Chiang Kai-shek

**Tyrlop** · Subject: Chiang Kai-shek Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:46 pm

Chiang Kai-shek

Info

**Lernt denken!** · Pioneer Posts: 41 Join date: 2009-01-19 Location: Germany

just another fascist, deserving fast punishment/justice.

**Liche** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:13 pm

Hes a great American hero.

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:02 am

And probably a precursor of the Zelda universe, look at the triforce in his uniform.

_________________

**WeiWuWei** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:39 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And probably a precursor of the Zelda universe, look at the triforce in his uniform.

This was awesome. afro

I'm not big on the Maoists, but I'd take them over this schmuck-o. Just a servant of Western interests in the East. That's all he was.

_________________

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:04 am

WeiWuWei wrote:

This was awesome. afro

Tee eich (ch like in chair) eks Smile

Gaul<-nowthisiswittypun wrote:

I'm not big on the Maoists, but I'd take them over this schmuck-o. Just a servant of Western interests in the East. That's all he was.

Any vanguardist is better than this kind of idiotic fascist.

_________________

**carmen510** · Komsomol Member Posts: 158 Join date: 2008-01-27

He honestly wasn't that bad. (I'm Chinese btw)

His government certainly was corrupt, but he tried as hard as he possibly could to prevent China from falling into Japanese hands, which did work out eventually.

Even if he did fight against the Communists, you could arguably say he was also the reason they gained power in China.

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Mon May 04, 2009 4:29 am

carmen510 wrote:

He honestly wasn't that bad. (I'm Chinese btw)

Subjectivity!!!

carmen510 wrote:

His government certainly was corrupt, but he tried as hard as he possibly could to prevent China from falling into Japanese hands, which did work out eventually.

Communists in power in China? Shocked

When? How?! Aaaaaa! I'm going to China! Wait... you mean those Maoites and such right? Ah those are not communists.

Japan controlling China? Maoites did better taking control from Japs.

carmen510 wrote:

Even if he did fight against the Communists, you could arguably say he was also the reason they gained power in China.

He surely fought against the Commmunists till his last breath, just like Mao. And certainly they haven't got power on China consdering it was Mao and followers which by the way counted with good enough support by USSR. Had USA delayed dropping the bombs a month, Japan would have surrendered to USSR, Korea and China.

_________________

**RedSoviet** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Mon May 04, 2009 12:24 pm

gulag

_________________

I make you DIE for what i believe

**comrade110397** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Mon May 04, 2009 10:22 pm

Death to the infedel!

_________________
PROLETERIANS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

I ARE EMPEROR OF CATKIND

Kenzu, this post ISNT spam.

**Liche** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Mon May 04, 2009 10:58 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Any vanguardist is better than this kind of idiotic fascist.

Thanks. A wonderful compliment Smile

**WeiWuWei** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Tue May 05, 2009 12:00 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Any vanguardist is better than this kind of idiotic fascist.

I just noticed this quote since Liche quoted it.

I think that there is a pretty firm distinction between Leninism and Trotskyism - the vanguardist ideologies - and Stalinism and Maoism - which are purely Authoritarian. Under Stalinism and Maoism, there is no mention of a "vanguard party" that I'm aware of - now I may just be splitting hairs here, because a member of the more Libertarian-oriented Left would raise the point that any political unit is inherently Authoritarian, but I think that the vanguard has a very specific function. It's not necessarily intended to rule over the masses - this is certainly true of Leninism, where the vanguard is, in theory anyway, supposed to relinquish their power when the time is right - but merely to spur revolutionary action and to guide the post-revolutionary - i.e. Socialist - society to lead into Communism.

That having been said, I think that the Leninist and Trotskyist notions of the vanguard stand completely opposed to Marx's idea of dialectical materialism, which to me emphasizes the heart of Marxian philosophy. If the revolution is inevitable, then why is there a need for a political party to agitate and start the revolution? That never made sense to me.

I think that, in all honesty, the vanguardic model is more agreeable - at least, Lenin's vanguard was much more likable than Trotsky's "permanent" one - than the Stalinist or Maoist ones, because it predicates on the notion that its rule would be limited only until the epoch of Socialism ends, and Communism is spread.

To be fair, though, I think that they all suck, so I'm not sure why I cared enough to write this post. For me, Leninism is tolerable as an analytical focus - and, actually, Lenin's analyses of the State, Capitalism, and Imperialism are really interesting - but Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Maoism have got to be avoided.

_________________

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Tue May 05, 2009 12:51 am

WeiWuWei wrote:

I just noticed this quote since Liche quoted it.

To be fair, though, I think that they all suck, so I'm not sure why I cared enough to write this post. For me, Leninism is tolerable as an analytical focus - and, actually, Lenin's analyses of the State, Capitalism, and Imperialism are really interesting - but Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Maoism have got to be avoided.

Well, according to some Stalinists I know, namely modern Russian currents, they follow what they call Stalin's interpretation of "Marxism-Leninism" (read "oxymoron") in which the Authoritarian state exists to prepare people for communism... the state whithering away as people are ready to organize themselves. According to what they say so in practice they seem to be pretty much the same as what Lenin proclaimed.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Tue May 05, 2009 11:23 am

WeiWuWei wrote:

That having been said, I think that the Leninist and Trotskyist notions of the vanguard stand completely opposed to Marx's idea of dialectical materialism, which to me emphasizes the heart of Marxian philosophy. If the revolution is inevitable, then why is there a need for a political party to agitate and start the revolution? That never made sense to me.

To speed the revolution up! I mean seriously, you gonna wait 4 billion years before a revolution? If I were a commie I would atleast my grandchildren to live in it.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Tue May 05, 2009 4:06 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

Tp speed the revolution up! I mean seriously, you gonna wait 4 billion years before a revolution? If I were a commie I would atleast my grandchildren to live in it.

The people are not that stupid to keep capitalism a hundred years more, specially given modern ways of information disemination.

Plus you don't need a party - you need revolutionaires.

_________________

**MightyObserver** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Wed May 06, 2009 2:28 am

Gulag

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

"Marxism-Leninism" (read "oxymoron")

_________________
"I'm just saying, if we want the world to improve, evil plots, villains, henchmen may be our only hope." - Dr. Horrible, Moist: Humidity Rising

LINK

**WeiWuWei** · Subject: Re: Chiang Kai-shek Wed May 06, 2009 3:53 pm

MightyObserver wrote:

Gulag

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

"Marxism-Leninism" (read "oxymoron")

In many respects, I think ZK is correct. Now I should mention that if anyone choose Leninism as an analytical focus, then that's entirely fine. But I think that there should be a bit of honesty about the fact that it completely turns Marx on his head.

Marx's entire theory predicates on the notion that changes in the material condition - the modes of production, the thesis of the materialistic dialectic - is the only motor for changes in history, because this creates everything else - specifically, class antagonisms. But Lenin's analysis was different. Rather than the economy being the biggest factor in societal progression, he argued that the politics affected everything, insofar as the State could be understood as a tool for one class to exploit another - an observation Marx makes as well, but one that he doesn't highlight for importance as Lenin does. This is why Lenin defends the vanguard; because he doesn't have a deterministic economic view, meaning that he doesn't view things, as Marx does, as inevitably progressing towards a brighter future. Therefore, it is legitimate and in fact necessary to establish a political unit that will guide the revolution and seize State functions.

Marx, I would argue, would disagree with this assertion in many, many respects. The factories, the fields, the workplaces were supposed to inherently invigorate the proletarian masses - giving them class consciousness - and they would, by their own devices, create revolutionary activity.

Now whether Marx's or Lenin's understanding of how history and society progress is more correct is, I think, a futile argument to have here. The important first step is to point out the numerous differences between the two ideas.

And they are numerous. I think I have more in common with Marx as a Libertarian Socialist/Anarchist than most non-Marxist "Marxists" do.

_________________