RIP Thread

[gilesgoat]

Mikhail Gorbachev:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62732447

[grue]

Mikhail Gorbachev:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62732447

Good riddance. He literally destroyed millions of people.
If there was a Hell, he would be roasting right next to Thatcher and Reagan.

[Mat]

Um grue, is there something about Gorbachev I don't know?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in the UK, he's very much seen as being responsible for the dismantling of the Soviet Union, which is generally regarded as having been a good thing for most ex-bloc members.

Is there some war or policy he was responsible for that resulted in the deaths of millions?

I'm willing to admit that all of the news I've ever consumed regarding Gorbachev has been through the filter a UK media, but even then, I'm sure general assholery on his behalf would have been made public.

Or have you mistaken Gorbachev for another Russian premier?

[grue]

Um grue, is there something about Gorbachev I don't know?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in the UK, he's very much seen as being responsible for the dismantling of the Soviet Union, which is generally regarded as having been a good thing for most ex-bloc members.

Is there some war or policy he was responsible for that resulted in the deaths of millions?

I'm willing to admit that all of the news I've ever consumed regarding Gorbachev has been through the filter a UK media, but even then, I'm sure general assholery on his behalf would have been made public.

Or have you mistaken Gorbachev for another Russian premier?

He destroyed the first great TRY for Communism and with it every big achievement that was made in the last 70 years (1917-1989) not only for USSR's residents but for the people of the whole world.
Free housing, health, education, pensions, vacations and many more that we don't dare to even dream about in Capitalism.

Because of this, the capitalist countries were forced to give fragments of those achievements to their citizens, in fear of further Revolutions.

All those things that we gradually lose in the last 30 years were because of the Soviet Union. In contrast, the worst problems of our lives are because of capitalism and imperialism of the West. War, poverty, capitalist crises with all they entail and the strike on unionization are endemic of the capitalist system.

Yes, there were some big mistakes but 70 years of transitional period is but a second in world history.

You can read those things and plenty more in Marxist books and texts.

Of course he would be hailed a hero in Capitalism, he brought it to the last big bastion of a different way of life that strived (again, mistakes and all) for the people and not for the Capital.

[zip accident]

Um grue, is there something about Gorbachev I don't know?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in the UK, he's very much seen as being responsible for the dismantling of the Soviet Union, which is generally regarded as having been a good thing for most ex-bloc members.

Is there some war or policy he was responsible for that resulted in the deaths of millions?

I'm willing to admit that all of the news I've ever consumed regarding Gorbachev has been through the filter a UK media, but even then, I'm sure general assholery on his behalf would have been made public.

Or have you mistaken Gorbachev for another Russian premier?

He destroyed the first great TRY for Communism and with it every big achievement that was made in the last 70 years (1917-1989) not only for USSR's residents but for the people of the whole world.
Free housing, health, education, pensions, vacations and many more that we don't dare to even dream about in Capitalism.

Because of this, the capitalist countries were forced to give fragments of those achievements to their citizens, in fear of further Revolutions.

All those things that we gradually lose in the last 30 years were because of the Soviet Union. In contrast, the worst problems of our lives are because of capitalism and imperialism of the West. War, poverty, capitalist crises with all they entail and the strike on unionization are endemic of the capitalist system.

Yes, there were some big mistakes but 70 years of transitional period is but a second in world history.

You can read those things and plenty more in Marxist books and texts.

Of course he would be hailed a hero in Capitalism, he brought it to the last big bastion of a different way of life that strived (again, mistakes and all) for the people and not for the Capital.

There were some exceedingly big mistakes.

Marxism as a whole is a mistake. The theory contradicts physics, and that's the whole universe it's up against, not just human culture.

There are probably some capitalists who think they have carte blanche to do as they like now, but they are riding for a very bad fall.

Facism is a mistake too, but it looks as if that will be the next opposition to capitalism, we won't get sense until at least both of those are gone, and it's quite possible that the ideology that follows them will be another mistake.

[grue]

There were some exceedingly big mistakes.

Marxism as a whole is a mistake. The theory contradicts physics, and that's the whole universe it's up against, not just human culture.

There are probably some capitalists who think they have carte blanche to do as they like now, but they are riding for a very bad fall.

Facism is a mistake too, but it looks as if that will be the next opposition to capitalism, we won't get sense until at least both of those are gone, and it's quite possible that the ideology that follows them will be another mistake.

*sigh*

Ok, I'm too tired to answer every single wrong here but, fascism IS Capitalism, with no bounds from Communists, that's why Fascism's No1 enemy is Communism.
The facts are that the big Capital supported both Musolini and Hitler. Why? Because unpaid workers with no rights.

[KlaxonCow]

He destroyed the first great TRY for Communism

Okay. But if you're betting on the Communist horse here, then wouldn't you put all your money on China?

I mean, 1.3 billion people. Projected to soon be the richest nation on Earth. Was able to implement reforms that allowed it to interact with the rest of the world - the "externally capitalist, internally communist" model - and not only survived to still be around today, but, as mentioned, projected to soon be the richest nation on Earth, so those reforms apparently worked. Extremely well.

If you're backing the Marxist horse, then why lament the loss of the failed experiment - that couldn't hold itself together - over the horse that's not only still in the running but, economically speaking, is somewhat inevitably going to win this race?

Or does Chinese communism not count? If not, then why not? I presume a Marxist would correctly hold no credence in any notion of racial or cultural superiority (or you wouldn't be doing Marxism correctly). So what's the problem here?

Why are you not raving about the fact that China didn't just survive, but is only economically second to the US and is fully expected to become the dominant nation on planet Earth fairly soon?

Why would committed communists not cite China as their counter-example to the usual "communism has been tried and didn't work" criticism, reminding folks that the experiment has not only not yet ended there, but is projected to eclipse all capitalist nations soon enough?

That omission is extremely curious to me. Please let me know what I'm missing here.

[tufty]

I'm somewhat with grue on this, although this probably isn't the thread for it. There are some big caveats, though. Firstly, neither the Soviet Union nor China remained Marxist for long. The Soviet Union rapidly devolved into Stalinism, and it's no big surprise that those in power in Russia are the same people who were in power during the communist years. They have happily, easily, switched into running one of the most brutally capitalist regimes in the world. Likewise, China's economy is based on what are effectively "voluntary" labour camps. again, brutal and unfettered capitalism. Gorbachev presided over the fall of the Soviet Union, but he also presided over the end of brutal Stalinism. May be I'm saying "brutal" too much, but that's what it was and is.

Still, as for "Marxism was a mistake" and it "contradicts physics"? Seriously, fuck the fuck right off. But before you disappear up your own arse, here's a thought for you. Capitalism is zero sum. You can't win if someone else isn't losing. And entropy means we all lose in the long run. But Capitalism makes the "long run" not very fucking long. Indeed, f something doesn't give, I don't give the market capitalist system very long at all. Perhaps no further than January, because if people have to start deciding between heating and food, shit is going to get fucked up. You can't eat iPhones.

[grue]

Okay. But if you're betting on the Communist horse here, then wouldn't you put all your money on China?

I mean, 1.3 billion people. Projected to soon be the richest nation on Earth. Was able to implement reforms that allowed it to interact with the rest of the world - the "externally capitalist, internally communist" model - and not only survived to still be around today, but, as mentioned, projected to soon be the richest nation on Earth, so those reforms apparently worked. Extremely well.

If you're backing the Marxist horse, then why lament the loss of the failed experiment - that couldn't hold itself together - over the horse that's not only still in the running but, economically speaking, is somewhat inevitably going to win this race?

Or does Chinese communism not count? If not, then why not? I presume a Marxist would correctly hold no credence in any notion of racial or cultural superiority (or you wouldn't be doing Marxism correctly). So what's the problem here?

Why are you not raving about the fact that China didn't just survive, but is only economically second to the US and is fully expected to become the dominant nation on planet Earth fairly soon?

Why would committed communists not cite China as their counter-example to the usual "communism has been tried and didn't work" criticism, reminding folks that the experiment has not only not yet ended there, but is projected to eclipse all capitalist nations soon enough?

That omission is extremely curious to me. Please let me know what I'm missing here.

Again, I can't type long texts but China isn't Communist, never were and by the looks of it never will be either. They jumped from imperial feudalism to a strange thing that transformed -as David Harvey calls it- to neoliberalism with chinese characteristics. We can't deny the positive changes and neither can we overlook the blatant civil rights suppression. Still, it keeps (I won't say evolving) changing by new policies and economic reforms so I keep an eye on it. But it's not Communism by a long shot.

I bet on Marxism because it's pure math and Capitalism is pure fantasy [for the vast majority of the people].

[Dvorak]

I don't think it was Gorbachev who actually ended your marxist dream of a human future, grue.
That was stalinism.
Gorbachev ended stalinism.

[Whiteball]

Things were already falling apart and Gorbachev couldn't stop it accelerating. He just happened to be in charge when the big cumulative changes happened so he gets blamed for it all. Yes, he may not have helped some, but he didn't start the decline either.

[PFVA]

RIP Gorbachev.

I liked him. I remember that in the US at the time, or at least in the SF Bay Area there were lots and lots of people who would like to switch him for Reagan, that was to send Ronnie to the USSR and bring Gorbachov to be the US . The early 1990s were good times, full of hope for a more peaceful world.

Things didn't turn out that way but I don't blame Gorbachev for it.

[grue]

Jean-Luc Goddard.
Worst celebrity death this year, irreplaceable.

[gilesgoat]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

.. Angela Lansbury is gone ...

I was an avid fan of "Murder she wrote" ...

[MattyP]

Sad news indeed. I did watch that too back in the day (and Columbo!).

96 though! RIP