A question for the Communists.

[Joe McCarthy]

Why did Lenin cite the US Postal Service as an example of efficiency in his model of 'state capitalism' when most any ham and egger knows that the Post Office is a cost heavy, generally ineffective (at least compared to wholly private competitors) institution?

[Joe McCarthy]

I must say that this strikes me as kind of pathetic. I had assumed (probably foolishly) that this forum's collection of Stalin worshippers are reasonably well versed in Marxist-Leninist theory. But am I receiving any responses? Nope. No. Nada. In fact, I see you guys stepping around this thread and posting on other ones.

Perhaps the days of serious American reds died out with Gus Hall. Now we seem left with a gaggle of misfit teenagers dressed up in "Che Lives" shirts.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Perhaps they do not care all that much about exemplary efficiency of the postal services...

[Joe McCarthy]

Maybe not, Stan. But you should not underestimate the capacity of extreme leftists to be ignorant of their own creeds. It is quite common, and reminds me of many Christians whose essential Bible training consists of reciting a few verses in Sunday school when they were kids. Similarly, these sorts of 'lifestyle' Marxists, most of whom seem to be just out of high school, seem to pick up a few quotes from Commie sites here and there and maybe (and I do mean maybe) read Marx's Manifesto. I mean, it says a lot when I basically call Lenin a dumbass and wind up having to call these kids out to have any hope of getting an explanation. In my past experiences in debating reds, however ignorant they often were, they would usually show some sack and at least try.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I was being sarcastic Joe.

[Roland]

Why did Lenin cite the US Postal Service as an example of efficiency in his model of 'state capitalism' when most any ham and egger knows that the Post Office is a cost heavy, generally ineffective (at least compared to wholly private competitors) institution?

Lenin had a model of state capitalism? I thought he had a model for socialism. Where is this example?

[Berianidze]

I have yet to respond to your post because I've been trying to search from what text you pulled this from, so I could see it in its original context. Secondly, while I'm far from knowledgeable in the U.S. Postal system, it would be quite helpful if I knew from what time period Lenin discussed the U.S. postal service and its efficiency.

However, since Lenin died in January 1924, obviosuly he must have mentioned this clearly before there was a strong private presence in the delivery industry, and more importantly, before the Postal Reorganization Act that transformed the United States Postal Service into a government owned corporation, not an actual government department. This legislation completely reorganized the U.S. Postal Department into the U.S. Postal Service on July 1971, thus making the body an entirely different organization than when Lenin would've have marked his comments on its efficiency. Now the post office doesn't even recieve revenue from taxes, but only in the form of taxpayer compensation for certain that it provides for free. State owned bodies must be operated in accordance, thus the U.S. postal service is providing services (while still receiving taxpayers compensation) that private enterprises are not expected, nor commanded, to do. When a public service entity is operating as such, and receiving revenue in the form of taxes, it is obviously going to be able to operate much more efficiently than a government-owned corporation that is expected to operate like a corporation, but in the end break even in profits.

I must say that this strikes me as kind of pathetic. I had assumed (probably foolishly) that this forum's collection of Stalin worshippers are reasonably well versed in Marxist-Leninist theory. But am I receiving any responses? Nope. No. Nada. In fact, I see you guys stepping around this thread and posting on other ones.

Perhaps the days of serious American reds died out with Gus Hall. Now we seem left with a gaggle of misfit teenagers dressed up in "Che Lives" shirts.

This is an inflammatory and weak post at best, and if Ixabert chose to respond he could probably do a much better job than I. In regards to serious American reds, I would not consider myself one by any means. I would consider myself a serious red, but my vision of America in terms of socialism is that of one giant gulag (another matter entirely). You couldn't be any more incorrect in your assessment of the communists on this board, I speak for Ixabert, Mazdak, and myself in saying that we are far from those hippie liberals who identify themselves with their ideology in the form of "Che" t-shirts; I've never worn one nor would I (the idea of the commodification of Che Guevara is a sick irony to say the least).

[Jimbo Gomez]

Rice has sane beliefs about what should happen to people who engage in sodomy. That would be unusual for the che-types.

[Felix the Cat]

Heh. When I hear the word "socialist" it's difficult to avoid thinking of vegetarians, perverts and pacifists

Most of the leftists I've encountered frankly belong in the Gulag

[Berianidze]

Heh. When I hear the word "socialist" it's difficult to avoid thinking of vegetarians, perverts and pacifists

Most of the leftists I've encountered frankly belong in the Gulag

That's a common misconception, but the true Bolsheviks, who are now only remembered as the "old Left" have been replaced by the cultural marxists, social libertarians, gay-rights activists, feminists, vegans who occupy the new left. These people wouldn't have lasted a day in the Soviet Union and DO NOT represent bolshevism by any means.

Agreed, most leftists in the west nowadays would most definitely belong in the Gulag.

[Joe McCarthy]

That's a common misconception, but the true Bolsheviks, who are now only remembered as the "old Left" have been replaced by the cultural marxists, social libertarians, gay-rights activists, feminists, vegans who occupy the new left. These people wouldn't have lasted a day in the Soviet Union and DO NOT represent bolshevism by any means.

Agreed, most leftists in the west nowadays would most definitely belong in the Gulag.

I will grant that Stalin, at least later on, was morally stern. In fact, Trotsky even condemned him for banning abortion. However, the early USSR was a moral sewer to be reckoned with. The Bolshevik gangsters soon realized their mistake and made moral sleaze strictly a weapon for export to undermine capitalist states.

I'll deal with this 'Post Office' issue as time permits.

[Berianidze]

I will grant that Stalin, at least later on, was morally stern. In fact, Trotsky even condemned him for banning abortion. However, the early USSR was a moral sewer to be reckoned with. The Bolshevik gangsters soon realized their mistake and made moral sleaze strictly a weapon for export to undermine capitalist states.

I'll deal with this 'Post Office' issue as time permits.

Could you please provide me with the source where you read Lenin's comments regarding the U.S. Postal Dept.?

[Billy Score]

I will grant that Stalin, at least later on, was morally stern. In fact, Trotsky even condemned him for banning abortion. However, the early USSR was a moral sewer to be reckoned with. The Bolshevik gangsters soon realized their mistake and made moral sleaze strictly a weapon for export to undermine capitalist states.

I'll deal with this 'Post Office' issue as time permits.
I'll agree that many communists, past and (ESPECIALLY) present are embarassments to the cause. Angela Davis comes to mind. But the flipside of that coin is Feliks Dzerzhinsky, who was anything but an immoral fool. Most female communists were also a major source for this promotion of perversion (as in most other leftist movements, the men are far more interested in less petty issues while the women end up focusing on "Sexual liberation" etc.)

[Joe McCarthy]

Lenin had a model of state capitalism? I thought he had a model for socialism. Where is this example?

You must understand that in the case of the postal service, state capitalism & socialism were indistinguishable to Lenin. The passage is found in chapter three of "The State and Revolution":

A witty German Social-Democrat of the seventies of the last century called the postal service an example of the socialist economic system. This is very true. At the present the postal service is a business organized on the lines of state-capitalist monopoly.

Moreover, we see Lenin advocating that this 'state capitalist' model be made the basis for the entire reorganization of the 'socialist' economy:

To organize the whole economy on the lines of the postal service so that the technicians, foremen and accountants, as well as all officials, shall receive salaries no higher than "a workman's wage", all under the control and leadership of the armed proletariat--that is our immediate aim.

[Joe McCarthy]

Now the post office doesn't even recieve revenue from taxes, but only in the form of taxpayer compensation for certain that it provides for free

The Post Office is what one might regard as 'quasi-governmental' as it is granted certain prerogatives by the state; the most notable being its monopoly in first class mail delivery. Furthermore, as it charges customers in the way of fees for stamps, its services cannot very well be said to be 'free' - assuming that is your assertion, as to be honest, your comment here is kind of disjointed. But the larger issue is the effect that competition in things such as first class mail delivery would have on costs. To give an example of public vs. private performance in delivery, it was pointed out that it costs the Post Office roughly ten times more to deliver a first class letter next door do your neighbor than what it costs oil companies to deliver oil halfway around the world. That anecdote alone should drive a stake into the heart of monopolistic schemes of all kinds.

obviosuly he must have mentioned this clearly before there was a strong private presence in the delivery industry

This is basically irrelevant as again the desirability of competition for cost & quality control is well nigh universal, irrespective of its specific application to a particular industry or service.

My beef here with Lenin is his declaration that a state granted monopoly, operating without the pressure of competition, is going to be superior in terms of efficiency and structure. Worse, as he wanted to reorganize the whole economy on this model, its ill effects could only be universal rather than limited to a small sphere like mail delivery.

Could you please provide me with the source where you read Lenin's comments regarding the U.S. Postal Dept.?

As I mentioned in the post to Roland, "The State and Revolution".

[Joe McCarthy]

But the flipside of that coin is Feliks Dzerzhinsky, who was anything but an immoral fool.

Wasn't it Dzerzhinsky's Cheka whose agents constantly used hard drugs, presumably so they could stand the anxiety associated with killing dissidents in pursuance of the Soviet regime's policy of state murder?

[Vindex]

I think it was Dzerzhinsky who spent 20 years locked in a jail cell for his political beliefs in Czarist Russia. After 20 years of rotting in jail for the cause you believe in you would tend to be hardcore about it. I think just about almost every state/empire in history does killings and locks up people who disagree with them. Was Czarist Russia any different?

[Joe McCarthy]

I think just about almost every state/empire in history does killings and locks up people who disagree with them. Was Czarist Russia any different?

Yes, far different. An interesting factoid in comparing the Tsars with the Bolsheviks is that the Bolsheviks locked up more dissidents within one month of assuming power than the Tsars had in the previous one hundred years; and that is even counting the abortive Communist rebellion of 1905! The Communist revolution in Russia was a cataclysmic break with the past. State repression from various monarchs hitherto was mere child's play by comparison.

[Vindex]

The gulags just changed owners when the reds took over. It was a revolution so naturally there was going to be repressing of counter-revolutionarys if they did not do that there revolution would fail. The American Revolution unlike the pg version of mainstream history, did a lot of repressing of dissidents, hence a big reason they really won there revolution. Play to win or do not play at all.

The ruling powers in Czarist Russia had it coming big time.


Yes, far different. An interesting factoid in comparing the Tsars with the Bolsheviks is that the Bolsheviks locked up more dissidents within one month of assuming power than the Tsars had in the previous one hundred years; and that is even counting the abortive Communist rebellion of 1905! The Communist revolution in Russia was a cataclysmic break with the past. State repression from various monarchs hitherto was mere child's play by comparison.

[Joe McCarthy]

The American Revolution unlike the pg version of mainstream history, did a lot of repressing of dissidents, hence a big reason they really won there revolution.

I'm sorry but Washington requisitioning the boats of tories is not analogous to Bolshevik thugs throwing people in blast furnaces or cutting them open and winding their intestines around poles.

The ruling powers in Czarist Russia had it coming big time.

I will submit that however repressive the Tsars were, their rule did not necessitate the coming to power of a revolutionary cabal of Jews and undermen. Such a 'cure' was far worse than the disease. Furthermore, as even leftists (mainly anarchists) have pointed out, the Bolsheviks destroyed what had the makings of a genuine 'people's revolution'. The currents developing before the October coup even included such happenings as Prince Lvov's shortlived caretaker government wanting a democracy modeled on that of the U.S. If the Tsar "had it coming" surely such alternatives were preferable to the iron fist of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which gave not only the Tsar, but indeed the whole Russian empire all it 'had coming' times one hundred.

[Vindex]

They did a lot more then that, the Americans rebels used terrorism on the enemies of the revolution effectively. As for the extreme and pointless sadist brutalness of the bolsheviks what do you expect most of them where jews.



I'm sorry but Washington requisitioning the boats of tories is not analogous to Bolshevik thugs throwing people in blast furnaces or cutting them open and winding their intestines around poles.



The tsars and the ruling tier of Russia created the conditions for a revolution by there shitty rule and treatment of there own Russian people. The reds/jews took advantage of this. They where the most organized and the most ruthless so they won over the other factions. If anything it is a testiment to what happens when you tolerate jews in your nation. That and they did a real shitty job in countering the reds, while they still could. But like most of the upper ruling class they probably thought they where immune from shit hitting them.

Myself I like the Aryan socialism movement like the original Anarchists, Jack London etc. I do not want to live under a total police state, despite if it is marxists or National Socialist or captialist, tsars etc.

The chinese "Will of Heaven" sums the whole situation up.



I will submit that however repressive the Tsars were, their rule did not necessitate the coming to power of a revolutionary cabal of Jews and undermen. Such a 'cure' was far worse than the disease. Furthermore, as even leftists (mainly anarchists) have pointed out, the Bolsheviks destroyed what had the makings of a genuine 'people's revolution'. The currents developing before the October coup even included such happenings as Prince Lvov's shortlived caretaker government wanting a democracy modeled on that of the U.S. If the Tsar "had it coming" surely such alternatives were preferable to the iron fist of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which gave not only the Tsar, but indeed the whole Russian empire all it 'had coming' times one hundred.

[Berianidze]

The Post Office is what one might regard as 'quasi-governmental' as it is granted certain prerogatives by the state; the most notable being its monopoly in first class mail delivery. Furthermore, as it charges customers in the way of fees for stamps, its services cannot very well be said to be 'free' - assuming that is your assertion, as to be honest, your comment here is kind of disjointed. But the larger issue is the effect that competition in things such as first class mail delivery would have on costs. To give an example of public vs. private performance in delivery, it was pointed out that it costs the Post Office roughly ten times more to deliver a first class letter next door do your neighbor than what it costs oil companies to deliver oil halfway around the world. That anecdote alone should drive a stake into the heart of monopolistic schemes of all kinds.
While the price of stamps is obscure to say the least, traditional first-class mail delivery was not the service I had in mind as to what would be considered 'free' but rather, the services that are truly free that the Postal service provides for the blind, handicapped, military mail, non-profit mail, and absentee ballots overseas. These are all services (I do not know what percent they make of USPS services) but I did research the cost of such services that averaged to about $36 million (out of a total yearly revenue of approx. 69 Billion). Small, but nonetheless services the private sector is unwilling to perform. I would agree that the modern USPS is far from the best model of state efficiency, but what you eluded to before, it's a quasi-government entity, which is NOT socialistic in nature.


My beef here with Lenin is his declaration that a state granted monopoly, operating without the pressure of competition, is going to be superior in terms of efficiency and structure. Worse, as he wanted to reorganize the whole economy on this model, its ill effects could only be universal rather than limited to a small sphere like mail delivery.

Again, there is a significant difference between the US Postal Department (prior to 1971) and the current US Postal Service which exists now. I honestly cannot even begin to tell you why Lenin thought as he did nor can I make a strong argument for the U.S. Postal Department other than the fact that it previously was a publicly funded entity that was capable of utilizing tax revenues to provide its services, and was under a more bureaucratic organizational structure. In terms of clear efficiency, on what grounds can you assert that a monopolistic state body couldn't run efficiently, and won't? Lenin is describing such an entity in socialism, not the co-opting of certain services within capitalist society. The model for which Lenin describes in The State and Revolution is far from what has been seen in the United State. Yes, the US Postal Service has a monopoly on first-class mail delivery, but they are nonetheless in competition with private enterprises that are able to truly operate as corporations, where the sole priority is to turn a profit. You can't have it one way or another, the Soviet Union became much more inefficient after Khrushchev and Brezhnev began a series of liberalization of the market.

A state granted monopoly should exist as the sole provider of that service, then it can successfully run efficiently. When you add an underfunded, unorganized public sector to an economy that is almost completely based on the free market, it is going to have troubles running efficiently, that is an obvious. This type of attitude is reminiscent of the Khrushchev era, again, where the market was liberalized and state monopolies were diminishing or mismanaged into the ground. But an industry operated and controlled by the public (state) can and will run with the utmost efficiency because it is no longer driven by mere profits, it will be sustained in a system based not on wealth exploitation of the workforce, but rather the provision of a service for the benefit of the general public dictated by the socialist socio-economic system.


As I mentioned in the post to Roland, "The State and Revolution
What chapter?

Note: Lenin knew the difference between 'state capitalism' and socialism, stom making inflammatory statements.

[Berianidze]

I'm sorry but Washington requisitioning the boats of tories is not analogous to Bolshevik thugs throwing people in blast furnaces or cutting them open and winding their intestines around poles.



I will submit that however repressive the Tsars were, their rule did not necessitate the coming to power of a revolutionary cabal of Jews and undermen. Such a 'cure' was far worse than the disease. Furthermore, as even leftists (mainly anarchists) have pointed out, the Bolsheviks destroyed what had the makings of a genuine 'people's revolution'. The currents developing before the October coup even included such happenings as Prince Lvov's shortlived caretaker government wanting a democracy modeled on that of the U.S. If the Tsar "had it coming" surely such alternatives were preferable to the iron fist of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which gave not only the Tsar, but indeed the whole Russian empire all it 'had coming' times one hundred.

I will address this later due to time constraints, but your using emotional assessment of a situation in which you are forgetting a number of historical contexts that make such repression not only possible, but necessary. Don't forget, socialism is not just the liberation of the working class, but the subjugation of the former ruling class as well.

Don't forget what the state is, any and all states exist solely as entities of class oppression. The bourgeois class uses the bourgeois capitalist state to oppress the proletariat, thus the proletariat uses the socialist state to oppress the bourgeoisie and their sympathizers.

"The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable."
V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution