Banal and highly evasive: this could apply to either of the above really.

To John Global,

I agree with some of the things you are are saying, some I don't agree with and some points I would like to add some historical perspectives!

Firstly, as I have put forward the Soviet experiment was very much socialism from above. Led by a party which did not have a majority of the country backing it! (a major flaw)

This has a major baring on how it would implement socialism.

Secondly, from Day 1 the Soviet experiment was attacked by the Capitalists nations. Indeed, what you call Paranoia over a security threat I would call realism ( as a History Graduate who studied Russian History from the 1850's to the modern day)

The original terriotry of Rus was occupied by foreign Mongels for centuries and that left a lastly legacy on Russian fears of a foreign invasion.

The Swede's invaded Russian during the Great Northern War, Napeloen invaded Russia in the 1800's/1810's,

Britain and France invaded Russian terriotory in the Crimea in 1861 (and won), the German's invaded and won during World War One, during the Civil War the Capitalist's great powers of the United States, Britain and France sent aid and troops to the Red Army's principle enemy the Whites. The German's invaded again in a even more devastating war in 1941.

Then the Soviet Union had to stand up to the United States that never liked the Soviet Experiment and aimed to destroy it so that Yankie's could expand into "new" markets. Furthermore, the expansion into Eastern Europe and creation of Satalite states may have looked like a power hungry expansionist power but it was not really. These country's had allowed the French, Germans (TWICE), British and Americans through to attack Russia.

Furthermore, in order to win the Second World War the Soviet's had to drive back the Germans all the way to Hitler's Bunker.

By turning these countries into Satalite states the Soviet Union was implementing a Security plan which made perfect sense. It wasn't paranoid at all.

Anyway, this led to the need to keep up the arms race and the massive investment in weapons technology at the expense of consumer goods.

Furthermore, as I said at the start the Bolshevik Party never had the support of a clear Majority of the Population (partly because there were simply too few workers in a overwhelmingly peasant society). This effected how they ruled and led to all the repressive techniques utilized to keep a population down.

Lastly, Chinese Communism is as hallow as the spiritual capabilities of a High School Musical Movie.

China is no longer a Communist society but is becoming a Capitalist Society. This will inevitably intail the exploitation of workers and is already happening. Chinese workers work in poor conditions for very poor pay.

Furthermore, you should read a book that was on my reading list when I studied the Making of Modern China which is called "Will the Boat Sink the water?" by Wu Chuntao and Chen Guidi. In it they reveal the flaws in this so called Capitalist Paradise. For example, the peasants received four times less in income than Urban dwellers but pay five times more tax (I think thats right it may be 5 times less pay and 4 times more tax!) As a result, they are forced to the cities to be a very cheap form of labour.

So although I agree with you on certain points please do not mistake China for a lovely Communist paradise or even a good example. It is neither really.

Furthermore, I would be interested to know what the Soviet Union would have been able to achieve had it not been threatened with extermination by Capitalism during its entire lifetime. And if the Bolsheviks had had a larger share of the population (which they may have had if they'd been able to dedicate more time and resources to their people rather than fighting Capitalists.

Also, As Mr freeman doesn't realize the Soviet Union did achieve some stunning successes for its people. It provided decent education, a basic level of healthcare and FULL employment for all its people.

This should not be scoffed at as many Western Free marketeers do. During the Tsar's the lot of the common man in Russia and its Empire was awful.

Furthermore, as one Historian put it The Soviets found Russia with a plough and left it with a Nuclear Bomb! For a country that was considered backward and on the edges of the industrialised world that is a achievement, however, much you like to ignore the facts.

I would like to add that I'm not justifying the misrable sacrifices that went into doing that or the terrible waste of life but pointing out that there were achievements.

And if you want to be really hard hitting then you can look at the horrible sacrifices and terrible waste of life that Capitalism has caused in order to produce its achievements.

If we look at the Slave Trade, the horrific state of the working class in the Industrialized world in the 19th Century and the systematic attack of peasants which was part of "enclosure's" and produced poverty and starvation which has never really been fully documented then our system doesn't look so Rosy either. But of course we exploited people over a longer period of time which thus exsolves us of being a "evil empire".

This is the most frustating thing about dealing with Capitalists. They are never willing or (clever enough) to look at their own history and own up to the horrible sacrifices and loss of life involved in creating the modern world.

Indeed, if I want to put the boot in then we must include Empire's, Colonialisation and ultimately the exploitation of the Americas. Through Disease but also Guns (the reason for the US's 2nd Amendment is so that White Settlers could kill pisky Native Americans and drive them off their lands!) and a sustained attack we killed off physically, politically and culturally nearly all of them. The numbers don't even compare with Stalin's numbers. There were between 50 and 100 Million native Americans before we "discovered" the New World. We had whittled that down to 8 Million by 1650.

This goes to show that because we won we have never had to really deal with these ugly facts about capitalism.

Hobshawn's Short 20th Century said more about the author than history. Its core argument was that the period between 1917 and 1990 operated according to a different set of rules than the period before or after. The implication is that you could rationally have been a communist in that period, as Hobshawn was. The truth, now and then, is that he was wrong. But it's hard to admit you've dedicated your life and career to something evil. So I sympathise. But he should stop now.

"...there is no longer any advanced country that has a mass party which can claim to be inspired by Marx's thinking". I take it advanced in this sense means materially wealthy. However in another sense a country like Cyprus has an elected communist party and is ranked 35 in the IMF Human Development index. The UK is ranked 26. Poland one of our EU partners 41 (see wiki) DPR of Korea is a one-party state. Nepal and Moldova have democratically elected communist parties. Just a critique and by any means at times misleading at others vague.

There is more insight into the political and economic workings of the world in Hobsbawn's work than in any of the slight comments above, including Mr Gray's.

I take great offence with what has to say as well.

Firstly, Eric Hobsbawm's book "Age of Extreme's" doesn't try to hide or evade the issue. There is no vast silence on the subject of the crimes of the Soviet Union.

Secondly, Hobsbawm does a very good job as a Historian of provided a balanced arguement about the Soviet Union, Socialism and Capitalism. He points out some of the great achievements of the Soviet Experiment as well as its failings. Furthermore, he puts this in the context of the Cold War when the Capitalist Nations were trying very hard to destroy any form of socialism.

Thirdly, I feel that Gray's comment:

"The Soviet regime, which was the most important embodiment of Marx's revolutionary project in the 20th century, has collapsed ... there is no longer any advanced country that has a mass party which can claim to be inspired by Marx's thinking."

This statement is wrong on many fronts. There are major parties based on Marxist idealogy such as the German Communist Party. Furthermore, I feel that Gray clearly misunderstands what Marx wrote about and the kind of Socialism he advocated. It is clear that Marx does not believe in a top-down form of Socialism whether it be a Labour Party bringing it to the masses or the Bolshevik Party.

Marx believed in Socialism from below. In that workers would empower themselves. I urge readers to investigate Hal Draper's "Two Soul's of Socialism". He explain's this arguement much better and also shows how Marx and Engels fought tirelessly during their own age to combat those on the Left who wanted to replace a right wing State with a Left wing state. Indeed, both are famous for saying that they would not "exchange liberty for equality." Indeed they did not want to create a giant Barrack or a Workhouse for everyone. Not to put a too finer point on it both Marx and Engels fought the Stalin's and Lenin's of their day.

Anyway, my point is that Hobsbawm is correct to an extent when he says:

"Marx ... was saved by the collapse of the Soviet Union - but not necessarily Marxism, because the Soviet Union was a Marxist state only of a kind."

Marx's ideas and philosophy are as important today as ever. Indeed, in a world which is threatened with Imperialistic war, Environmental crisis and a widening gap between the rich minority and the very poor majority Marx's idea's should be taken seriously as a critque of capitalism and as the beginnings of a alternative.

Also, to add Marx famously said that he was not a "Marxist".

Lastly, Gray is part of a powerful group of academics who argue that there is no alternative but to accept Globalised Capitalism. The Market has won according to them and History has thus ended (fukayama).

However, we are experiencing the failure of this idea just as much as Marxist Leninist ideas. Capitalism has yet again had a collapse. Furthermore, its ideas (which are the prevailing view) are just if not more ill equipped to deal with the problems of the 21st Century (some of which it has created).

In contemporary society there is a large amount of anti-capitalist feeling. This is because its obvious that Capitalism does not work very well on the human side and is launching head first into the Environmental abyss.

What there is less of is discussion's of a viable alternative. This is partly because of a powerful emphasis to not talk about alternatives. As well as the efforts of "bread and circuses" or "Dorito's and X Factor" to buy off people.

However, we humans will have to look at alternatives and at the moment Marx and Socialism are readily available and a good base to start from.

Haha, John don't forget Cuba or Venezuela!

Communism = one party state (political), control over the means of production and exchange ( economic),
control over most activities of society (social).

Imploded in Eastern Europe. Why? Because it didn't provide the masses with consumer goods.
It was obsessed with spending on the military, space programs and it was paranoic about supposed threat from its society.

Now take Chinese communism, it evolved over the years after some periods of convulsions and it is providing its people with, you can guess it, consumer goods. That stops most of them from questioning the questioning the political and social constraint upon it.

The fact is that the Chinese are beating the capitalists at their own game. They save and lend their money to the over consuming West earning slabs of interest income and becoming an economic and financial world power.
Unlike the capitalists who once went for colonies and now for client states. The Chinese are buying influence by investments and well targeted loans.

They don't need an empire. They buy the raw materials from capitalist and other countries. It is cheaper than wars of invasions.

China's leadership gets things done because it uses its authoritarian power to achieve goals. the price for the masses is that they have to shut up.

One shall note, freedom does not fill your belly but bread does.

Napoleon said an army marches on its stomach.
That can also be applied to civilians.

In the West the politicians promise the world to the voters but deliver little.

It all depends whether you value freedom more than a full belly.

You generally can't have both.

If you live in the West and you think you are free just take a look at reality. You may be allowed to vote and criticize the government within reason but otherwise you are being controlled. Politically, economically and socially.

Just try to be a bit of a rebel and do a bit of protesting or shoot your mouth of a bit too much against the elite, You will quickly find out how free you are.

After a dose of tear gas, a belt on your head by a baton and a law suit by someone with deep pockets your freedom vanishes in thin air.

Marx was a theorist and not a mover and shaker.

What other people did with his theory should not reflect on him.