standards for the masses (at the cost of industrial production quality) and general education.
Kerensky made a big contribution to Imperial army literally falling apart due to desertion and lack of discipline. I already mentioned what he did to cause it. Even if Kornilov would have suceeded in pereventing Bolschevicks from coming to power, pressue within the society would still remain and explode in one way or another, if not properly addressed.
But industry is required for better conditions. And majority of Russian's living standards actually did increase eventually. Lets not forget that these standards were really hard to raise due to devastation caused by Civil War, hungers and WW2.Like I said, it'd be pretty crazy to expect a feudal backwater country to make the leap into the ranks of Britain and the USA (in terms of living conditions at least) in 10 years - what was important was that industry was gradually improving, and while Nicholas II doesn't seem to be the kind of monarch who would completely accept a constitution (he did cave in and form a Duma earlier on), without WW1 the Bolsheviks couldn't have gotten far and his successor would have been forced into that (or else lose the throne and see Russia become a democracy - like it was under Kerensky and the Provisional Government). Russia also made an actual great leap forward in terms of industry under Stalin, did living conditions shoot up under him? I'm thinking no.
I repeat, I did not say life was awesome.
Manco wrote "they just changed masters", which is not socialism. But in those years there was a people movement, it was more socialist. The civil war is another story.
I am talking about organization and involvement of people, class conciousness.
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
i take it this was back when russia was considered by france and uk and usa as being 'western' eh lol
Wow, let me just start out by saying, now that I look back on it, my previous post was a fail. Bad idea writing responses when one is still half asleep.
At any rate:
I will speak out against that which I believe to be wrong. I'm quite sure you would do the same. Don't attempt to demean or mock me, it reflects rather poorly on yourself. Given the generally destructive communist track-record, I have no reason to do anything but discourage you.
Fidel Castro himself admitted that the Cuban system is no longer working.Also, if this is true, why has Cuba gone from a dictatorship to having a fully elected legislature?
SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/...fidel_castro_5
And how many Soviet leaders disregarded this constitution and oppressed the people anyway? I'm surprised you're even arguing this point, frankly, I thought it was generally accepted among the communist community that the USSR was a "failed experiment."I suggest you consult the Soviet Constitution.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/...t/1977toc.html
Hole being a general metaphor for poverty. Entitlement programs being a failed attempt on my part to describe socialism whilst being half asleep this morning. I've made quite a mess of this now...Can you please source these holes you speak of? And the Soviet entitlement programs while you're at it.
History would prove you wrong. You can argue what may have been all day if you want, but that doesn't mean anything is going to change. The fact of the matter is that nobody did climb out of the hole, despite their apparent education. Why should this be any different from any other system existing now, or in the future?Of course education mattered - even more so if you're living in a "hole". It was the main means of pulling yourself out of that hole, and that was more than possible in the USSR for much of its existence. I mean for example, at the hight of Khrushchev's tenure as General Secretary, the USSR gained a higher literacy rate than the United States, which says alot considered throughout its existence the Soviet Union was basically a 2nd world country that had worked its way up from 3rd world status. In 1960, literacy rates were at 98.5%, while they were at 98% in the US. The lead continues to 1970, where the USSR has an even greater lead of 99.7% over the US's 99%, and to 1980, where the US still has 99% and the USSR boasts an impressive 99.8%.
Source: Communism by Leslie Holmes, Oxford University Press, page 91, table 5.
So it's not the communists' fault at all? A bunch of poor innocents being picked on by the big bad "imperialist interventionists." Boo hoo.Which is a result of "imperialist" intervention which created a massive civil war causing death of a conciouss class, leaving the new regime with almost a million bureucrat class with a very strong hierarchy ruled by one man.
Last edited by Dan the Man; November 09, 2010 at 09:01 AM.
War has nothing to do with being communist or capitalist. It is simply in human nature, clash of interests always cause war. This is not about being a fecking communist.So it's not the communists' fault at all? A bunch of poor innocents being picked on by the big bad "imperialist interventionists." Boo hoo.
What I am saying is, the reason the revolution became degenerated and the new regime became a totalitarian police state was TO PROTECT revolution. Why do you protect revolution? Because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...sian_Civil_War
If you know some history, you would know that back in the day, socialism was a pretty common ideology. Obviously both the monarchies and bourguise influenced countries around the world wouldn't want this revolution to succeed. Hence there was always support for the "whites"
Since every action has a reaction, the longer the civil war lasted, more "conciouss" workers died, infastructure devastated, need for bureucracy and officers/ministers from old regime became necessary. Ended up with a strong hierarchy, a totalitarian regime.
Simple analysis.
This isn't about being a communist. D'oh
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
Excuse me for assuming it was because that's what everybody else in the whole thread is talking about!
If the police state was established to protect the revolution from the war, then why wasn't it removed after the revolution and the war were both over and the real communist state was supposed to come into play?
Yeah, sorry man, you missed the bus on that one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...o-cuba-remarks
And you still haven't answered my question.
Actually after scanning through articles 33 to 69, I can't think of any instances in which these rights were infringed upon. Perhaps you should actually read the constitution before claiming it was violated.And how many Soviet leaders disregarded this constitution and oppressed the people anyway?
It was an "experiment" that was constantly changing. And I would hardly argue that it failed of it's own accord. A wise man once said, though I forget who, "the Soviet Union never fell. It was pushed."I'm surprised you're even arguing this point, frankly, I thought it was generally accepted among the communist community that the USSR was a "failed experiment."
But it hasn't. I've literally just shown you the literacy statistics as proof.History would prove you wrong.
Which I'm not.You can argue what may have been all day if you want,
Uh, tell that to every Soviet leader from Stalin to Gorbachev. Born as Russian and Ukrainian peasants all of them, and they climbed the social ladder to the very top. Numerous people in this thread, including a Russian member have already told you that social mobility in the Soviet Union did exist to a significant degree. Everybody in the USSR had free access to tertiary level education, if they chose to work that far ahead, the result of which would place them with prospects in a relatively high-paying job amongst the Nomenklatura. Stop pretending Communism is Feudalism.but that doesn't mean anything is going to change. The fact of the matter is that nobody did climb out of the hole, despite their apparent education. Why should this be any different from any other system existing now, or in the future?
Because those in charge didn't feel that the threat had yet passed. Which to an extent, is a view proven correct by the later Nazi invasion. Beyond that, self interest and dogma took over. Khrushchev actually tried desperately to lessen the power of the state whilst in office, but his own daft decisions in other policy areas lead to him being ousted by the conservatives. And beyond even that, the attempted reforms of Adropov and Gorbachev prove that by no means was the USSR somehow doomed to tyranny.If the police state was established to protect the revolution from the war, then why wasn't it removed after the revolution and the war were both over and the real communist state was supposed to come into play?
Last edited by Jingles; November 09, 2010 at 09:31 AM.
The threat of counter-revolution was never finished. Not to mention world viewing the Soviets as badboy. Nobody wanted their people to belive that something can change if they actually rise.
Mr.Stalin and his friends believed revolution was over and decided to establish their "communism". It wasn't the perfect socialist state, and if you ask me wasn't really socialist at all. Just on paper.
But thats because I am a Trotskyist, meaning I support the worker democracy that was formed before the civil war.
Like I said, it is a change FROM BELOW, which is what socialism is about. Stalin's Communist party declared itself as the "will of the people" and established reforms from ABOVE.
It had is's weaknesses and strenghts though. I'll give Stalin credit, because he actually DID what he wanted to do. Protected the motherland, created a superpower, an industrialized country....but at what cost?
There is never an absolute truth you see, I put people before the state. Stalin put state before people.
But like I said, I can understand his reasons.
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
Please don't post garbage. Oh, and if we are speaking about real wages, how about real prices..?
PS. Under Stalin's industrialization USSR went from a backwater to superpower capable of defeating Nazi Germany & half a dozen Nazi allies (along with practically all of the industry in Europe).
The Bolshevik revolt was not a popular front with support from the Russian masses, the beloved "proletariat" Lenin spoke so fondly of. Indeed, the October/November revolution was one carried out by a cadre of the politically extremist bolsheviks, a clique bent on seizing power from the legally-appointed Provisional Government(who were mostly aristocrats) who had yet to fulfill its promises of peace with the Kaiser, grain for the masses and land for the serfs. Unlike the mass-demonstrations of February and the shooting of Gapon, this revolution was one of political savagery, precipitating a bloody civil war and heralding a new, frightening era of totalitarianism embodying the failure and debauchery of the twentieth century. Yes, the revolution swept away the vestiges of Tsardom and autocracy, introduced socialism and equality to the Russias and, under Stalin, transformed the fledgling Soviet state into an industrial and agricultural power. And yet, the costs of such rapid industrialization and collectivization;of purges and executions in the gulags for the well-being of the state, they are self-evident in their barbarism and inhumanity. The dictatorship of the proletariat, as envisioned by Marx, did indeed- at least in the U.S.S.R- abolish the old shackles of wealth and enforced state religion. However, in doing so, it simply replaced the old overlords with the new, a twisted, skewed abomination of the socialist utopia dreamt of by a German in a British library.
Some may argue Lenin, citing his introduction of gender equality and mastermind of the revolution. And yet, he savagely suppressed ( not to the extent of Stalin, though) the political opposition, the right monarchist and liberal democrats. Some might profess the virtues of Trotsky, or Kamanev, Zinoviev or Bukharin. And yet, the struggles of 1924-1928 show clearly how easily political power and selfishness corrupt service to the state, socialist as it may be declared to be. Others may even hold the Man Of Steel in high regard, justifying his atrocities with the results of industrialization, collective farming and centralized power; supressing the ignominous spectre of the Gulag, piled heaps of the Kulaks and his ruthless powermongering in the immediate precursor to Barbarossa and the Great patriotic war that cost the lives of millions of soviet citizens. Kruschev, despite his open denunciations of Stalinism , blundered about on foriegn affairs, worsening the cuban and turkish missle situation to the point of brinkmanship, putting forward the Virgin Lands scheme which ultimately resulted in utter failure and a need for foreign grain imports. Brezhnev, as the die-hard conservative, failed to see the looming storm, continuing the process of savaging western detente overtures, introducing his own, iron-fisted take on preserving the Warsaw Pact and soviet sphere of Eastern Europe with the Brezhnev doctrine and ultimately led the Soviet Union into an Afghanistani Vietnam that would drag on for almost a decade.
Last edited by Gerald The Herald; November 10, 2010 at 09:05 AM.
No change in the balance of political parties can alter the general determination that no class should be excluded from contributing to and sharing responsibility for the state. - Gustav Stresemann
Wait a second? I need clarification on this...It was not supported by Russian masses?
How come a group of intellectuals made a revolution and led a civil war against an actual army with support from west and took power if it was not "supported by masses" ?
Class conciousness was high in certain areas of Russia and they were well organized with Sovites forming around. And the mass movement had been there at least 10 years earlier than 1917...not just from socialists(and variations) but also from bourguise representors.
What exactly is your critisizm here? The concept of socialism, or the fact that war destroyed the original ideas and took a different form?Indeed, the October/November revolution was one carried out by a cadre of the politically extremist bolsheviks, a clique bent on seizing power from the legally-appointed Provisional Government(who were mostly aristocrats) who had yet to fulfill its promises of peace with the Kaiser, grain for the masses and land for the serfs. Unlike the mass-demonstrations of February and the shooting of Gapon, this revolution was one of political savagery, precipitating a bloody civil war and heralding a new, frightening era of totalitarianism embodying the failure and debauchery of the twentieth century. Yes, the revolution swept away the vestiges of Tsardom and autocracy, introduced socialism and equality to the Russias and, under Stalin, transformed the fledgling Soviet state into an industrial and agricultural power. And yet, the costs of such rapid industrialization and collectivization;of purges and executions in the gulags for the well-being of the state, they are self-evident in their barbarism and inhumanity.
I would rather say dictatorship of Stalin's communist party, that was certainly not dictatorship of proleteriat. Could we say the proleteriat had a say in politics, in their daily lifes, in their needs, in the work hours, in the politics?The dictatorship of the proletariat, as envisioned by Marx, did indeed- at least in the U.S.S.R- abolish the old shackles of wealth and enforced state religion. However, in doing so, it simply replaced the old overlords with the new, a twisted, skewed abomination of the socialist utopia dreamt of by a German in a British library.
No
Since revolution was under threat it turned into a counter-revolution led by paranoiac people who put defending the motherland before everything. The concept of socialism is based on, state is for people. The PEOPLE served the state in this case.
Although it did achieve some of the goals of socialism, it missed the most important point.
Socialism is not for competition with world powers, it is for allocating the resources to create a collective society. Thats why you need an internationalist movement. A soldier coming from Germany to repress should be conciouss enough to understand that the people that are on revolt there are actually supporting his interests hence leave his weapon and say off to his superiors.
True true, sadly thats how many revolutions happened. Didn't the birth of real liberalism, liberty, equality(social) came the same way?Some may argue Lenin, citing his introduction of gender equality and mastermind of the revolution. And yet, he savagely suppressed ( not to the extent of Stalin, though) the political opposition, the right monarchist and liberal democrats.
The main reason for this however is the intervention of others. Think of France where again, the revolution was very much threathening the interests of monarchies all over Europe. Then think of the America where intervention was not as easy.
Like I said, if the more democratic understanding of the October revolution continued without a war starting and killing of the conciouss class movement a proper worker democracy could have been established. Do we see the same corruption in Paris or Catalonia examples? They were much more democratic. A more decentralized democratic system would work properly. But then, interventions could easily threathen the society.Some might profess the virtues of Trotsky, or Kamanev, Zinoviev or Bukharin. And yet, the struggles of 1924-1928 show clearly how easily political power and selfishness corrupt service to the state, socialist as it may be declared to be.
War corrupts the revolution. It happened in French revolution(Roberpierre), it happened in October revolution(Stalinism), it happened in Spain as well.
I won't, from a political view. But then from an historical view, I can understand why-how things happened.Others may even hold the Man Of Steel in high regard, justifying his atrocities with the results of industrialization, collective farming and centralized power; supressing the ignominous spectre of the Gulag, piled heaps of the Kulaks and his ruthless powermongering in the immediate precursor to Barbarossa and the Great patriotic war that cost the lives of millions of soviet citizens.
Nothing to say hereKruschev, despite his open denunciations of Stalinism , blundered about on foriegn affairs, worsening the cuban and turkish missle situation to the point of brinkmanship, putting forward the Virgin Lands scheme which ultimately resulted in utter failure and a need for foreign grain imports. Brezhnev, as the die-hard conservative, failed to see the looming storm, continuing the process of savaging western detente overtures, introducing his own, iron-fisted take on preserving the Warsaw Pact and soviet sphere of Eastern Europe with the Brezhnev doctrine and ultimately led the Soviet Union into an Afghanistani Vietnam that would drag on for almost a decade.
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge