By: dfarrelly@xtra.co.nz
28/08/2008
7:15 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dfarrelly@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Solzhenitsyn argued that the Soviet government in fact could not govern without the very real threat of imprisonment, and that the Soviet economy depended on the productivity of the forced labor camps, especially insofar as the development and construction of public works and infrastructure were concerned.
This put into doubt the entire moral standing of the Soviet system. In Western Europe the book came, in time, to force a rethinking of the historical role of Lenin. With The Gulag Archipelago, Lenin's political and historical legacy became problematic, and the fractions of Western communist parties who still based their economic and political ideology on Lenin were left with a heavy burden of proof against them. George F. Kennan, perhaps the most influential of U.S. diplomats, called The Gulag Archipelago, "the most powerful single indictment of a political regime ever to be levied in modern times."[2 |
|
By: jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com
28/08/2008
7:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| sure they took some ideals and economic ideas but it wasnt what marx envisaged as i said. you have to read marx to understand his humanity and his vision. marx like all the other great masters of living taught that luxury is as much a vice as poverty and that man should strive to be much , not to have much. chinese and soviet style marxism is a vulgar forgery of marxism |
|
By: jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com
28/08/2008
7:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| the soviet union transformed marxism into a purely economic concept, the goal of which was maximum consumption. kruschev let it slip when he said the aim of socialism was to give the whole population the the same pleasure of consumption as capitalism gave a minority in the west. socialism and communism were built on the capitalist concept of materialism. any socialist or communist party that claimed to represent marxian thought would have to be based on the conviction that the soviet regimes were not socialist systems, that socialism is incompatable with materialism and huge beurocracy that characterise the soviet and capitalist systems |
|
By: public_emilly
28/08/2008
7:52 pm Yahoo! Profile:
public_emilly Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I think Marx would have been appalled to have the Soviet union upheld as a model for Marxism, especially during Stalins era. If it were a movie he would have taken his name off the credits. |
|
By: jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com
28/08/2008
8:26 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| marx's ideas were perverted, prehaps because he lived a 100 years too soon. both he and engels thought that capitalism had reached the the end of its line and therefore, that revolution was just around the corner. they were mistaken as engels said was to say after marx's death. they had pronounced their new teaching at the height of capitalist development did not foresee it would take more than 100 years for capitalisms decline and the final crisis to begin. |
|
By: jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com
28/08/2008
8:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jamisonjohn@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| - said, + and. |
|
