A question for you cappies?

[STJ]

Whats your problem with communism post it here?

[GPDP]

I suspect a lot of the responses you will get will be a whole lot of strawmen and caricatures about socialism rather than any real objection to communism as it is actually advocated.

That's a problem with right-wing and capitalist critiques of communism overall. They start off with their prejudices, and base their critiques around them. Hence why we get "there's no incentive because everyone gets paid the same" or "it is totalitarian because the state owns everything and there's no private property so you don't even own your toothbrush" arguments.

Some, like Dejavu, do understand our position and ideology to a good extent, and that's where the most constructive arguments come from. But a lot of cappies here tend to go the Freeman route, and attack misconceptions while refusing to see past them despite repeated efforts on our part to clear them up.

[Trystan]

black book . . . 100 mill people . . . big wall . . . stuff.

[Incendiarism]

It goes against human nature

[Pirate Utopian]

Whats your problem with communism post it here?
None of them are as sexy as Milton Friedman.... Mmmm... Friedman.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/76/81676-004-9E0145AE.jpg
So hot.

[Dust Bunnies]

They probably hate it because they see Stalinist states as Communist societies.

[synthesis]

They probably hate it because they see Stalinist states as Communist societies.

It doesn't help that our responses generally consist of either "Stalin and Mao were good socialists and never did anything wrong" or "Stalin and Mao were bad socialists and never did anything right." It's kind of like when capitalists can't decide what they think about Pinochet; was he a dictator and not a "real capitalist" or was he a good guy and a defender of capitalism?

I prefer the Marxist perspective, the materialist one. The Stalinist states were produced by conditions, not ideologies; the latter merely reflects the former. When the conditions are different, the ideology will adapt accordingly.

You can explain things without having to apologize for or disassociate yourself from them, shit that happened before your parents were born. Like Marx said, when you can comprehend the causes behind people and their actions, you can understand them, and act accordingly, without having to accept or dismiss them in their totality.

[trivas7]

I prefer the Marxist perspective, the materialist one. The Stalinist states were produced by conditions, not ideologies; the latter merely reflects the former. When the conditions are different, the ideology will adapt accordingly.

You can explain things without having to apologize for or disassociate yourself from them, shit that happened before your parents were born. Like Marx said, when you can comprehend the causes behind people and their actions, you can understand them, and act accordingly, without having to accept or dismiss them in their totality.
This is wise. Whatever one can say re communism theoretically pales in comparison to the opprobrium elicited from the real, materially conditioned, history of the communism movement. Marx, one suspects, would have been appalled at what has been done in his name.

[RGacky3]

The Stalinist states were produced by conditions, not ideologies; the latter merely reflects the former. When the conditions are different, the ideology will adapt accordingly.


Some things were, but Stalin has a lot of power over what happend, and a lot of what happend had to do with what he did with his power. Thats simply indisputable, that he ordered deaths and set up gulags and purged dissent, those wern't made by "conditions" those were made by stalin and the party higher ups, THATS what most people have a problem with.

[STJ]

Yes he would be.

Those Stalinist states are not Communism in any way shape or form.

[synthesis]

those wern't made by "conditions" those were made by stalin and the party higher ups, THATS what most people have a problem with.Right, but conditions provided Stalin with the means to consolidate an enormous amount of personal power. Itself owing to conditions, Russia was (and still is) acclimated to autocratic rule - socialism adapted itself accordingly.

By simply arguing that Stalin was a historical actor with more influence than Russian class society, without regard for context, you subscribe to the reactionary Great Man theory of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory), one that leaves little room for genuine socialist analysis and action. Again, I prefer materialism.

[Bud Struggle]

Well I'm not a 100% subscriber in the "Great Man" theory, but it does seem that certain people "rise up" when the situation is right--Hitler did that, Stalin, Napoleon, etc. So did all of those dictators that came up every time ther was a "Communist" revolution and make the revolution "their own" Castro, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot...

I personally (even as a Capitalist) have no problem with REAL Communism, everything equal and fair for everyone--it's just that the record shows that the same old people will take charge--as they have always taken charge when the situation is right.

The Vanguards, the Communist Party members--all that stuff is just Bourgeoise under a Socialist name.

Certain people just have a tendancy to take over--they were the Commissars in the USSR and they became the factory owners--in a heartbeat--when the USSR fell.
To be honest--it Communism came tomorrow--I'd try to take over. Nothing overt--just little by little, that's my nature--maybe I'd make it, maybe I wouldn't, but there's lots others like me that would be trying too--and eventually one would succeed.

So Communism is a good idea, a great idea, but just not one for the human race.

Good luck, though.:)

[synthesis]

Well I'm not a 100% subscriber in the "Great Man" theory, but it does seem that certain people "rise up" when the situation is right--Hitler did that, Stalin, Napoleon, etc. So did all of those dictators that came up every time ther was a "Communist" revolution and make the revolution "their own" Castro, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot...Again, this is completely true, but the conditions allow for this to happen. Before every Castro, there was a Batista; before every Stalin, there was a Czar; before every Ho Chi Minh, there was a colonial empire holding the whip. I don't think that stuff would happen in America, because Americans wouldn't stand for it.

As I've said before - and doubtlessly will have to say again - most of the people who post here are living in places with a tradition of individualism, democracy, and liberalism, even if they only ever existed in rhetoric. You can see that reflected in our political priorities, where sexual freedom is an "end" that is, to some, as important than abolishing imperialism and wage slavery.

So before you ignorantly condemn "commies" for "fucking everything up," first look at what existed before and what exists after, and honestly ask yourself if it could have been any different. Try to understand why socialism would be implemented differently when presented with different conditions. You'll learn something, at least.

[Havet]

Assuming communism to be "a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general", then what i'd dislike the most would be egalitarianism in the sense that it would be "materialistically egalitarian doctrine, according to which everyone is supposed to enjoy equality with regard to material prosperity." but that "because material inequality has always existed to some extent in domestic and international economy, communists argue that something must be done to remove it. Since those who enjoy the greatest material wealth are not likely to wish to part with it, some form of coercive mechanism is often used."

so basically the part that everyone must have the same property assets.

as for socialism, which i would define as "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by economic equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation.", i would criticize the distorted or absent price signals, reduced incentives for workers, slow or stagnant technological advance, the devalue of the individual and the occasional and not-so-occasional indifference to property rights.

mind you, i have nothing with people deciding to organize themselves that way, so long as they do not use force on those inside the organization, and do not enforce their ideas on others.

[danyboy27]

i dont have a problem with communism, i got a problem with ther anti-revisionist on their vision of communism.

vanguardism, authoritarism, the rigidity of the structure that have to force something in other people mind really disgust me.

beside that, i dont think communism is bad.

[RGacky3]

it's just that the record shows that the same old people will take charge--as they have always taken charge when the situation is right.


Unfortunately, since the 20s, pretty much Leninism and the Communist parties of such and such countries, which were implimented and closely regulated by the USSR had a strangle hold on communism and radical socialism. So what your describing here is not the natural way that communism develops, its how it developed in the last century due to the circumstances put there by the USSR. But as seen in the last 20 or so years things are changing radically.

[Cumannach]

To be honest--it Communism came tomorrow--I'd try to take over. Nothing overt--just little by little, that's my nature--maybe I'd make it, maybe I wouldn't, but there's lots others like me that would be trying too--and eventually one would succeed.



That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Right, but conditions provided Stalin with the means to consolidate an enormous amount of personal power. Itself owing to conditions, Russia was (and still is) acclimated to autocratic rule - socialism adapted itself accordingly.

By simply arguing that Stalin was a historical actor with more influence than Russian class society, without regard for context, you subscribe to the reactionary Great Man theory of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory), one that leaves little room for genuine socialist analysis and action. Again, I prefer materialism.

I agree and I think aside from what Stalin wanted personally, there were other conditions involved. When Russia was isolated, they tried to create socialism in a semi-industrialized country. In order to industrialize, basically Stalin recreated 200 years of capitalism in 20 years. So early capitalism needed a large wealth surplus and used slaves to do this - Stalin used slave labor. Capitalism needed to extract as much wealth out of workers as possible, so it pushed people off of peasant lands and into the factories (over many many decades) - Stalin did this much quicker. Capitalists upended the fudal production of crops to make cash crops and large farms - Stalin did similar things to force fudal production into something that could compete with the factory-farming style of capitalism.

I think this shows the problems of both trying to have socialism "in one country" as well as trying to make radical change from the top. Radical change from the top always tends to look like Napoleon or Stalin or Bizmark.

[Bud Struggle]

That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

Or better yet--purge people that really understand Communism like the posters on RevLeft. That's what Stalin did and it worked for him. Imean you have got to know that once the Revolution is over--the last people anyone will want around is Revolutionaries. :D

[Bud Struggle]

I agree and I think aside from what Stalin wanted personally, there were other conditions involved. When Russia was isolated, they tried to create socialism in a semi-industrialized country. In order to industrialize, basically Stalin recreated 200 years of capitalism in 20 years. So early capitalism needed a large wealth surplus and used slaves to do this - Stalin used slave labor. Capitalism needed to extract as much wealth out of workers as possible, so it pushed people off of peasant lands and into the factories (over many many decades) - Stalin did this much quicker. Capitalists upended the fudal production of crops to make cash crops and large farms - Stalin did similar things to force fudal production into something that could compete with the factory-farming style of capitalism.


Communism did in 60 years what the Tsars couldn't do in a thousand.

It created a Bourgeois class.

[danyboy27]

That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

that was offensive. never since i am there i remember of Tomk calling communist scum, he might haave been joking now and then, but he never said that communist shouyld be extreminated.

Tomk you are a verry patient people, i would go apeshit if someone would act like a dick toward me in this manner.

[communard resolution]

That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

That's the spirit - you're sure to win over a lot of people if this is your promise to them.

[Pirate Utopian]

That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.
Oh you Stalinist things. Dont you know you're driving your mommas and poppas insane?

[Dejavu]

I suspect a lot of the responses you will get will be a whole lot of strawmen and caricatures about socialism rather than any real objection to communism as it is actually advocated.

That's a problem with right-wing and capitalist critiques of communism overall. They start off with their prejudices, and base their critiques around them. Hence why we get "there's no incentive because everyone gets paid the same" or "it is totalitarian because the state owns everything and there's no private property so you don't even own your toothbrush" arguments.

Some, like Dejavu, do understand our position and ideology to a good extent, and that's where the most constructive arguments come from. But a lot of cappies here tend to go the Freeman route, and attack misconceptions while refusing to see past them despite repeated efforts on our part to clear them up.

Why thank you. :)

[Demogorgon]

Communism did in 60 years what the Tsars couldn't do in a thousand.

It created a Bourgeois class.
The Tsars didn't want a bourgeoisie class and its emergence in the later years of the Russian Empire was a source of concern for them. Russia was simply not in a position where a move towards Communism was feasible but the breaking down of the Tsarist Government certainly made capitalism possible.

And on another note, I have to say the Dejavu is quite a good opponent these days. A vast improvement from a year ago at any rate where I am ashamed to say I rather lost the place with him.

[STJ]

Well I'm not a 100% subscriber in the "Great Man" theory, but it does seem that certain people "rise up" when the situation is right--Hitler did that, Stalin, Napoleon, etc. So did all of those dictators that came up every time ther was a "Communist" revolution and make the revolution "their own" Castro, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot...

I personally (even as a Capitalist) have no problem with REAL Communism, everything equal and fair for everyone--it's just that the record shows that the same old people will take charge--as they have always taken charge when the situation is right.

The Vanguards, the Communist Party members--all that stuff is just Bourgeoise under a Socialist name.

Certain people just have a tendancy to take over--they were the Commissars in the USSR and they became the factory owners--in a heartbeat--when the USSR fell.
To be honest--it Communism came tomorrow--I'd try to take over. Nothing overt--just little by little, that's my nature--maybe I'd make it, maybe I wouldn't, but there's lots others like me that would be trying too--and eventually one would succeed.

So Communism is a good idea, a great idea, but just not one for the human race.

Good luck, though.:)
Stalin inherited a basket case fudal empire and in 20 years he turned it into a modern state. The west took 100s years to develop he did it in 20 years.

[Bud Struggle]

The Tsars didn't want a bourgeoisie class and its emergence in the later years of the Russian Empire was a source of concern for them.


Yea, but my point was Stalin and those that followed him CREATED a Bourgeoise class in the Soviet Union. That's the interesting thing.

And thanks, Spet! :)

[Bud Struggle]

Stalin inherited a basket case fudal empire and in 20 years he turned it into a modern state. The west took 100s years to develop he did it in 20 years.

Very true. But Hitler did the same thing in Germany, too. So what made the transformations possible may not have been Socialism--but Totalitarianism.

[Bud Struggle]

Why thank you. :)

Suck up! :D :D :D

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yea, but my point was Stalin and those that followed him CREATED a Bourgeoise class in the Soviet Union. That's the interesting thing.

And thanks, Spet! :)


Fuedalism -> Capitlism -> Communism

Funnily enough it went from feudalism to Capitalism

[Bud Struggle]

Fuedalism -> Capitlism -> Communism

Funnily enough it went from feudalism to Capitalism

I think it almost ALWAYS goes from Feudalism to Communism without touching Capitalism. It did in China, Romania, Hungary, Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Korea, and most lately Nepal. Almost always a king leaves town when the Communists take over. Certain 1950's Cuba couldn't be considered REAL Capitalism.

There's something missing in Marx's theory because industrial Capitalist states NEVER go Communist. Or so it seems.
Maybe some one could correct me here.

[ls]

That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

Typical Stalinist.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think it almost ALWAYS goes from Feudalism to Communism. It did in China, Rumania, Hungary, Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, and most lately Nepal.

There's something missing in Marx's theory because industrial Capitalist states NEVER go Communist. Or so it seems.

Dont you find it odd that these leninist movements grab hold in fuedlist countries and then turn them into capitalist ones? (Also calling China, Romainia , Hungary , etc communist dosent make them so).

[communard resolution]

Very true. But Hitler did the same thing in Germany, too. So what made the transformations possible may not have been Socialism--but Totalitarianism.

TomK, Germany was not a feudal empire when Hitler took power - it was a fully industrialised capitalist country and parliamentary/bourgeois democracy.

[Bud Struggle]

Dont you find it odd that these leninist movements grab hold in fuedlist countries and then turn them into capitalist ones? (Also calling China, Romainia , Hungary , etc communist dosent make them so).

No, I'm not saying they were REAL Communist countries--I just think it was interesting that all of these countries went from having a king or emperor to being some sort of socialistic country without really ever being industrialized Capitalists. And revolutions never happened or took hold in Britain or France or the USA or Italy or Germany. For that matter the Revolution in Germany went Fascist.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, Germany was not a feudal empire when Hitler took power - it was a fully industrialised capitalist country and parliamentary/bourgeois democracy.

That's true--it was an imperfect analogy--but it was an economically depressed state with high unemployment massive war debts and vast inflation. It was in a pretty bad state of disrepair before the Fascists took over.

And they did a nice job of making the place into a superpower in a couple of years. I'm not advocating Fascism--but it was the Totalitarian aspect of Hitler that got that country turned around again. I think a case could be made for the avantages of Totalitarian forced labor in the Societ Union, too.

[communard resolution]

I'm not advocating Fascism--but it was the Totalitarian aspect of Hitler that got that country turned around again. I think a case could be made for the avantages of Totalitarian forced labor in the Societ Union, too.

It was several aspects really. If you gas 6 million people and murder or imprison several million more, you suddenly have a lot of empty aparments, jobs, and money to spend on pure Aryan, non-dissident Germans. They went as far as pulling gold teeth out of the victims' mouths after gassing them... And let's not forget all those who worked as unpaid slaves. Though the holocaust is usually referred to as the result of Hitler's racist hatred, IMO it was a simple economic equation.
Also, money was put into the war industry, which made for a lot of new jobs. The only way to close this economic circle was to start a war.

At a time when the free market was incapable of providing a solution to the economic downturn, Hitler nationalised some industries. I believe similar steps are taken (or are about to be taken) in the entire Western world as we speak.

'Totalitarianism' (I assume you mean an extremely centralised administration) may have helped as far as logistics when impelementing these measures, but totalitarism in itself is not a solution to anything as far as economics.

You own a factory, so you teach us. In what situation would you resort to 'totalitarianism' and why?

[STJ]

Very true. But Hitler did the same thing in Germany, too. So what made the transformations possible may not have been Socialism--but Totalitarianism.
Hitler inherited a modern German state.

[Ele'ill]

What if there was totalitarianism but everyone in the population of this made up country had no problem working toward the goal that the central authority had set?

[PCommie]

It goes against human nature

"Human nature" by its very wording is something common to all humans at all times. So, for your theory to be true, greed must be common to all humans at all times. This is obviously wrong, since there are very selfless people in the world. Therefore, greed is removeable from society. Now, the greedy are the restorers of capitalism, making them class enemies. What do you do with enemies? Shoot 'em. Yep, someone starts trying to accumulate power not authorized by the people, fill 'em up with bulletholes and drive a flagpole through their skull (I'm not kidding about the last part, either).


It doesn't help that our responses generally consist of either "Stalin and Mao were good socialists and never did anything wrong" or "Stalin and Mao were bad socialists and never did anything right." It's kind of like when capitalists can't decide what they think about Pinochet; was he a dictator and not a "real capitalist" or was he a good guy and a defender of capitalism?

I don't know about Mao, but the fact is, Stalin was wrong, Stalin was not a socialist, he was a fascist, and it's him that gives international socialism a bad name. Now, if he had specific ideas that he agreed with, would I agree with and use them? Of course, I'm not a reactionary. But Stalin as Stalin was a fascists, and the "Anti-Revisionists" are just "legal" fascists.


To be honest--it Communism came tomorrow--I'd try to take over. Nothing overt--just little by little, that's my nature--maybe I'd make it, maybe I wouldn't, but there's lots others like me that would be trying too--and eventually one would succeed.

See my answer to the quote about "against human nature."


mind you, i have nothing with people deciding to organize themselves that way, so long as they do not use force on those inside the organization, and do not enforce their ideas on others.

No one has the right to refuse communism, because if people are allowed to refuse it, there will be a revolt. Additionally, we know it to be good for the people. Think about it. If I know that a cough drop will save your life, and you're mentally delusional, do you really have the right to refuse? No, a better way to put it, do I have the right to refuse to help you? In the same way, do we communists have the right to refuse to force-feed communism to the people who are so deluded and twisted by capitalist propaganda that they can't see the truth? Of course not.


That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

Yeah, let's fucking murder millions of people. That's really delivering exact justice. Maybe now people will belive that Stalinism = Fascism. We can just wait, anyway, until someone tries to amass power (*cough*Stalin*cough) and then... see the latter part of my answer to the "human nature" argument. ;)


Stalin inherited a basket case fudal empire and in 20 years he turned it into a modern state. The west took 100s years to develop he did it in 20 years.

The ends do not justify the means, comrade.

-PC

[Bud Struggle]

It was several aspects really. If you gas 6 million people and murder or imprison several million more, you suddenly have a lot of empty aparments, jobs, and money to spend on pure Aryan, non-dissident Germans. They went as far as pulling gold teeth out of the victims' mouths after gassing them... And let's not forget all those who worked as unpaid slaves. Though the holocaust is usually referred to as the result of Hitler's racist hatred, IMO it was a simple economic equation.Would you say the same thing about Stalin's purges? I do agree, but in both Hitler's and Stalin's cases there definitely was a sociopathic factor involved, too. You just can't murder millions and millions of people in the name of economic expediancy. These guys had some crazy going on, too.


Also, money was put into the war industry, which made for a lot of new jobs. The only way to close this economic circle was to start a war. There wasn't any real need for a war industry, though.


At a time when the free market was incapable of providing a solution to the economic downturn, Hitler nationalised some industries. I believe similar steps are taken (or are about to be taken) in the entire Western world as we speak. In those terms Obama is a lot more National Socialistic than Socialistic. FWIW: I'm no fan of any of that. Businesses that fail--should fail.


'Totalitarianism' (I assume you mean an extremely centralised administration) may have helped as far as logistics when impelementing these measures, but totalitarism in itself is not a solution to anything as far as economics. Long term it really does no good--but in the short term, you can cut through a lot of red tape by just a "fiat." Totalitarianism gets things moving in a hurry.


You own a factory, so you teach us. In what situation would you resort to 'totalitarianism' and why? Two answers--I am a dictator in my own business (a benevolent one, though) I can solve problems and cut through red tape with just my say so when things get bottle necked. But in the larger scale while it's nice to solve short term problems with a fiat, the fact is--the economy really runs on the good will of the producers in the long term. The producers WANTING to do things works a lot better than making people do things.

[Bitter Ashes]

So, TomK. If I'm understanding this right, your arguement against co-operatives is that they're slower to respond to problems than capitalist chains of command? Hmm, well, I can perhaps see what you mean on the little things where somebody might run to thier line manager for a quick answer, but what about the big things, like the entire direction that production should take, working conditions, etc?
So, putting aside the obvious moral side of things, is it not more important the most important stuff is dealt with in this way at the possible sacrafice of some micro-management?

[Bitter Ashes]

I forgot to mention too that the only reason that individual productivity is so highly fretted about right now is as a direct result of capitalism. If you had twice the workforce and were not penalised for allowing them all the same standard of living that you allow your current workforce, but they were still only required to produce the same ammount of goods, would there really be a need to focus so much on how much work can be weaned off each individual worker? Maybe I'm bieng neieve.

[STJ]

The ends do not justify the means, comrade.

-PC[/QUOTE]

I am no Stalinist but what he did in 20 years is amazing.

[Brother No. 1]

I am no Stalinist but what he did in 20 years is amazing.

Yes and then you'll say he was a burtal tyrant who destroyed Socialism in the CCCP and doomed it.



--I am a dictator in my own business (a benevolent one, though)

Sure...if only there was such a thing as a Benevolent Dictator. Basicly if you were to own the factory you would imply the Capitalist means to control,opressm and opperate the facotry. The Elite dictator of the bussiness is a more correct term.

[RGacky3]

Certain 1950's Cuba couldn't be considered REAL Capitalism.


Why not? It was very capitalist, free market as hell. You can tell how free the market is by how happy organized crime is :).


Stalin inherited a basket case fudal empire and in 20 years he turned it into a modern state. The west took 100s years to develop he did it in 20 years.

That has nothing to do with Socialism, and he essencially took out a bad tooth by knocking out the whole mouth, so no great stride for socialism there.


There's something missing in Marx's theory because industrial Capitalist states NEVER go Communist. Or so it seems.
Maybe some one could correct me here.

No state ever goes communist, the few times communism has been around its been various circumstances, some industrialized, some not. But its never been a "State".

The notion that you need to be industrialized to create socialism is absurd marxist mumbo jumbo, Socialism has nothing to do with how advanced a society is, it has to do with how its organized.


Two answers--I am a dictator in my own business (a benevolent one, though) I can solve problems and cut through red tape with just my say so when things get bottle necked.

Its good you realize that. One of those problems might be (and probably has been) cutting workers, or cutting something from the workers to maximize profit, of which you have the say. You may be a benevolent dictator, but most Capitalits don't have that option, its a competative market out there. So essencially Capitalism puts good and bad people in power, and makes many of the good people have to act bad to stay in power.


I am no Stalinist but what he did in 20 years is amazing.

The eygptians and Roman did extreamly extreamly well with brutal slave labor.

[Bud Struggle]

So, TomK. If I'm understanding this right, your arguement against co-operatives is that they're slower to respond to problems than capitalist chains of command? Hmm, well, I can perhaps see what you mean on the little things where somebody might run to thier line manager for a quick answer, but what about the big things, like the entire direction that production should take, working conditions, etc?
So, putting aside the obvious moral side of things, is it not more important the most important stuff is dealt with in this way at the possible sacrafice of some micro-management?

I have no problem with co-operatives. If people want to be involved in the--that's fine. There are some pretty good ones out there, the orange growers co-ops that bring you orange juce. They work sometimes. But there's really aren't many out there, and my guess is that two things happen--they get into arguments about direction or mamagement and fall apart or one of the co-opers bys out the others and makes a regular corporation out of it--so they aren't stable like corporations.

As far as mamagement goes--the world of Capitalsim is so competitive that missed decisions, even on the smalles level can lead to failure--and I think that puts co-ops at a disadvantage.



I forgot to mention too that the only reason that individual productivity is so highly fretted about right now is as a direct result of capitalism. If you had twice the workforce and were not penalised for allowing them all the same standard of living that you allow your current workforce, but they were still only required to produce the same ammount of goods, would there really be a need to focus so much on how much work can be weaned off each individual worker? Maybe I'm bieng neieve. Maybe, but our old friend Joe Stalin was quite interested in getting the most work from each worker. He may not be the best example though. ;)

It really all depends on how much value is produced by each worker once the "work" is taken out of the equasion. If the value is still there, you might get away with it. But I'm no economist--maybe someone with that background could give you a better answer.

[STJ]

Yes and then you'll say he was a burtal tyrant who destroyed Socialism in the CCCP and doomed it.




Sure...if only there was such a thing as a Benevolent Dictator. Basicly if you were to own the factory you would imply the Capitalist means to control,opressm and opperate the facotry. The Elite dictator of the bussiness is a more correct term.


You know us Trots comrade.;)

[danyboy27]

The ends do not justify the means, comrade.

-PC

I am no Stalinist but what he did in 20 years is amazing.[/QUOTE]

i am no hitler fan but what he did in a fews year is amazing, and i think you can reach to that conclusion with most of brutal tyran and dictator, emperor and warlords.

[STJ]

I know he did it on the backs of slave labor.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I hope this isn't degenerating into another tendency war...

[Dejavu]

And on another note, I have to say the Dejavu is quite a good opponent these days. A vast improvement from a year ago at any rate where I am ashamed to say I rather lost the place with him.Yeah I mellowed out a bit and became way less vulgar. It's an evolutionary process. ;) I am pleased that some of the members of this site have taken a more open-minded approach as well. Cheers!

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah I mellowed out a bit and became way less vulgar. It's an evolutionary process. ;) I am pleased that some of the members of this site have taken a more open-minded approach as well. Cheers!

Now that's REALLY suckup. :rolleyes::lol:

[danyboy27]

I know he did it on the backs of slave labor.

stalin wasnt really different in that sense, rapid buildup of many industries and road during the 5 year plan have been done on the back of thousand of people being send to gulag. russia even errected a memorial for their hard work after the stalin era.

the only difference reside in the fact that germany killed million on purpose.

[Dejavu]

Now that's REALLY suckup. :rolleyes::lol:

You set the bar Mr. CPUSA. :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

You set the bar Mr. CPUSA. :laugh:

:D!!!

After the Revolution you, me and Brother Robert will of course RULE THE WORLD! ;)

[communard resolution]

Would you say the same thing about Stalin's purges?

Stalin's purges were a means to get rid of the political opposition. The same can be said of Hitler's killing of communists, social democrats, anarchists, and 'left' Nazis, but not of his systematic genocide of the Jewish population.



I do agree, but in both Hitler's and Stalin's cases there definitely was a sociopathic factor involved, too. You just can't murder millions and millions of people in the name of economic expediancy. These guys had some crazy going on, too.But that would make the entire Nazi party and their helpers a party of psychopaths. Do you really believe that was the case? People are capable of committing cruel acts without being psychologically abnormal.


There wasn't any real need for a war industry, though.
Is there ever a need for a war industry unless you create it? In the short run, Hitler's strategy provided jobs. In the long run, it was self-destructive because all the money pumped into the war industry had to be regained somehow. If weapons are all your industry has on offer, how do you close the economic circle? You use your weapons to attack other countries and rob them.

[Cumannach]

stalin wasnt really different in that sense, rapid buildup of many industries and road during the 5 year plan have been done on the back of thousand of people being send to gulag. russia even errected a memorial for their hard work after the stalin era.

the only difference reside in the fact that germany killed million on purpose.

Stalin or any other Soviet never killed millions, not counting Nazi soldiers.

[Bud Struggle]

Stalin's purges were a means to get rid of the political opposition. to a point--then it got a bit "excessive." He got paranoid--and it showed.


The same can be said of Hitler's killing of communists, social democrats, anarchists, and 'left' Nazis, but not of his systematic genocide of the Jewish population. You don't think each dictator's "excess killings" weren't roughly similar?


But that would make the entire Nazi party and their helpers a party of psychopaths. Do you really believe that was the case? People are capable of committing cruel acts without being psychologically abnormal. Here I don't quite know. I'm no psychoanalyist. I don't have a clue why Germans would kill Jews or why Bosnians or Rwandans or Turks would kill and kill and kill people disimilar, but not that disimilar to themselves. I have no answer.

Is there ever a need for a war industry unless you create it? In the short run, Hitler's strategy provided jobs. In the long run, it was self-destructive because all the money pumped into the war industry had to be regained somehow. If weapons are all your industry has on offer, how do you close the economic circle? You use your weapons to attack other countries and rob them.[/QUOTE]

You know that was the epitath of the Soviet Union. The problem with the SU was that the USA and it's cold war prevented the Soviets from using their weapons.

[Bud Struggle]

Stalin or any other Soviet never killed millions, not counting Nazi soldiers.

Yes he did.

[Cumannach]

No he didn't.

Even capitalist historians admit this after they opened the Soviet archives to researchers.

[Bud Struggle]

No he didn't.

Even capitalist historians admit this after they opened the Soviet archives to researchers.

Yes Indeed!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html

[Cumannach]

Here, instead of reading syndicated toilet paper, try an actual scholarly research paper;


Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence (http://www.anonym.to/?http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28199310%2998:4%3C1017:VOTSPS%3E2.0.CO;2-0&origin=historycoop)
(http://www.jstor.org/pss/2166597 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.jstor.org/pss/2166597))

Refute the evidence presented in this or admit you were wrong and a stupid fuck.

[Bud Struggle]

Stop it --he killed millions. I'm not about to argue with some Stalin Kiddie about the Stalinist purges. All I got is page one of some Stalinisic book.

Where's the rest?

[Cumannach]

I rest my case (that you are a stupid know-nothing fuck).

[Bud Struggle]

I rest my case (that you are a stupid know-nothing fuck).

Where's the REST?

BTW, refute these:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.STALIN.KILL.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Stalindenial.html

http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/

http://www.globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/stalin.htm

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Retail-industry/When-it-comes-to-mass-murder-Stalin-had-the-edge-over-Hitler.html

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/003645.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/03/world/pelvozh-journal-cold-reminder-of-stalin-s-murders-refuses-to-fade.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://books.google.com/books?id=YWUxDKN80BgC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=stalin's+murders&source=bl&ots=ZGWScn2fFm&sig=weJif3DDdfxKWX7hoToMlCffPM8&hl=en&ei=4UnuSfanFuKblAfX45jrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001190.php

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/04/1046540182736.html

http://www.paperlw.net/html/History/200807/20-5631.html

[communard resolution]

to a point--then it got a bit "excessive." He got paranoid--and it showed.

I agree, but the question was not whether Stalin's purges were good or bad. My point was that their purpose was a political one, whereas I believe that the motifs for the Jewish holocaust were mainly of economic nature.

An ethnic group doesn't constitute a political threat, especially if it's as well integrated into the dominant culture as Germany's Jewish population was before 1933. Mind you, fascism had Jewish supporters in Italy before Mussolini got cosy with Hitler and adopted some of his race laws.


You don't think each dictator's "excess killings" weren't roughly similar?In what way? I guess they both resulted in, um, dead bodies... but that's where the similarities end.


Here I don't quite know. I'm no psychoanalyist. I don't have a clue why Germans would kill Jews or why Bosnians or Rwandans or Turks would kill and kill and kill people disimilar, but not that disimilar to themselves. I have no answer.Nationalism. Unity of the ruling class with the working class, established by means of constructing an alien Other and suggesting that it constitutes a threat to the nation. It's easy to make people believe they are under attack - see Iraq invasion/non-existent WMDs.

[Brother No. 1]

You don't think each dictator's "excess killings" weren't roughly similar?

Sure...and I guess you'll say next Stalin=Hitler....Their "killings" werent the same. Hitler killed to "clease the world of lesser races." Hitlers killing, let me remind you, were focused souly and all on his ideal of the "Aryan race."




I don't have a clue why Germans would kill Jews

Seems you skiped The histroy lessons on World War 2. Hitler and the Nazi's hated The Jewish people for they thought they were "ruining" the "pure" Germany and the "ayran race." Nazism in Germany mainly focused on "Rebuilding their honor,army, and pride" for the 3rd reich. The Jewish people were of course massively and burtaly killed and tourcered but no one knew this. The ones who did kill them basicly either followed orders on fear they would be killed or thought that the "Der Futher" was right on everything and muct be obeyed. Hitler used the manipulated the German people to his whim and made them think he was a god.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure...and I guess you'll say next Stalin=Hitler....Their "killings" werent the same. Hitler killed to "clease the world of lesser races." Hitlers killing, let me remind you, were focused souly and all on his ideal of the "Aryan race."

Once you kill over, oh, let's say a million people it becomes nasty. Churchill and Roosevelt both leaders of combatant countries managed to get through the war without killing nary a unruly citizen of their respective countries.

It's the way to go.



Seems you skiped The histroy lessons on World War 2. Hitler and the Nazi's hated The Jewish people for they thought they were "ruining" the "pure" Germany and the "ayran race." Nazism in Germany mainly focused on "Rebuilding their honor,army, and pride" for the 3rd reich. The Jewish people were of course massively and burtaly killed and tourcered but no one knew this. The ones who did kill them basicly either followed orders on fear they would be killed or thought that the "Der Futher" was right on everything and muct be obeyed. Hitler used the manipulated the German people to his whim and made them think he was a god.

Murder is murder. ;)

[communard resolution]

The ones who did kill them basicly either followed orders on fear they would be killed

There is not one documented case of a death camp guard executed for refusing to actively participate in the genocide. SS members that disobeyed such orders were simply considered unsuitable for the job and sent off to the front like everybody else.


or thought that the "Der Futher" was right

That's more likely. Nationalism and peer pressure will make people believe and do a lot of strange things.

[Dimentio]

Well I'm not a 100% subscriber in the "Great Man" theory, but it does seem that certain people "rise up" when the situation is right--Hitler did that, Stalin, Napoleon, etc. So did all of those dictators that came up every time ther was a "Communist" revolution and make the revolution "their own" Castro, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot...

I personally (even as a Capitalist) have no problem with REAL Communism, everything equal and fair for everyone--it's just that the record shows that the same old people will take charge--as they have always taken charge when the situation is right.

The Vanguards, the Communist Party members--all that stuff is just Bourgeoise under a Socialist name.

Certain people just have a tendancy to take over--they were the Commissars in the USSR and they became the factory owners--in a heartbeat--when the USSR fell.
To be honest--it Communism came tomorrow--I'd try to take over. Nothing overt--just little by little, that's my nature--maybe I'd make it, maybe I wouldn't, but there's lots others like me that would be trying too--and eventually one would succeed.

So Communism is a good idea, a great idea, but just not one for the human race.

Good luck, though.:)

I think that the result is apparent if you study the theory of the vanguard. If we an elite party which should interpretate reality for the workers and "educate them", without any restraints and with "democratic centralism", there is a profound risk of the establishment of a traditional dictatorship.

[Brother No. 1]

Churchill and Roosevelt both leaders of combatant countries managed to get through the war without killing nary a unruly citizen of their respective countries.


Roosevelt only helped when the US was attacked. Churchill was against Communism,homosexuals, and other things we Support. Only reason why they didnt kill thier people is because they filled them with propaganda and had a long term Capitalist nation. CCCP was still a young child in its goverment lenth.




Murder is murder.

and Capitalism=murder,opression, and expolitation.




So Communism is a good idea, a great idea, but just not one for the human race.


Let me guess you beleive in "human nature" as well? Communism can work for humanity just that Capitalism must first be destroyed. Communism has also never been here so any trying to justify Communism wont work its useless. CCCP,China,Eastern Europe,ect were Trials of Socialism that failed sadly.

[STJ]

I rest my case (that you are a stupid know-nothing fuck).

Is that really necessary Tom is ok for a cappie.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I rest my case (that you are a stupid know-nothing fuck).

Whoa, way to argue your side. Let's just call everybody who disagrees "Dumb fucks".

[Brother No. 1]

Is that really necessary Tom is ok for a cappie.

and when he says Communism cant work,Stalin is as bad as hitler, and us Commies are idiots he seems like a ok cappie?

[Jack]

Sure...and I guess you'll say next Stalin=Hitler....Their "killings" werent the same. Hitler killed to "clease the world of lesser races." Hitlers killing, let me remind you, were focused souly and all on his ideal of the "Aryan race.".

So Stalin is okay because he was an equal opportunity murderer?

[STJ]

and when he says Communism cant work,Stalin is as bad as hitler, and us Commies are idiots he seems like a ok cappie?

Its called debateing his ideas vs. yours nothing wrong with that. When did he call us Commies idiots?

[danyboy27]

No he didn't.

Even capitalist historians admit this after they opened the Soviet archives to researchers.

LOL

http://www.massviolence.org/-Case-Studies-?id_mot=44

those studies are made in part of soviet archives.

enjoy your long lasting reading of terror engineered by a fews sociopath genius, and have a good night :D

[Brother No. 1]

Its called debateing his ideas vs. yours nothing wrong with that. When did he call us Commies idiots?

I talked with him from time to time using PMs. True nothing wrong with that just it kinda gets boring hearing that Communism cant work because of "human flaws." But then again hes a cappie and a decent oen compared to the others I have met.

[STJ]

I talked with him from time to time using PMs. True nothing wrong with that just it kinda gets boring hearing that Communism cant work because of "human flaws." But then again hes a cappie and a decent oen compared to the others I have met.

They all say Communism cant work for any number of reasons. He joined the Communist Party of America.

[Brother No. 1]

They all say Communism cant work for any number of reasons.

Well they agree with you that Stalin was a "tyrannt."



He joined the Communist Party of America.

I really didnt see mthat coming...but he CPUSA I'm not a fan of.

[LOLseph Stalin]

He joined the Communist Party of America.

Wait, who joined CPC? They're sell-outs.

[STJ]

Tom did to learn more about leftist ideas. I know that.

[danyboy27]

Tom did to learn more about leftist ideas. I know that.

we need a sample of his blood so we could synthetise an antitode for anti-revisionist!

all we need is a couple of trots, a laboratory and the blood sample from tomk:lol:

[Brother No. 1]

Wait, who joined CPC? They're sell-outs.

Tomk did.



Tom did to learn more about leftist ideas. I know that.

Well at least he tried..its to bad he sees Communism as a good idea that will never work/=.

[STJ]

Well they agree with you that Stalin was a "tyrannt."




I really didnt see mthat coming...but he CPUSA I'm not a fan of.


Well i am an evil Trot what did you expect.;)

Me either.

[STJ]

we need a sample of his blood so we could synthetise an antitode for anti-revisionist!

all we need is a couple of trots, a laboratory and the blood sample from tomk:lol:
:lol: Yes we do.

I am a Trot we can use mine.

[STJ]

Tomk did.




Well at least he tried..its to bad he sees Communism as a good idea that will never work/=.
I know i wish it had worked out.

[Brother No. 1]

I know i wish it had worked out.

Well America isnt the best place to learn Communism for 1 thing and the CPUSA isnt a good place to start either..I just say bad luck and we sadly cant gain all the comrades out there.

[Robert]

Again, this is completely true, but the conditions allow for this to happen. Before every Castro, there was a Batista; before every Stalin, there was a Czar; before every Ho Chi Minh, there was a colonial empire holding the whip. I don't think that stuff would happen in America, because Americans wouldn't stand for it. This is specious reasoning. There was nothing to prevent Castro from deposing Batista and then establishing a Constitution, Marxist or otherwise, with guarantees of free speech and a provision that the president would serve a limited term with powers to be checked by an independent judiciary or a popular assembly. I suppose it's possible that the people really wanted them to enjoy perpetual, centralized, and unchecked power, but somehow I doubt it, don't you?

Hugo Chavez, cut from the same anti-capitalist mold, is busily working to consolidate his power, close down dissenting broadcasters, and, I think, eliminate or reduce term limits. You see no pattern here?

Same with Stalin, same with Mao, same with Kim Jong Il, same with Pol Pot. Not one of them has an excuse for their usurpation and abuse of power.

As for Ho Chi Minh, I don't really know how autocratic he is even accused of having been, but it is to your lasting credit at least that you do not pretend that any of these self-absorbed goons were anything other than what the Capitalist West claims them to have been.

[STJ]

I know ACPC is a joke.

[RGacky3]

Hugo Chavez, cut from the same anti-capitalist mold, is busily working to consolidate his power, close down dissenting broadcasters, and, I think, eliminate or reduce term limits. You see no pattern here?

Now I am no fan of Hugo Chavez's style of top down socialism. Howeve lets be fair, the stations who's liscence he revoked, were stations that called for a coup against him and actively supported it. Can you imagen what would happen if a station did that in the US?

[synthesis]

This is specious reasoning. There was nothing to prevent Castro from deposing Batista and then establishing a Constitution, Marxist or otherwise, with guarantees of free speech and a provision that the president would serve a limited term with powers to be checked by an independent judiciary or a popular assembly. I suppose it's possible that the people really wanted them to enjoy perpetual, centralized, and unchecked power, but somehow I doubt it, don't you?I think it's hilarious how people apply a double standard to Communists in this sense. Their issue, of course, isn't that people who claimed to share our ideology were worse than the alternative, it's that they weren't any better. To me, that double standard reflects how most capitalists seem to recognize the ethical superiority of communism as a theory, even if they'll never admit it.

Perhaps I will respond more extensively after I've slept off this tequila.

[Robert]

And perhaps your post would have been clearer had you not written it after drinking tequila, muchacho.

But seriously, a double standard? We challenge communists to guarantee, after the revolution, the same personal liberties, diffusion of power, and periodic opportunity for transfer of power, that liberal democrats demand of their governments now.

Communists cannot or will not make that guarantee. And it doesn't appear to trouble them in the least.

[STJ]

Well America isnt the best place to learn Communism for 1 thing and the CPUSA isnt a good place to start either..I just say bad luck and we sadly cant gain all the comrades out there.
The American Communist Party is a joke.

[Communist Theory]

Stalin ate babies...
Those are my only objections and need I say they suffice.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I think the quality of discussion in this thread is astoundingly low, even for OI standards; in fact I'm not quite sure why I'm not ignoring it outright, but I digress.

It's really no surprise that the bulk of this thread is more about LOL'ing and repeating the same crap over and over again in a mob trial fashion about "Stalinism". Its just the complete disregard for historical accuracy and scientific analysis that gets me, as well as the tendency to decay into indentity politics and shock value. Some of the things in here are almost not even worth taking the time to refute, like:

Rgacky

No state ever goes communist, the few times communism has been around its been various circumstances, some industrialized, some not. But its never been a "State".

The notion that you need to be industrialized to create socialism is absurd marxist mumbo jumbo, Socialism has nothing to do with how advanced a society is, it has to do with how its organized.If you deny that industrialization has nothing to do with attaining socialism, or it can somehow be achieved with industrialization; then I simply can't help you. I'm not quite sure how you expect to provide 7 billion people with the basic rights and qualities of life with out industry, unless you outright reject industry due to some primitivist ideal, I would understand that easier. Industry has EVERYTHING to do with how society is organized! The bourgeois own the means of production, while the workers are the ones who produce but do not recieve the fruits of their labor. Class struggle 101.



That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.Cummanach, perhaps you shouldn't have been so provacative, even though I completely understand your frustration. But that only fueled their already burning fire.

TomK:

The Vanguards, the Communist Party members--all that stuff is just Bourgeoise under a Socialist name.*sigh*:closedeyes:

If all that stuff was just the bourgeoisie under a socialist name, then tell me how exactly did the bourgeoise have a hand in proletarian revolutions like the October revolution, or cuban revolution? You really like to repeat that "the soviet union created a bourgeois class" and what not, but what rationale or explaination do you give for this? I would really like to know how a bourgeoise class can simply be "created". Really, the bourgeois had existed in Russia before the October revolution, and were never completely abolished from Russian society; hence the failure of the revolutionary movement and rise of revisionism. If you are going to claim that a beurucratic caste counts as a capitalist class, then you are simply wrong. None of said beurucrats privately owned the means of production, nor did they live off the working class' labor, nor surplus value generated from their labor. Nor was there virtually any private property at all in the Soviet Union.

So go ahead Tom, set the record straight.

robert the great:

This is specious reasoning. There was nothing to prevent Castro from deposing Batista and then establishing a Constitution, Marxist or otherwise, with guarantees of free speech and a provision that the president would serve a limited term with powers to be checked by an independent judiciary or a popular assembly. I suppose it's possible that the people really wanted them to enjoy perpetual, centralized, and unchecked power, but somehow I doubt it, don't you?http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

Thats the 1992 constitution, scroll down to Article 53. The Cuban revolution reinstated the 1940 constitution (http://www.juanperez.com/constitution.html), after it was suspended by Batista's coup.

Also to claim that within Cuban political system, Castro's power is unchecked is simply false.
Democracy In Cuba (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)

[Bud Struggle]

TomK:
*sigh*:closedeyes:

If all that stuff was just the bourgeoisie under a socialist name, then tell me how exactly did the bourgeoise have a hand in proletarian revolutions like the October revolution, or cuban revolution? You really like to repeat that "the soviet union created a bourgeois class" and what not, but what rationale or explaination do you give for this? I would really like to know how a bourgeoise class can simply be "created". Really, the bourgeois had existed in Russia before the October revolution, and were never completely abolished from Russian society; hence the failure of the revolutionary movement and rise of revisionism. If you are going to claim that a beurucratic caste counts as a capitalist class, then you are simply wrong. None of said beurucrats privately owned the means of production, nor did they live off the working class' labor, nor surplus value generated from their labor. Nor was there virtually any private property at all in the Soviet Union.

So go ahead Tom, set the record straight.



Hey, the Bourgeoise controls the means of production.
Who controled the production in the USSR? A group of managers controled the business of the Soviet Union. There's were a close knit band of military, business and public servant families. They made the USSR run. They inheritied the country when Socialism fell-they "bought" they businesses they ran for the government for pennies. They were interrealted and socially friendly. They were are the present group of millionaires and billionaires in Russia today.

Do you think these guys came from nowhere?

[Robert]

Here's what Human Rights Watch has to say about the Worker's Paradise of Cuba:

For almost five decades, Cuba has restricted nearly all avenues of political dissent. Cuban citizens have been systematically deprived of their fundamental rights to free expression, privacy, association, assembly, movement, and due process of law. Tactics for enforcing political conformity have included police warnings, surveillance, short-term detentions, house arrests, travel restrictions, criminal prosecutions, and politically motivated dismissals from employment.


http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/02/18/cuba-fidel-castro-s-abusive-machinery-remains-intact (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/02/18/cuba-fidel-castro-s-abusive-machinery-remains-intactI)

I don't have the time or inclination to argue the point with any apologist for the thugs who run Cuba in perpetuity, notwithstanding their constitution. I assume you know that Human Rights Watch is no friend of the USA either, so they have plenty of credibility:

http://www.hrw.org/en/united-states

I admit now that Art. 53 gives textual lip service to free speech, and I apologize for saying otherwise (now bite me), but notice ARTICLE 5: "The Communist Party of Cuba, a follower of Martí’s ideas and of Marxism-Leninism, and the organized vanguard of the Cuban nation, is the highest leading force of society and of the state" and Art. 6: The Young Communist League, the organization of Cuba’s vanguard youth, has the recognition and encouragement of the state in its main duty of promoting the active participation of young people in the tasks of building socialism[.]

I will not believe that you approve of a constitution that anoints one and only one political party and encourages its children to follow that party line.

Also see Amnesty International's reports on Cuba:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/demonstrations-disrupted-cuba-20090319

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/six-years-prison-cuba-57-activists-supporters-face-ongoing-harassment-20090318

[synthesis]

But seriously, a double standard? We challenge communists to guarantee, after the revolution, the same personal liberties, diffusion of power, and periodic opportunity for transfer of power, that liberal democrats demand of their governments now.People demanded those things of Batista, too. That was my original point. And I think I got it across well enough despite my state of mind at the time, thank you very much.

More importantly, if you really had any working historical knowledge of the Cuban Revolution, you'd understand why they would have had a siege mentality. Same in Russia and China.

Again, it is simply ridiculous to argue anything from the expectation that the exploited, divided, and hierarchical societies in which socialist revolutions occurred ought to look just like ours, especially after only a few decades of relative autonomy.

Governments are authoritarian for a reason, countries are impoverished for a reason, and those two factors are always related. None of this is meant to justify, merely to explain.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Robert the great:

I don't have the time or inclination to argue the point with any apologist for the thugs who run Cuba in perpetuity, notwithstanding their constitution.OK, since you put it that way I won't even put forth the effort.

TomK:


Hey, the Bourgeoise controls the means of production.This is not the definition for 'bourgeoisie', the proletariat can control the means of production was well; as was the case in the Soviet Until revisionist/market reforms.


Who controled the production in the USSR? A group of managers controled the business of the Soviet Union. There's were a close knit band of military, business and public servant families. They made the USSR run. They inheritied the country when Socialism fell-they "bought" they businesses they ran for the government for pennies. They were interrealted and socially friendly. They were are the present group of millionaires and billionaires in Russia today.

Do you think these guys came from nowhere?

Your argument pretty much amounts to "they did this, and were that"; I was hoping you could put some effort into debate, and you know give me something to work with.

If anything, your argument "proves" that control of the means of production were not directly in the hands of workers, but managers. Managers however, do not amount to a capitalist class because they do not privately own any property, nor live off the labor of others.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Hey, the Bourgeoise controls the means of production.


Wrong, but you partially have it. The Bourgeoisie control the means of production for the purpose of profit. They make this profit by exploiting the working class who get paid shit wages, alot less than they deserve. They're the ones who do all the hard work.

[Brother No. 1]

The Bourgeoisie control the means of production for the purpose of profit. And for 500 years this has happened. The Workers are opressed and do all the work and either get paid very little or paid nothing at all. Think of it as King and servants. King=Bourgeoisie Servants=Proletarian. King gets everything and Serveants get abosultly nothing.

[Weezer]

That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

That's the beauty of revolutions. Get's rid of scum like you, who think mass-murder is perfectly okay.

[commyrebel]

Ok in sort i've been seeing cappies post why communism would not work and there wrong. First yes communism is in are nature just look at tribalism all that is is a basic form of socialism. Yes you say stalin was evil i say yes he did do moral wrongs but he did develop a strong economic system. You say that communism leads to to much power for one person i say if you use a system that use a council of Soviets that takes experienced workers and allows the people to vote(not that electoral stuff the US does) on if they want them leading us to a perfect society(to a point). That would solve that problem and no one person would be the head.

[Dejavu]

Ok in sort i've been seeing cappies post why communism would work and there wrong.

You mean would not?

[Robert]

I have decided there is really nothing wrong with communism, and much to recommend it. There won't be any state or class under communism, so there won't be any law to oppress me or any leader like Castro, Kim, Mao, Stalin or Pol to enforce the revolution, even if it starts to spin out of control. I can do any kind of job I want and come and go to and from it as I please. I can eat all I want and whatever I want and whenever I want and then get free health care in the unlikely event my obesity makes me sick. You guys are going to come take care of me in the nursing home and bring me my medicine and cold mush (though I may want you to taste it first.) There will be plenty of leisure time, though I don't really need time off since I won't have a job, I mean, not a job I don't love. (I will miss the concept of a vacation.) There won't be any cops, because cops are pigs and I hate pigs because they hassle me and shit.

Money is evil, since it never gets distributed fairly, so we'll just not have any money under communism. Problem solved.

What's not to love?

It all reminds me of this kid I once heard saying:

"I love animals, so I want to be a veterinarian."

"You realize that vets sometimes have to put animals to sleep when they get real sick."

"Oh, no, I don't want to be that kind of vet."

[STJ]

That's the beauty of revolutions. Get's rid of scum like you, who think mass-murder is perfectly okay.
As well as being a total ahole.

[IcarusAngel]

Robert the Great's incessant trolling never ceases I suppose.

If you lived in a communist community, you would be expected to fulfill any job you took. In turn, you would likely have a better life as if you just sat around and did nothing, as you would necessarily have more needs. You may even be required, from time to time, to take a job that you may not necessarily enjoy to get more "needs." This is because if there are a lack of say, carpenters, in a community, you would have to become a carpenter to get work, to get more "resources." In much the same way, in capitalism, you have to go where things are marketable. The key difference, though, is that if you do not work (or can't work, or can't find work, etc.), you do not starve to death, as a hoarding of the resources is nothing more than violence against us all. In the communist scenario, people's interests are more naturally developed.

Why will people continue to work when they know they can sit around and be "lazy" and perhaps philosophize all day? Because they will become accustomed to the type of lifestyle that working certain jobs provide, and this provides the only incentive they need.

In fact, I even advocate these principles in a capitalist society. The government should provide everybody with a Guaranteed Minimum Income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income), perhaps 20,000 dollars a year. This is so you do not starve if you can't work for whatever reason, but this won't encourage people to be "lazy" as they would have to be wise with the money to survive, and they would also have to work jobs to get more resources, to fulfill their "wants" so to speak.

Even some "Libertarians" have advocated this principle, on the grounds that we eliminate all other "welfare" programs.

[danyboy27]

Robert the Great's incessant trolling never ceases I suppose.

If you lived in a communist community, you would be expected to fulfill any job you took. In turn, you would likely have a better life as if you just sat around and did nothing, as you would necessarily have more needs. You may even be required, from time to time, to take a job that you may not necessarily enjoy to get more "needs." This is because if there are a lack of say, carpenters, in a community, you would have to become a carpenter to get work, to get more "resources." In much the same way, in capitalism, you have to go where things are marketable. The key difference, though, is that if you do not work (or can't work, or can't find work, etc.), you do not starve to death, as a hoarding of the resources is nothing more than violence against us all. In the communist scenario, people's interests are more naturally developed.

Why will people continue to work when they know they can sit around and be "lazy" and perhaps philosophize all day? Because they will become accustomed to the type of lifestyle that working certain jobs provide, and this provides the only incentive they need.

In fact, I even advocate these principles in a capitalist society. The government should provide everybody with a Guaranteed Minimum Income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income), perhaps 20,000 dollars a year. This is so you do not starve if you can't work for whatever reason, but this won't encourage people to be "lazy" as they would have to be wise with the money to survive, and they would also have to work jobs to get more resources, to fulfill their "wants" so to speak.

Even some "Libertarians" have advocated this principle, on the grounds that we eliminate all other "welfare" programs.

i think robert meant to carricature the way some leftist are naive toward their ideology. there is nothing wrong with communism, but it would be foolish to believe everything will be fine without any inconvenients or problems.

[Dejavu]

I see one of the biggest problems with communism is coming up with incentives for the division of labor. By incentive I mean a purpose individuals would undertake to select a particular occupation over another. Division of labor is the diversity of these occupations contrary to what one might think as alienating labor. Perhaps its a misnomer and Division or Diversity of Occupations would better suffice.

Capitalism manages to achieve this but that does not mean it is justified. It's a bit like a military can be very efficient but does not make it's activities justified. And there is the incessant hording of wealth within capitalism further limiting any real options to the worker.

Given even all of this , that does not eliminate ( at least in my opinion) the need for a workable model of labor diversity and individual incentives. I have not seen a sufficient communist model or heard a communist theory that particularly solves this issue but I will claim ignorance and gladly be pointed to sources that I may have not seen yet :)

[Dejavu]

I have decided there is really nothing wrong with communism, and much to recommend it. There won't be any state or class under communism, so there won't be any law to oppress me or any leader like Castro, Kim, Mao, Stalin or Pol to enforce the revolution, even if it starts to spin out of control. I can do any kind of job I want and come and go to and from it as I please. I can eat all I want and whatever I want and whenever I want and then get free health care in the unlikely event my obesity makes me sick. You guys are going to come take care of me in the nursing home and bring me my medicine and cold mush (though I may want you to taste it first.) There will be plenty of leisure time, though I don't really need time off since I won't have a job, I mean, not a job I don't love. (I will miss the concept of a vacation.) There won't be any cops, because cops are pigs and I hate pigs because they hassle me and shit.

Money is evil, since it never gets distributed fairly, so we'll just not have any money under communism. Problem solved.

What's not to love?

It all reminds me of this kid I once heard saying:

"I love animals, so I want to be a veterinarian."

"You realize that vets sometimes have to put animals to sleep when they get real sick."

"Oh, no, I don't want to be that kind of vet."

Sarcasm noted. However, this is a piss poor argument against communism. Communists are not against laws, they're against capitalist created laws which disadvantages and exploits the worker. I fully agree with them to this extent.

Why would it not be feasible that a worker's collective or commune can democratically decide what the rules of the commune will be? They're people too and all people desire some kind of order in society.

[Dejavu]

PS: I think its also feasible that the enforcement mechanism can have a democratic nature as well. Jury of equal peers ? Communitarian courts? Sure , why not?

[Bud Struggle]

Why would it not be feasible that a worker's collective or commune can democratically decide what the rules of the commune will be? They're people too and all people desire some kind of order in society.

But then there's always the problem how how much power could be granted to local communities. And anything "over" the authority of the communie is the authority of whom? One commune want to outlaw abortion? Is that OK? And then you can go down this list--in the end who has the final authority.

[Dejavu]

But then there's always the problem how how much power could be granted to local communities. And anything "over" the authority of the communie is the authority of whom? One commune want to outlaw abortion? Is that OK? And then you can go down this list--in the end who has the final authority.

Well collective decision making power would vary from commune to commune , or from non-commune to non-commune. At least this is the way I envision a stateless society. I would think collective decision making power in communes and syndicates would be higher than in non-commune/syndicates but that's the beauty of mass decentralization and localities. A more coercive commune would be in 'competition' with a less coercive one and residents in the coercive commune might move to the other commune , therefore penalizing the commune getting a little too authoritarian by losing workers and production. Communes would probably have internal mechanisms to deal with it as well given the different kinds of democratic approaches I've heard ( consensus , participatory, majoritarian , etc.) Or, they can move to a non-commune into a more free enterprise individualist based community. Its a sort of natural checks and balances I would say.

[Dejavu]

Tom , there are certain social standards or requirements most people commonly share, it does not matter if they are communists or not. Certain provisions like being against murder & rape would be pretty much universal across the board I think. People are not so different from one and other when you think about it.

In terms of 'banning abortion.' I guess its feasible if it is legitimately decided on by whatever community mechanism applies. However, there would be other , not so cumbersome, options available to the people in terms of having a large selection of communes and communities that fit their preferences. It is feasible to have a religious based collective ( see autonomous collectives in N.Dakota or even the Puritans) but they would not dominate all the land. I would not live there for example.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do people here think about the idea that communities/polises/other subdivisions be part of a federation which upholds a federal constitution but otherwise decides it's own laws? If the constitution grants freedom of movement between federal members then people could simply move to a subdivision which has laws more to their own liking.

[Bud Struggle]

What do people here think about the idea that communities/polises/other subdivisions be part of a federation which upholds a federal constitution but otherwise decides it's own laws? If the constitution grants freedom of movement between federal members then people could simply move to a subdivision which has laws more to their own liking.

Well I think that's kind of important--otherwise a commune could "capture" a noncitizen and force him into indentured servitude. (He as a non-commune member has no "rights" in the commune.)

Actually without some overarching rights--a commune would be no different than the Greek polis.

[Robert]

Communists are not against laws, they're against capitalist created laws which disadvantages and exploits the worker. I fully agree with them to this extent.

I thought they wanted a classless, stateless society. No state, no law. Maybe I don't understand what they mean by "state," but communes, polises, collectives, all sound like gussied up versions of the state to me, assuming they have authority to decide what constitutes rape, who can have an abortion, at what term, how much land the co-op may occuoy, whether you can go start your own co-op, and on an on. If they want order, they need government and cops to provide it.

But they hate cops.

[GracchusBabeuf]

But they hate cops.Its not as if there's going to be no crime in an communist society! The current police system criminalizes based on class, gender, race etc rather than on actual crime. Thats what we oppose. If the federation of communes has no centralized authority, it is no longer a state like the current states. Face to face democracy and grassroots power are important facets of a stateless society.

The current system of centralized authority where the mass of the people turn up to vote some arbitrary bunch of people to have complete control over their lives is not democracy. Its an electoral oligarchy. Democracy means "rule of the people", something we are not seeing today. Delegating all power to an authority is not something worth preserving.

Thats the reason, in a federated commune-based organization of society, most decisions will be made and ratified at the lowest level possible, leaving only a few logistical decisions that would not be possible to decide at the below to be made at the top levels of the organization.

The statement that "order needs authority" does not hold up to common experience where in many instances, people completely randomly organize to help each other, for example, in times of crisis. Thats the reason anarchists emphasize organization and collective action over "individual" actions of disobedience etc.

[Robert]

Its not as if there's going to be no crime in an communist society!Yes, I know that. Would that your comrades did.


The current police system criminalizes based on class, gender, race etc rather than on actual crime.
You don't know many criminals.


If the federation of communes has no centralized authority, it is no longer a state like the current states.
Okay, so it's not only a commune but a "federation of communes" we're going for, right? Okay, duly noted.


The current system of centralized authority where the mass of the people turn up to vote some arbitrary bunch of people to have complete control over their lives is not democracy. Its an electoral oligarchy.
A mass of people? You mean many? They vote by districts, which can be quite small. If you mean they don't get to meet the president face to face, I concede that point. (Will you get to meet the chairman of the federation you describe?) But your state and national congressman are available for face to face meetings. I know, I've done it. Have you? Have you tried? As for "complete control," well, I don't know about "complete," but it sounds like you want this federation to have control over my life, right? Complete control, or just a little control?

Oligarchy? Hundreds of congressmen and judges and bureacrats were just thrown out on their ears in the last election cycle. You think that's what they wanted?


most decisions will be made and ratified at the lowest level possible, leaving only a few logistical decisions that would not be possible to decide at the below to be made at the top levels of the organization.
Top levels, eh? Hoo boy, do you need me to tell you what's wrong with that?


Thats the reason anarchists emphasize organization and collective action over "individual" actions of disobedience etc.
I'm not sure why "individual" is in quotes like that, though I have my suspicions. But really, anarchists emphasize organization and collective action? You have got to be putting me on at this point. You wouldn't be drawn to anarchy if you didn't have a visceral antipathy for collective action.

I do appreciate your thoughts and your enthusiasm.

[synthesis]

You don't know many criminals.Speak for yourself. I doubt you've spent much time in Washington, D.C or the boardrooms of major energy corporations. Anyways, you're far more likely to be arrested if you're black, and if you're poor, your public defender will wind up landing you 15 years for something a rich person's lawyer would have gotten you probation. These things aren't really up for debate.

[Robert]

A major energy corporation? You mean like Enron? See link to Jeff Skilling below.


Anyways, you're far more likely to be arrested if you're black, and if you're poor, your public defender will wind up landing you 15 years for something a rich person's lawyer would have gotten you probation.I remember having this debate with another guy just before Martha Stewart, Jeff Skilling, Governor Edwin Edwards (Louisiana), Michael Millken, and others received actual pen time for non violent offenses. "These rich jerks will not spend ONE DAY in jail because of their money and connections!"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken (10 years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart (5 months + 5 months house arr.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards (10 years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling (20 years)

The reality is that prisons are overcrowded (yes, disproportionately with minorites), but many of those offenses are for murder, rape, and armed robbery. Simple drug possession, first offense, results in mandatory probation. Look it up.

[Agnapostate]

Ever since reliance on worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives was able to eliminate Hayekian distributed and tacit knowledge problems and thus serve as a component in the post-Hayekian bypass of the socialist economic calculation debate, Misesians and the like (who honestly aren't capitalists; the Anglo-Saxon model and attempts to achieve free markets ultimately harm capitalism), have been reduced to primitive attempts at morality comments, inaccurate reference to the state capitalism of the USSR being a critical component of that.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Yes, I know that. Would that your comrades did.Strawman.


it sounds like you want this federation to have control over my life, right? Another strawman. No, I want to have control over the federation, not the other way around. Thats called "democracy", a concept that seems foreign to you.


But really, anarchists emphasize organization and collective action? You have got to be putting me on at this point. You wouldn't be drawn to anarchy if you didn't have a visceral antipathy for collective action.Well, it appears you are constructing strawman after strawman. Why don't you start by reading the anarchist FAQ? Also, this would help perhaps (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/soclife.html).

[Dejavu]

Ever since reliance on worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives was able to eliminate Hayekian distributed and tacit knowledge problems and thus serve as a component in the post-Hayekian bypass of the socialist economic calculation debate, Misesians and the like (who honestly aren't capitalists; the Anglo-Saxon model and attempts to achieve free markets ultimately harm capitalism), have been reduced to primitive attempts at morality comments, inaccurate reference to the state capitalism of the USSR being a critical component of that.

Hayek's main criticism was towards central planning, not socialism in a broad context. It just so happens that the popular definition of socialism involved central planning and externalization of costs and hence , his criticism.

Hayek maintained that central planning itself was still workable but in an economy with little complexity and entropy. The marginal costs would have to be pretty low.

If workers' co-ops and collectively owned firms do not follow the model of externalizing costs and central planning, Hayek would have no objection.

[Dejavu]

However, Hayek still maintained that certain goods and services ought to be centrally planned like law enforcement. One could say that both Hayek and Mises were hypocritical since their own theories against central planning opposed certain bureacracies they supported.

[Agnapostate]

Hayek's main criticism was towards central planning, not socialism in a broad context. It just so happens that the popular definition of socialism involved central planning and externalization of costs and hence , his criticism.

Hayek maintained that central planning itself was still workable but in an economy with little complexity and entropy. The marginal costs would have to be pretty low.

If workers' co-ops and collectively owned firms do not follow the model of externalizing costs and central planning, Hayek would have no objection.

That's my precise point, actually. It's just that autogestion and related practices are typically regarded as being facilitated through decentralization; I hadn't much considered the prospect of a "centralized" form, to be honest. So post-Hayekian market socialism and various forms of libertarian socialism would quite easily bypass Hayek's criticisms.


However, Hayek still maintained that certain goods and services ought to be centrally planned like law enforcement. One could say that both Hayek and Mises were hypocritical since their own theories against central planning opposed certain bureacracies they supported.

Been reading Burczak?

[Dejavu]

That's my precise point, actually. It's just that autogestion and related practices are typically regarded as being facilitated through decentralization; I hadn't much considered the prospect of a "centralized" form, to be honest. So post-Hayekian market socialism and various forms of libertarian socialism would quite easily bypass Hayek's criticisms.

Sure. Like I said , if they do not involve central planning then Hayek's criticisms are non-applicable.




Been reading Burczak?

No, I just think its obvious especially when you read material in defense of certain bureaucracies by Mises & Hayek.

[Robert]

Another strawman. No, I want to have control over the federation, not the other way around. Thats called "democracy", a concept that seems foreign to you.

Everybody will have direct control over the federation? I hope you like standing in line.:laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

I hope you like standing in line.:laugh:

Isn't that a prerequisite for being a Communist? :D

[synthesis]

A major energy corporation? You mean like Enron? See link to Jeff Skilling below.

I remember having this debate with another guy just before Martha Stewart, Jeff Skilling, Governor Edwin Edwards (Louisiana), Michael Millken, and others received actual pen time for non violent offenses. "These rich jerks will not spend ONE DAY in jail because of their money and connections!"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken (10 years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart (5 months + 5 months house arr.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards (10 years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling (20 years)

The reality is that prisons are overcrowded (yes, disproportionately with minorites), but many of those offenses are for murder, rape, and armed robbery. Simple drug possession, first offense, results in mandatory probation. Look it up.

Once again, I find myself privy to the upside-down capitalist view of the world, where the exception is the rule. Thanks for this insight, although I'm not really sure I needed any more of it.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Everybody will have direct control over the federation? I hope you like standing in line.:laugh::laugh: You're an idiot.:laugh:

[RGacky3]

Everybody will have direct control over the federation? I hope you like standing in line.

Better to stand in line, than to be ordered in line.

[The Author]

To be honest--it Communism came tomorrow--I'd try to take over. Nothing overt--just little by little, that's my nature--maybe I'd make it, maybe I wouldn't, but there's lots others like me that would be trying too--and eventually one would succeed.


That's the beauty of purges. Get's rid of scum like you.

Well put. It's unfortunate most of the "communists" don't seem to understand this concept around here. Too trigger happy to blast the "Stalinist paranoia" phenomenon, the "communists" fell flat on their faces and forgot that in a proletarian dictatorship, remnants of the bourgeois class don't get the opportunity to retake power. The working class seizes power by force, and it keeps it by force. No half-assed in the middle road where everybody lives together in some utopian dream where somehow there will be no incidents of opportunism of any kind such as a TomK.

Or maybe the talk about "Class War" is just pure bullshit? You decide, comrades.

[rosie]

[It goes against human nature]

Define human nature please? And if you could cite your information, that would be helpful.

[Robert]

You're an idiot

You know, I was just sure he could have come up with something, anything, better than that. My bad.:laugh:

Quick note to the Stalinists: the cappies aren't going to appear in the middle of a workers' rally wearing pinstripe suits, spats, tophats and monocles and announce "okay, we are cappies and we are hijacking the revolution now."

They'll talk and be dressed just like you, so you won't recognize them at all. That is, not until after they get in charge of the "top levels of the organization" as Socialist puts it so innocently.

God help me I do love him.

[Bud Struggle]

You know, I was just sure he could have come up with something, anything, better than that. My bad.:laugh:

Quick note to the Stalinists: the cappies aren't going to appear in the middle of a workers' rally wearing pinstripe suits, spats, tophats and monocles and announce "okay, we are cappies and we are hijacking the revolution now."

They'll talk and be dressed just like you, so you won't recognize them at all. That is, not until after they get in charge of the "top levels of the organization" as Socialist puts it so innocently.

God help me I do love him.

Good point Robert. The Capitalists will be regular guys just like us. But they will know all the ins and outs of Communism, they will know all the theories and catch phrases. They will be well taught on Anarchism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc. by some very smart and dedicated people.

Maybe they will even be long time members of Communist organizations like the CPUSA and be very farmiliar with unions like the IWW. They will know all the words to the Internationale.

(Cappies like to call these people the "Vanguard".)

The Revoluion may present a lot of suprises for Communists. ;):D

[danyboy27]

You know, I was just sure he could have come up with something, anything, better than that. My bad.:laugh:

Quick note to the Stalinists: the cappies aren't going to appear in the middle of a workers' rally wearing pinstripe suits, spats, tophats and monocles and announce "okay, we are cappies and we are hijacking the revolution now."

They'll talk and be dressed just like you, so you won't recognize them at all. That is, not until after they get in charge of the "top levels of the organization" as Socialist puts it so innocently.

God help me I do love him.

he kinda right, this kind of stuff happened in all sort of regimes, powermonger are verry good at quickly switching side when the shit hit the fan. soviet collaborator and nazi collaborator always where that kind of person, otherwise it would have been impossible to hold half of europe in a serfdorm-like relationship for all those years.

influents people who played for the nazi often quickly switched side and worked for the soviet only beccause it was in their best personnal interests.

most of people in poland, hungrary, germany and chekoslovakia never wanted a soviet/nazi domination, but it was all about the one that wanted to pull the strings, the influents guy that one day bent over for the nazi and the next year bent over for the soviet, its was not really about money but about power.

[GracchusBabeuf]

God help me I do love him.

:thumbup:

[Havet]

The Capitalists will be regular guys just like us.

they will know all the ins and outs of Communism

they will know all the theories and catch phrases.

They will be well taught on Anarchism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism

they will even be long time members of Communist organizations like the CPUSA and be very farmiliar with unions like the IWW.

They will know all the words to the Internationale.



dang man, better start taking urine samples to party members.