Why are communists so hostile towards democracy ?

[John_Fitgerald_Kennedy]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

[Havet]

Communists are generally in favor of direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) which is different from what we have today, which is representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)

Also, don't be so quick to collectivize your arguments and to engage in hasty generalizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalizations).

[L.J.Solidarity]

Because both Cuba and North Korea (albeit to a different extent) are ruled by privileged bureaucracies who don't want to risk their power. This type of system is called stalinism and has nothing to do with "communists being hostile to democracy".

[Misanthrope]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

Lol. You think statist elections are free? Last time I checked that is your only choice to be governed, it is forced upon you. Not to mention the populace's opinion doesn't matter to any of the politicians who are owned by the capitalist class.

[Robespierre2.0]

What are you talking about? North Korea and Cuba are the only democracies left in the world.

Quit forcing your oppressive multi-party system on the free peoples of the world, you fascist!

[ItalianCommie]

I totally agree with wolves of paris on north korea, but not so much for cuba. Communists are in favour of direct democracy rather than representative elections, although in many countries communist parties run for elections and use the bourgeois parliaments as a political tribune.

[RGacky3]

Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

Ask the leaders of Cuba and North Korea, that has nothing to do with us, most people here don't recognize those 2 countries as having a true socialist system. They are essencially State Capitalist.

THat being said, Cuba has many aspects of democracy that would put American democracy to shame.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What are you talking about? North Korea and Cuba are the only democracies left in the world.

Isn't that a blatantly false statement?

[GPDP]

Isn't that a blatantly false statement?

I think it's meant to be sarcasm.

Anyway, don't feed the troll, people. It's obvious he's not here to discuss.

[Manifesto]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?
Where did you hear this from? My guess school, parents or political leader.

[LOLseph Stalin]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

Because we're all just a bunch of freedom haters who enjoy eating babies for breakfast. :rolleyes:

In other words, fuck off troll.

[scarletghoul]

Yes, it's because we HAT FREEDOM.

(this is why all communist leaders wear hats)

[SubcomandanteJames]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

Last time I checked, communists were advocates of direct democracy, not only in the community, but in the work place. Where is your "democracy" inside of the privatized industries?

Multiparty system? Because America's multiparty system has led to informed elections totally NOT BASED on party titles. Oh wait... :laugh:

Cuba and North Korea? PERFECT examples of what communists are fighting for. Read up or shut up mate.

[Robespierre2.0]

]
I think it's meant to be sarcasm.


It's not sarcasm.

[GPDP]

]

It's not sarcasm.

I might give you Cuba, but North Korea? Are you serious?

[Pogue]

We don't like democracy because its part of the Martian conspiracy. We think the human race must be united under one leader to truly fight off the extra terrestrial force.

[Bud Struggle]

Because we're all just a bunch of freedom haters who enjoy eating babies for breakfast. :rolleyes:

In other words, fuck off troll.

No.

They guy has a point. Why must people that call them Communists always be Pol Pot/Mao/Stalinesque?

Has there ever been a "nice" Communist? :D

[IcarusAngel]

"Democracy is the road to socialism."

"Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations."

"The protection of a man's person is more sacred than the protection of property."
- Thomas Paine (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/)

"Why should workers agree to be slaves in a basically authoritarian structure? They should have control over it themselves. Why shouldn't communities have a dominant voice in running the institutions that affect their lives?" -Noam Chomsky

"Under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist."
- Noam Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm)

Study even the least bit of leftist theory before you start making posts, *****.

[Bud Struggle]

"Democracy is the road to socialism."

"Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations."

"The protection of a man's person is more sacred than the protection of property."
- Thomas Paine (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/)

"Why should workers agree to be slaves in a basically authoritarian structure? They should have control over it themselves. Why shouldn't communities have a dominant voice in running the institutions that affect their lives?" -Noam Chomsky

"Under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist."
- Noam Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm)

Study even the least bit of leftist theory before you start making posts, *****.
Examples in real life?

[IcarusAngel]

Well, you're right that there aren't many good examples of "communist democracies," and the ones that people cite were not around for very long, for various reasons.

But that capitalism left unchecked is anti-democratic, as the chomsky quote says, is backed up by mountains of evidence left, right, and center.

"Who Rules America?" Domhoff. Brave New World: Revisited. The privileged position of business. "The Golden Theory of Politics" (Thomas Ferguson) "The Power Elite." C Mills.

And so on. Not all of these authors are even leftist, but the social sciences show that capitalism can become anti-democratic, and anti-freedom.

Is capitalism freer and better than most other systems? Yes. Marxist theory grants this.

[Pogue]

Anarchism isn't hostile to democracy. Become one of them.

[#FF0000]

Examples in real life?

Paris Commune. Anarchist Spain (I suppose). The early Soviet Union was also pretty damn democratic.

[Richard Nixon]

Why do you support direct democracy? Direct democracy was practical in say ancient Athens or New England town hall meetings but it's damned impractical in this day and age with 6.6 billion people on Earth every adult citizen can't represent himself!

[Havet]

Why do you support direct democracy? Direct democracy was practical in say ancient Athens or New England town hall meetings but it's damned impractical in this day and age with 6.6 billion people on Earth every adult citizen can't represent himself!

obviously there has to be decentralization. Thus the idea of small but many communes and collectives. Of course its impossible to apply direct democracy to 6.6billion people at the same time.

[Richard Nixon]

obviously there has to be decentralization. Thus the idea of small but many communes and collectives. Of course its impossible to apply direct democracy to 6.6billion people at the same time.

That would be primitivization back to the days of tribal societies and indvidual villiages. Also it is curious you wish this since at the same time you want a united world.

[Havet]

That would be primitivization back to the days of tribal societies and indvidual villiages. Also it is curious you wish this since at the same time you want a united world.

Primitivism -- the opinion that life was better or more moral during the early stages of mankind or among primitive peoples (or among children) and has deteriorated with civilization - is a response to the perennial question of whether the development of complex civilization and technology has benefited or harmed mankind.

I haven't even talked of technology, for example. A smaller group is easier to manage, and you can still have great civilizational advances.

And i do not wish this, although i wouldnt mind it. I just find its the only practical and cost-effective way communism would work. You can still have an united world that is being run more locally. Bigness is inefficient.

[Dr Mindbender]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

...but 'multiparty systems' dont necessarilly allow diversity of opinion. In western states, all of the large parties have converged to the centre ground to the extent that the difference between them is all but irrelevant. This is not helpful to democracy either, given the fact that for the most part the larger parties with their power, wealth and corporate cronies that bankroll them have greater if not sole access to the mass media.

There is greater difference of opinion within the Cuban communist party than there is between the American Republican and democrat parties. At least in direct democracies like Cuba and China the people have an ongoing say in the way the country is run throughout rather than just being able to pick a boss every 5 years.

[Richard Nixon]

Primitivism -- the opinion that life was better or more moral during the early stages of mankind or among primitive peoples (or among children) and has deteriorated with civilization - is a response to the perennial question of whether the development of complex civilization and technology has benefited or harmed mankind.

I haven't even talked of technology, for example. A smaller group is easier to manage, and you can still have great civilizational advances.

And i do not wish this, although i wouldnt mind it. I just find its the only practical and cost-effective way communism would work. You can still have an united world that is being run more locally. Bigness is inefficient.

How will you say do big government projects like the space program, road building, maintenance of the military and international law enforcement? I guess it could be acheived with the communes working together but it'd be more efficient if there was one government organ working on it.

[Dr Mindbender]

How will you say do big government projects like the space program, road building, maintenance of the military and international law enforcement? I guess it could be acheived with the communes working together but it'd be more efficient if there was one government organ working on it.

I agree, i think a post revolutionary world should be run preferably under a federal system of some sort.

[Havet]

How will you say do big government projects like the space program, road building, maintenance of the military and international law enforcement? I guess it could be acheived with the communes working together but it'd be more efficient if there was one government organ working on it.

space program - communes working together, although i doubt they'd find a practical use for it in a long time, until everyone has finally managed to take care of the social issues to begin thinking of space. America only went to space because it was competing with the USSR in terms of showing off who had more power and resources. Once the USSR started to ditch the space program the USA also forgot about it.

road building - can easily be done by communities alone, or if needed, a joint operation between the two.

military - military? armed citizens and a militia to protect them should be enough. Again cooperation with other communities can be done.

international law enforcement - what are talking about exactly? could you be more specific?

[Richard Nixon]

space program - communes working together, although i doubt they'd find a practical use for it in a long time, until everyone has finally managed to take care of the social issues to begin thinking of space. America only went to space because it was competing with the USSR in terms of showing off who had more power and resources. Once the USSR started to ditch the space program the USA also forgot about it.

We need satellites for instance. How will you maintain that?


road building - can easily be done by communities alone, or if needed, a joint operation between the two.

military - military? armed citizens and a militia to protect them should be enough. Again cooperation with other communities can be done.


Will militias and armed citizens have Main Battle Tanks, heavy artillery, aircraft carriers, nuclear missiles?


international law enforcement - what are talking about exactly? could you be more specific?

That is police agencies that help track down criminals who escape Commune A in Massachusetts to Commune B in California and there to Commune C in Australia for example.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think what the resident cappies are forgetting is that a hell of a lot of the percieved 'necessary industries' will be made irrelevant and obsolete under socialism.

For example, gone will be the need for parasitic industries like banks or insurance brokers and the eradication of crime by way of removing the motives of crime will render the need for a police all but irrelevant too.

[Richard Nixon]

i think what the resident cappies are forgetting is that a hell of a lot of the percieved 'necessary industries' will be made irrelevant and obsolete under socialism.

For example, gone will be the need for parasitic industries like banks or insurance brokers and the eradication of crime by way of removing the motives of crime will render the need for a police all but irrelevant too.

There will be psychos who want to commit crime still and very greedy people who'll desire to steal more material goods. Saying that crime will be completely gone is naive and makes communists look that way to everyone else.

[Dr Mindbender]

We need satellites for instance. How will you maintain that?


I agree completely, please forgive his tehno-conservatism.

It's simply a matter of prioritising scientific endeavours for peaceful purposes. The resources sapped by military technology could be better applied to increase the quality of civil space technology.



There will be psychos who want to commit crime still and very greedy people who'll desire to steal more material goods. Saying that crime will be completely gone is naive and makes communists look that way to everyone else.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to imply that psychotic illness comes close to being even a major part in the main motives of crime. The eradication of scarcity conditioning will make criminality (and the punishment of) seem as trivial and as nonsensical as the persecution of witches. The only other exception to the rule i can think of is crimes of passion but i really dont envisage that being a major motivating role at the moment, even under capitalism. I think thats another factor that would largely alleviate under different social conditioning and cultural attitudes.

[Misanthrope]

I agree, i think a post revolutionary world should be run preferably under a federal system of some sort.

Then it wouldn't be communist. A federal government is on a large scale, there will be people who do not agree to being governed by the federal government and that is where force comes in, statism.

I don't see why roads have to be accounted for on a large level, in a small voluntary community the people know what best suits their needs, rather than a government 1,000 miles away.

@ richard

International Law enforcement: We aren't imperailists, sorry.

Military/Police: Maintained by the goverment for that local community. Communities can band together and such.


That would be primitivization back to the days of tribal societies and indvidual villiages. Also it is curious you wish this since at the same time you want a united world.

Sine when does the lack of a centralized forced government ran by a few people become primitivism?

[Dr Mindbender]

Then it wouldn't be communist. A federal government is on a large scale, there will be people who do not agree to being governed by the federal government and that is where force comes in, statism.


Well i use the term federal as loosely as possible, more like a global entity constituted by all of the member councils or whatever rather than a centralised monolithic entity based in a given capital but i think to have some level of centralisation helps to limit bureacracy since you may have disagreements with between councils on other sides of the planet. A centralised entity of some sort acts a moderator to channel communication.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Then it wouldn't be communist. A federal government is on a large scale, there will be people who do not agree to being governed by the federal government and that is where force comes in, statism.


Individuals band together, form communities, do stuff.

Communities realize that there are some things they can't do alone, so they band together with other communities, forming federations.

Federations realize they can't do everything on their own either, so they band together with other federations...

See where this is going?

[Misanthrope]

Well i use the term federal as loosely as possible, more like a global entity constituted by all of the member councils or whatever rather than a centralised monolithic entity based in a given capital but i think to have some level of centralisation helps to limit bureacracy since you may have disagreements with between councils on other sides of the planet. A centralised entity of some sort acts a moderator to channel communication.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.. Knee jerk, whenever I hear federal government I think US government aka state.


Individuals band together, form communities, do stuff.

Communities realize that there are some things they can't do alone, so they band together with other communities, forming federations.

Federations realize they can't do everything on their own either, so they band together with other federations...

See where this is going?

yup

[Il Medico]

We aren't hostile towards Democracy, your confusing us with the capitalist. You see most of us here believe in direct democracy (Dictatorship of the proletariat), as apposed to the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois which is otherwise know as Representative Democracy. Democracy is literally "Rule of the people". What your talking about is rule of the capitalist.

[IcarusAngel]

You do have to knock down boders to achieve communism, perhaps considering the world as one World Federation. Or it could be a world with many communities. The point is, there would be no nations, individual states, anymore; everything would be interdependent.

[Nwoye]

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.god damn i love rosa luxemburg.

[Pogue]

rosa was a proper Marxist

[Invariance]

The Russian Revolution, which is the first historical experiment on the model of the class strike, not merely does not afford a vindication of anarchism, but actually means the historical liquidation of anarchism.

But apart from these few “revolutionary” groups, what is the actual role of anarchism in the Russian Revolution? It has become the sign of the common thief and plunderer; a large proportion of the innumerable thefts and acts of plunder of private persons are carried out under the name of “anarchist-communism” – acts which rise up like a troubled wave against the revolution in every period of depression and in every period of temporary defensive. Anarchism has become in the Russian Revolution, not the theory of the struggling proletariat, but the ideological signboard of the counterrevolutionary lumpenproletariat, who, like a school of sharks, swarm in the wake of the battleship of the revolution. And therewith the historical career of anarchism is well-nigh ended.

- Rosa Luxemburg, the Mass Strike.

[Pogue]

aye, a proper marxist, but a marxist nonetheless :lol:

its a shame she didnt see spain really

[Misanthrope]

The Russian Revolution, which is the first historical experiment on the model of the class strike, not merely does not afford a vindication of anarchism, but actually means the historical liquidation of anarchism.

But apart from these few “revolutionary” groups, what is the actual role of anarchism in the Russian Revolution? It has become the sign of the common thief and plunderer; a large proportion of the innumerable thefts and acts of plunder of private persons are carried out under the name of “anarchist-communism” – acts which rise up like a troubled wave against the revolution in every period of depression and in every period of temporary defensive. Anarchism has become in the Russian Revolution, not the theory of the struggling proletariat, but the ideological signboard of the counterrevolutionary lumpenproletariat, who, like a school of sharks, swarm in the wake of the battleship of the revolution. And therewith the historical career of anarchism is well-nigh ended.

- Rosa Luxemburg, the Mass Strike.

There you have it folks. Pack it up, pogue. There have been historical failures of anarchism, show's over. I guess we just need to realize all the successful communist motherlands prove that state socialism is the way to go. The USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China. I have seen the light, invariance, thank you.

[#FF0000]

There you have it folks. Pack it up, pogue. There have been historical failures of anarchism, show's over. I guess we just need to realize all the successful communist motherlands prove that state socialism is the way to go. The USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China. I have seen the light, invariance, thank you.

I don't think Luxembourgists (or any left-communists, for that matter) are fans of NK, USSR, Cuba, or China either though.

[Misanthrope]

I don't think Luxembourgists (or any left-communists, for that matter) are fans of NK, USSR, Cuba, or China either though.

Nor am I a fan of Makhno. That is why we should stick to theory until that theory is actually practiced.

For the record, many see Luxemburgism as a continuation of Lenninsm and oppose the left interpretation of her work.

[Invariance]

Of course communist movements have historical failures just like anarchist movements. Those failures are probably just as large and numerous - simply because there have been more communist movements, hence more possibilities of reaction. I said nothing about state socialism. I said nothing about the USSR, Cuba, North Korea or China. I just think its funny for anarchists to think that Rosa Luxemburg is a 'good Marxist', when from that very quote above "Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat" she clearly supports the taking of power by a political party, something which is antithetical to anarchism.

I posted Rosa Luxemburg's views on anarchism's role in the 1905 Russian Revolution. If you don't agree with her analysis, say so.

P.S: I'm not sure what Luxemburg would have to say about Spain.

But I would guess that being betrayed by union leaders and bureaucrats was bad enough the first time.

[Misanthrope]

Of course communist movements have historical failures just like anarchist movements. Those failures are probably just as large and numerous - simply because there have been more communist movements, hence more possibilities of reaction. I said nothing about state socialism. I said nothing about the USSR, Cuba, North Korea or China. I just think its funny for anarchists to think that Rosa Luxemburg is a 'good Marxist', when from that very quote above "Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat" she clearly supports the taking of power by a political party, something which is antithetical to anarchism.

I posted Rosa Luxemburg's views on anarchism's role in the 1905 Russian Revolution. If you don't agree with her analysis, say so.

P.S: I'm not sure what Luxemburg would have to say about Spain.

But I would guess that being betrayed by union leaders and bureaucrats was bad enough the first time.

I am simply pointing out that her judging a complete ideology based on individuals associated with anarchism's actions is absurd.

I agree, in the end Rosa was sympathetic and appreciative of Lenin.

I posted the very same quote in the anarchist group a few days ago. Disregarding her position on anarchism, I agree with her strongly on decentralization and her critiques of the USSR as I agree with Lenin on his critiques of capitalism and imperialism. I just so happen to agree with Luxemburg more so than most other marxists but I disagree with her here, that is why I am not a Luxemburgist.

[Black Dagger]

Why do you support direct democracy? Direct democracy was practical in say ancient Athens or New England town hall meetings but it's damned impractical in this day and age with 6.6 billion people on Earth every adult citizen can't represent himself!

How is that not practical in the internet/computer age? :confused: I mean in 2009 we can communicate quickly, and clearly across the entire planet. On the flip-side communication and decision-making in a more localised area is by extension easier and more efficient than it's ever been in human history.

So sure, the total human population is much greater than it was in ancient times but so is our communicative capacity, besides no advocate of direct democracy suggests that the planet's 6.6 billion inhabitants be a part of a single global federation... the total population is less of a concern than our ability to extend modern communication methods (i.e. computers, internet access) to the whole planet.

[Chow Foo]

Democracy means everyone rules, last time I checked it is the so called represenatives that make laws and oppress us. How the hell is that democracy?

[Invariance]

That is why we should stick to theory until that theory is actually practiced.But this isn't how history works; theory isn't simply applied abstractly to material circumstances. More often than not, the theory is subject to practical conditions where we have people making decisions which in other circumstances they would have opposed. We can not reduce the failures of the Russian Revolution, or whatever pertinent historical situation, to the failure of theory.


For the record, many see Luxemburgism as a continuation of Lenninsm and oppose the left interpretation of her work.Which is absurd, in view of her rejection of the rights of nations to self-determination, rejection of Lenin's theory of imperialism, a recognition in later years of the futility of parliamentariasm, a recognition of the role of unions, as well as her criticisms of some of the Bolsheviks policies concerning peasants and their censorship of other leftist parties. Clearly not a continuation of 'Leninism.'

The problem is that people (I mean anarchists in particular) invent a definition of 'Leninism' to = a state authoritarian system which is bad. It becomes a derogative, used to denounce any communist who supports a centralized state - which would include Luxemburg. So no wonder some consider Luxemburg a 'Leninist', because you've given 'Leninism' your own particular and misleading meaning.

Surely there is more to a revolutionary than their ideas on the state?


I am simply pointing out that her judging a complete ideology based on individuals associated with anarchism's actions is absurd.But this isn't what she did? She was judging the role of anarchism as a movement in the 1905 revolution - i.e. their involvement was minimal:
Not only did and do the anarchists in Russia not stand at the head of the mass strike movement; not only does the whole political leadership of revolutionary action and also of the mass strike lie in the hands of the social democratic organisations, which are bitterly opposed as “bourgeois parties” by Russian anarchists, or partly in the hands of such socialist organisations as are more or less influenced by the social democracy and more or less approximate to it – such as the terrorist party, the “socialist revolutionaries” – but the anarchists simply do not exist as a serious political tendency in the Russian Revolution. Only in a small Lithuanian town with particularly difficult conditions – a confused medley of different nationalities among the workers, an extremely scattered condition of small-scale industry, a very severely oppressed proletariat – in Bialystok, there is, amongst the seven or eight different revolutionary groups a handful of half-grown “anarchists” who promote confusion and bewilderment amongst the workers to the best of their ability; and lastly in Moscow, and perhaps in two or three other towns, a handful of people of this kidney make themselves noticeable.

I agree, in the end Rosa was sympathetic and appreciative of Lenin. In a personal capacity? Maybe, I remember she stayed with him (or he stayed with her) for a period of time. She was certainly closer on a personal level to Lenin than Trotsky (I remember reading how she really disliked him on a personal basis).


I agree with her strongly on decentralizationWhat decentralization? She supported a centralized state...

[yuon]

I didn't notice anyone else mention that in the USA you can't choose your president...
Sure you get a vote, but it isn't a vote for the president, just some old white guy who gets to decide who really should get to be president. After all, can't have the plebs actually having a real say in who runs a country can we...

Oh, I agree with all the sensible people in the thread, real communists want real democracy, where everyone rules (I want no democracy, and no one ruling, which is almost the same thing).

[Pogue]

As I said I think Rosa was one of the best Marxists. I think she represented a true continuation of Marxism and she had some solid critiques of Bolshevism that I am sure she would have expanded on if she was not brutally murdered. I am aware she was no anarchist but that doesn't bother me. I judge people on how relevant their ideas and actions are to the working class and she was very relevant. If 'Luxemburgism' had time to be expanded on I'd certainly be inclined a great deal to that position I am sure.

[RGacky3]

Why do you support direct democracy? Direct democracy was practical in say ancient Athens or New England town hall meetings but it's damned impractical in this day and age with 6.6 billion people on Earth every adult citizen can't represent himself!

I know very few disicions that would require a vote from all 6.6 billion people.


There will be psychos who want to commit crime still and very greedy people who'll desire to steal more material goods. Saying that crime will be completely gone is naive and makes communists look that way to everyone else.

Well better than giving these people the institutions through which to wield power.


I guess it could be acheived with the communes working together but it'd be more efficient if there was one government organ working on it.

Yeah, so what, dictatorships are very efficiant too, but that does'nt justify them.

Also there is no proof that centralization is more efficient.


Examples in real life?

Will you STFU bud struggle, you know the examples, and we all know what your responce will be, and we'll give a responce, then you'll juts ignore it.

If you ahve no origional ideas, that hav'nt been addressed more than 20 or so times, just don't post.


They guy has a point. Why must people that call them Communists always be Pol Pot/Mao/Stalinesque?

Has there ever been a "nice" Communist?

Those are the guys the American elite call communist, very rarely will you hear ML King or Ghandi refered to as socialists, but thats exactly what they were.

[Richard Nixon]

I didn't notice anyone else mention that in the USA you can't choose your president...
Sure you get a vote, but it isn't a vote for the president, just some old white guy who gets to decide who really should get to be president.

That theory's been disproven with the election of Barack Obama. ;)


I know very few disicions that would require a vote from all 6.6 billion people.


A system that would be world-changing like communism or anarchism would need the support of much of the world's population.



Well better than giving these people the institutions through which to wield power.


I mean folks like Charles Manson or Osama Bin Laden or the drug lords in Mexico.



Yeah, so what, dictatorships are very efficiant too, but that does'nt justify them.

Also there is no proof that centralization is more efficient.


See how much more the United States is powerful, industrial, and efficient under the Hamiltonian system then the Jeffersonian system.



Will you STFU bud struggle, you know the examples, and we all know what your responce will be, and we'll give a responce, then you'll juts ignore it.

If you ahve no origional ideas, that hav'nt been addressed more than 20 or so times, just don't post.



Those are the guys the American elite call communist, very rarely will you hear ML King or Ghandi refered to as socialists, but thats exactly what they were.

I thought you didn't like Socialists like Social Democrats.

[RGacky3]

That theory's been disproven with the election of Barack Obama.

Take away the word white, and replace it with rich, priviledged (which used to include being white, still does, but used to to a much more degree) and elite. Esscentially upper class.

Bolivia is much more democratic than the UNited states, the majority voted a man from their ranks, a poor indigenous man, and the election was about actual issues that the population cared about, and was the result of grass root struggles. Thats more democratic than any American election.


A system that would be world-changing like communism or anarchism would need the support of much of the world's population.


Not really, communism or anarchism does'nt have to be in the whole world at once, nor do most decisions have to be made my all the world at once, most desicions only involve a few people. The whole world wont have to vote on whether or not to build a park in Down town Los angeles. Communism or anarchism does'nt need support, really, the same way democracy does'nt need 'support' the nature of it is that people are free to choose.


I mean folks like Charles Manson or Osama Bin Laden or the drug lords in Mexico.


As far as history is concerned, the Mexican government is more terrible than the druglords have ever been.


See how much more the United States is powerful, industrial, and efficient under the Hamiltonian system then the Jeffersonian system.


What does that have to do with my point at all?


I thought you didn't like Socialists like Social Democrats.

First of all, I AM a socialist, anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, and so on, are all Socialists.

I never said I don't like Social Democrats, many social democrats have done many good things, and improved their countries immensely.

What I did say is social-democracy is'nt sustainable in a global economy.

[Richard Nixon]

Take away the word white, and replace it with rich, priviledged (which used to include being white, still does, but used to to a much more degree) and elite. Esscentially upper class.

Bolivia is much more democratic than the UNited states, the majority voted a man from their ranks, a poor indigenous man, and the election was about actual issues that the population cared about, and was the result of grass root struggles. Thats more democratic than any American election.


American elections aren't about actual issues? I'm sure issues like how to improve the economy, Iraq, and abortion aren't relevant or important? Also many Presidents haven't been from the upper class: Richard Nixon was born to a lower middle class family, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama certainly weren't rich when they were born.



Not really, communism or anarchism does'nt have to be in the whole world at once, nor do most decisions have to be made my all the world at once, most desicions only involve a few people. The whole world wont have to vote on whether or not to build a park in Down town Los angeles. Communism or anarchism does'nt need support, really, the same way democracy does'nt need 'support' the nature of it is that people are free to choose.

Maybe not the whole world but what of large scale things like a vote for all of the United States or Europe?




As far as history is concerned, the Mexican government is more terrible than the druglords have ever been.



My original question was whether there would be law enforcement agencies to track down international criminals. You haven't answered that.


What does that have to do with my point at all?



I've shewed you how a centralized government could be far more effective then decentralized ones.


First of all, I AM a socialist, anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, and so on, are all Socialists.

I never said I don't like Social Democrats, many social democrats have done many good things, and improved their countries immensely.

What I did say is social-democracy is'nt sustainable in a global economy.

Maybe not dislike them but disagree with them. What I was saying is that MLK and Ghandi were both social democrats.

[RGacky3]

American elections aren't about actual issues? I'm sure issues like how to improve the economy, Iraq, and abortion aren't relevant or important? Also many Presidents haven't been from the upper class: Richard Nixon was born to a lower middle class family, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama certainly weren't rich when they were born.

THey were all from the Capitalist class, Ivy League.

Most of the issues in America are things like health care, which (until now) was never discussed,) and things like living wages, economic security and the such. Things are only discussed if they are politically beneficial, which means if the ruling class supports them, also most of it is more about personality and the such.


Maybe not the whole world but what of large scale things like a vote for all of the United States or Europe?


What type of desicions would need to be made for all of europe and the United States? That would be nessesary for everyone for vote on?


My original question was whether there would be law enforcement agencies to track down international criminals. You haven't answered that.

Sure, community networks and the such, you don't need a state for that.


Maybe not dislike them but disagree with them. What I was saying is that MLK and Ghandi were both social democrats.

I don't know that they were social democrats, I don't know where your getting that.

But even if that was the case, theres a reason they are not mentioned as such.

[Nwoye]

I am simply pointing out that her judging a complete ideology based on individuals associated with anarchism's actions is absurd.

I agree, in the end Rosa was sympathetic and appreciative of Lenin.

I posted the very same quote in the anarchist group a few days ago. Disregarding her position on anarchism, I agree with her strongly on decentralization and her critiques of the USSR as I agree with Lenin on his critiques of capitalism and imperialism. I just so happen to agree with Luxemburg more so than most other marxists but I disagree with her here, that is why I am not a Luxemburgist.
Luxemburg was not a decentralist, and her support of the centralization of industry in a democratic workers' state runs contrary to the very foundation of anarchism. From The Russian Revolution:

A socialist transformation of economic relationships presupposes two things so far as agrarian relationships are concerned:

In the first place, only the nationalization of the large landed estates, as the technically most advanced and most concentrated means and methods of agrarian production, can serve as the point of departure for the socialist mode of production on the land. Of course, it is not necessary to take away from the small peasant his parcel of land, and we can with confidence leave him to be won over voluntarily by the superior advantages first of union in cooperation and then finally of inclusion in the general socialized economy as a whole. Still, every socialist economic reform on the land must obviously begin with large and medium land-ownership. Here the property right must first of all be turned over to the nation, or to the state, which, with a socialist government, amounts to the same thing; for it is this alone which affords the possibility of organizing agricultural production in accord with the requirements of interrelated, large-scale socialist production.

Moreover, in the second place, it is one of the prerequisites of this transformation, that the separation between rural economy and industry which is so characteristic of bourgeois society, should be ended in such a way as to bring about a mutual interpenetration and fusion of both, to clear the way for the planning of both agrarian and industrial production according to a unified point of view. Whatever individual form the practical economic arrangements may take – whether through urban communes, as some propose, or directed from a governmental center – in any event, it must be preceded by a reform introduced from the center, and that in turn must be preceded by the nationalization of the land. The nationalization of the large and middle-sized estates and the union of industry and agriculture – these are two fundamental requirements of any socialist economic reform, without which there is no socialism.

<snip/>

Lenin’s speech on the necessity of centralization of industry, nationalization of banks, of trade and of industry. Why not of the land? Here, on the contrary, decentralization and private property.That's the best quote I could think of off the spot. If anyone has a better quote illustrating Rosa's support for centralization, please post it.

[Richard Nixon]

THey were all from the Capitalist class, Ivy League.

Well they joined the upper crust and the Ive League schools because they worked hard and made an effort. Indeed many of the Presidents has scholarships to go to universities.


Most of the issues in America are things like health care, which (until now) was never discussed,) and things like living wages, economic security and the such. Things are only discussed if they are politically beneficial, which means if the ruling class supports them, also most of it is more about personality and the such.


Health care hasn't been discussed until now? It's been discussed for a long time, even in the Nixon days, and into Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. Also such things as the minimum wage are the focus of great debates in Congress to a lot of relevant issues are discussed.



What type of desicions would need to be made for all of europe and the United States? That would be nessesary for everyone for vote on?



Issues like say "Should currency be allowed" or "Should automobiles be legal and if so how much restricted?" will need large scale referendums or decisions by governing bodies.


Sure, community networks and the such, you don't need a state for that.


However community networks are in my opinion too much like the vigilantes and lynch mobs. For instance since they are ordinary people what if they go after people they have a grudge against? Also the lack of psychological, forsenic, and other scientific skills will make it harder to track down criminals. We need professional psychologists, CSIs, and others to track criminals down.

[Havet]

However community networks are in my opinion too much like the vigilantes and lynch mobs. For instance since they are ordinary people what if they go after people they have a grudge against? Also the lack of psychological, forsenic, and other scientific skills will make it harder to track down criminals. We need professional psychologists, CSIs, and others to track criminals down.

The state is formed by ordinary people as well. What if they go after people they have a grudge against?

[Richard Nixon]

The state is formed by ordinary people as well. What if they go after people they have a grudge against?

However nation-states are large in scale (usually) and thus the government going after grudges while they do happen are less likely then in small communities.

[StalinFanboy]

Well they joined the upper crust and the Ive League schools because they worked hard and made an effort. Indeed many of the Presidents has scholarships to go to universities.

Sorry, but this is bullshit.


Maybe they did work hard, but to say that that was the main reason for their movement up the social ladder is just ridiculous. I know plenty of extremely hardworking people who are never going make 50,000 dollars a year, or go to a nice university. In fact, I would say the hardest working people are often the poorest.

The system is set up to allow a small group of people to move up. Otherwise, capitalism just wouldn't work. How can everyone be rich? How can everyone be president?

[Havet]

However nation-states are large in scale (usually) and thus the government going after grudges while they do happen are less likely then in small communities.

Are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_World_War) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_world_war) sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War) of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) what (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950-1951_invasion_of_Tibet) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_War) talking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War) about (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_conflict_in_Lebanon)?

Complete List of wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars)

Most of these wars happened between nation-states, or people aspiring to become nation-states or nations who simply had a grudge against others (nazis anyone?)

You are engaging in archoexceptionalism (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/01/archoexceptionalism.html)

In plain english, it's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government.

Which as I've said before, what's government but a group of people?

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
Government is a group of people. It is wrong for government to do X.

[Dust Bunnies]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

Because that Comrade is how we roll.

[yuon]

Sure you get a vote, but it isn't a vote for the president, just some old white guy who gets to decide who really should get to be president.
That theory's been disproven with the election of Barack Obama.

Oh, so Obama abolished the electoral college did he? Funny, I thought that required a change to the constitution, and all that entailed. I was sure I would have heard about such a thing.

Face it, in the USA, you don't get a direct vote for president, unless you are a special person. And you aren't special.

[Richard Nixon]

Oh, so Obama abolished the electoral college did he? Funny, I thought that required a change to the constitution, and all that entailed. I was sure I would have heard about such a thing.

Face it, in the USA, you don't get a direct vote for president, unless you are a special person. And you aren't special.

Look, the electors are chosen by popular vote by each state so in all election but four they have reflected the opinion of the electorate.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Well they joined the upper crust and the Ive League schools because they worked hard and made an effort. Indeed many of the Presidents has scholarships to go to universities.

Barack Obama. No scholarships. Raised briefly by his mother, but then by his executive banker mother, successful chain-store owner grandfather. Paid for college by themselves.

George W. Bush, son of former president, worked his family's oil business, handed to him on a silver platter.

Bill Clinton, while not born wealthy or privileged, quickly used his influence as a Senator's lackee to help him dodge the draft, while the poor were shipped off to fight a lost cause, putting him up there with the elitist wealthy who were able to afford college to avoid the draft.

George Bush, Sr, used his father's influence of being on the Brown Brothers Harriman (BANK) board for 22 years to build himself up, eventually becoming an owner of Zapata Oil (try not to laugh at the irony of this name). He then became a millionaire and went into politics.

Oh yes.
Such hard laborers they were. :rolleyes:

[Richard Nixon]

Barack Obama. No scholarships. Raised briefly by his mother, but then by his executive banker mother, successful chain-store owner grandfather. Paid for college by themselves.


They aren't really upper class, more of upper middle class.


Bill Clinton, while not born wealthy or privileged, quickly used his influence as a Senator's lackee to help him dodge the draft, while the poor were shipped off to fight a lost cause, putting him up there with the elitist wealthy who were able to afford college to avoid the draft.

Well and how did he become a Senator's lackee? By pure privilege or hard work? Also you don't seem to have much sympathy for American troops in Vietnam and you probably think that those anti-war traitors in colleges were heroes (whom Bill Clinton was one).


George Bush, Sr, used his father's influence of being on the Brown Brothers Harriman (BANK) board for 22 years to build himself up, eventually becoming an owner of Zapata Oil (try not to laugh at the irony of this name). He then became a millionaire and went into politics.

Oh yes.
Such hard laborers they were. :rolleyes:

What about Ronald Reagan whose family was quite poor or Richard Nixon or Harry Truman (who didn't go to college)?

[RGacky3]

Also you don't seem to have much sympathy for American troops in Vietnam and you probably think that those anti-war traitors in colleges were heroes (whom Bill Clinton was one).


The concept of traitor is one of the most rediculous mind boggeling concept. Does'nt the state exist for the benefit (supposedly, on paper) of the people, not the other way around?

[Bud Struggle]

Zapata Oil (try not to laugh at the irony of this name).

That is pretty hilarious. :laugh:

[Richard Nixon]

The concept of traitor is one of the most rediculous mind boggeling concept. Does'nt the state exist for the benefit (supposedly, on paper) of the people, not the other way around?

The state exists for the benefit of the people but the people should also help the state. The state should not support people who are actively trying to destroy or be otherwise against them. As John F. Kennedy said "Ask not what the country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

[Rosa Provokateur]

What is wrong with free elections and a multiparty system ? Why can't the people of Cuba and North Korea freely elect their leaders ?

Because all of these leaders trace their roots to Lenin and Lenin's vanguard leaves no room for anyone outside the Party to make decisions.

[RGacky3]

The state exists for the benefit of the people but the people should also help the state. The state should not support people who are actively trying to destroy or be otherwise against them. As John F. Kennedy said "Ask not what the country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

If the State is'nt needed, or if it does more damage tan good, then it is perfectly acceptable to want to abolish it. The State in America is NOT democractic, it exists primarily to protect the Capitalist class.

John F Kennedys statement is rediculous. No one should support a State that is'nt benefiting them.

Patriotism is as rediculous and dangerous as racism.

[Richard Nixon]

If the State is'nt needed, or if it does more damage tan good, then it is perfectly acceptable to want to abolish it. The State in America is NOT democractic, it exists primarily to protect the Capitalist class.

John F Kennedys statement is rediculous. No one should support a State that is'nt benefiting them.

However the American state does more good then damage and benefits all people. For instance it's government projects have raised the standard of living dramatically.


Patriotism is as rediculous and dangerous as racism.

Patriotism is positive as it require love not hate while racism is negative as it requires hate not love,.

[Havet]

Patriotism is positive as it require love not hate while racism is negative as it requires hate not love,.

I'm pretty sure someone already showed this somewhere else, but here it goes again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MktlfjFb3j0

Saying "I'm proud to be an american" (which is patriotism) is as idiotic as saying "I'm proud of having a predisposition to colon cancer"...

EDIT: besides patriotism being an useful tool by the elites to trick people into entering wars and justifying other social problems.

[Demogorgon]

Patriotism is positive as it require love not hate while racism is negative as it requires hate not love,.
You just told us that those who opposed the Vietnam war were "traitors". Evidently patriots must support the war. Ergo being a patriot requires you to support a high level of aggression against another people simply because your Government has decided so. That looks pretty like hatred to me.

[Havet]

You just told us that those who opposed the Vietnam war were "traitors". Evidently patriots must support the war. Ergo being a patriot requires you to support a high level of aggression against another people simply because your Government has decided so. That looks pretty like hatred to me.

ownage

[Richard Nixon]

You just told us that those who opposed the Vietnam war were "traitors". Evidently patriots must support the war. Ergo being a patriot requires you to support a high level of aggression against another people simply because your Government has decided so. That looks pretty like hatred to me.

Excuse me I meant those who actually burnt down draft buildings, caused riots, and gave aid and comfort to the enemy (like that unhung ***** **** Jane Fonda :cursing:) not normal anti-war activists.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

and gave aid and comfort to the enemy activists.

Why is that worse then giving aid and comfort to the US army?

[Sarah Palin]

Why are communists so hostile towards democracy?

Why is John_Fit[ forgot the z, fucking idiot ]gerald_Kennedy so hostile towards correctness?

[Richard Nixon]

Why is that worse then giving aid and comfort to the US army?

Look the Cong supported a dictatorship what you'd call "state capitalists" so they weren't any more or perhaps equally moral as the Americans.

[RGacky3]

Look the Cong supported a dictatorship what you'd call "state capitalists" so they weren't any more or perhaps equally moral as the Americans.

The vietcong supported a quasi socialistic, and not very democratic state, but it was THEIR state (actually supported by the majority of the people), the Americans did'nt even belong there, so yeah, them being in self defence gives them a higher moral ground.


Excuse me I meant those who actually burnt down draft buildings, caused riots, and gave aid and comfort to the enemy (like that unhung ***** **** Jane Fonda :cursing:) not normal anti-war activists.

Why not burn down a building whos purpose is to force people to kill (I don't agree with the tactic at all though, but not from a moral standpoint), in the vast majority of the cases, its the cops that start violence in so called riots.

And giving comfort and aid to "the enemy" is a rediculous attack, who's enemy? The cong arn't my enemy, they hav'nt hurt me at all. Just because some guys in Washington DC say someone is my enemy does'nt mean they are.


However the American state does more good then damage and benefits all people. For instance it's government projects have raised the standard of living dramatically.

Ask the rest of the world. Ask the American people (most americans realize that the government responds to big moneyed intrests before the general public).

Also the standard of living argument does'nt hold, first of all by what standard, how is it measured, how do you know it would'nt have gone up anyway, and also how do you know it would'nt have been even higher with something else.

Well, you do, Capitalism causes extreme poverty, capitlaism is supported by the state, that ALSO does public projects to undo some of the damage done by capitalism. That does'nt mean teh state is positive.


Patriotism is positive as it require love not hate while racism is negative as it requires hate not love,.

Most racists say they are just proud of their race, they love their race, its the same thing, and the end result is the same, bigotry, violence, ignorance, and partiality.

Look Richard Nixon, its gonna be really hard for you to continue backing patriotism trying to use reasoning, the fact is, patriotism is driven by irrational concepts of superiority.

[Richard Nixon]

The vietcong supported a quasi socialistic, and not very democratic state, but it was THEIR state (actually supported by the majority of the people), the Americans did'nt even belong there, so yeah, them being in self defence gives them a higher moral ground.


The majority of Germans supported Hitler too so "majority supports it" isn't a real great argument. Also a large portion of South Vietnamese wanted to remain under their systems and not just the rich either: do you remember the boat people?


Why not burn down a building whos purpose is to force people to kill (I don't agree with the tactic at all though, but not from a moral standpoint), in the vast majority of the cases, its the cops that start violence in so called riots.

Well it's vandalism and possibly terrorism and ILLEGAL: also what about Bill Ayers and his terrorist band?


And giving comfort and aid to "the enemy" is a rediculous attack, who's enemy? The cong arn't my enemy, they hav'nt hurt me at all. Just because some guys in Washington DC say someone is my enemy does'nt mean they are.


Look US soldiers were held captive there and being tortured. You'd be upset at people visiting and supporting Gitmo, same thing here.



Ask the rest of the world. Ask the American people (most americans realize that the government responds to big moneyed intrests before the general public).

Also the standard of living argument does'nt hold, first of all by what standard, how is it measured, how do you know it would'nt have gone up anyway, and also how do you know it would'nt have been even higher with something else.

Well, you do, Capitalism causes extreme poverty, capitlaism is supported by the state, that ALSO does public projects to undo some of the damage done by capitalism. That does'nt mean teh state is positive.

Why is South Korea a capitalist democracy far more prosperous then the North even though in 1950 the North was far more industrialized while South Korea was an agricultural economy?




Most racists say they are just proud of their race, they love their race, its the same thing, and the end result is the same, bigotry, violence, ignorance, and partiality.

Look Richard Nixon, its gonna be really hard for you to continue backing patriotism trying to use reasoning, the fact is, patriotism is driven by irrational concepts of superiority.

If anarchism does happen who's to say that people will be fanatically loyal to their communes against other communes?

[RGacky3]

The majority of Germans supported Hitler too so "majority supports it" isn't a real great argument. Also a large portion of South Vietnamese wanted to remain under their systems and not just the rich either: do you remember the boat people?



Well thats not what the democratic elections said. But I suppose you don't believe in democracy.

The Vietcong were not setting up concentration camps, commting genocide or invading their neighbors.

That analysis is rediculous, the fact is the United States essencially has a contempt of democracy, and acted out of imperialistic wants. If you claim to support democracy, then support it.


Well it's vandalism and possibly terrorism and ILLEGAL: also what about Bill Ayers and his terrorist band?


Yeah, so what, the United states vandalises (even worse, they murder), the United States engages in terrorism of the worst kind, and the United States ignores international law.

Also, if the law is oppressive and goes agaisnt the will of the people, its perfectly acceptable to oppose it. Remember the State exists for the people, not the other way around, right?


Look US soldiers were held captive there and being tortured. You'd be upset at people visiting and supporting Gitmo, same thing here.


So what, I don't consider US soldiers my enemy, why should I consider the vietcong my enemy. Plus The United States invaded both iraq and vietnam, not the other way around.

Now if the vietcong invaded, say, California, then maybe I'd consider them my enemy.

Stop being silly.


Why is South Korea a capitalist democracy far more prosperous then the North even though in 1950 the North was far more industrialized while South Korea was an agricultural economy?

Because North Korea is essencially a Brutal Monarchy isolated from the rest of the world, and South Korea is a Capitalist democracy, that became much more prosperous after implimenting some social-democratic reforms.

But look at the rest of the world, 2 countries don't prove a point. North Korea does'nt prove anything, its, like I said, an isolated Brutal Monarchy.


If anarchism does happen who's to say that people will be fanatically loyal to their communes against other communes?

The fact that Nationalism has to be shoved in peoples faces to get the sentiment up, and has to be done over many many years, makes me think tat nationalism is'nt natural, especially when you have loose communal organizations, and not Nations.

[Havet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EpbfWnOQrI

[Radical]

Cuba are multi-party, sadly.

I am strongly FOR a one party system in Cuba. If we allow other parties to organise and become active, The Capitalist regimes shall infiltrate Cuba and try to forceit into Capitalism.

I am sick to pig-shit of these so-called leftists that keep accusing Cubas "Leaders" of having a desire to take power. Both Fidel and Raul have risked their LIVES for Cuba. Cuba currently cant achieve true Socialism because if they tried it would fail, and many people would die

HOW DO YOU EXPECT CUBA TO ACHIEVE SOCIALISM WHEN THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IS SITTING 90 MILES AWAY TRYING TO FORCE CUBA INTO CAPITALISM?????

I'd like to see anybody here achieve more than what Fidel and Cuba has achieved. Or better still, I'd like to see one person here risk their lives the way Fidel and the people of Cuba have. Your big to sit here calling Fidel and Raul "power-hungry" and how badly they run the country, when all your doing is sitting here on an internet chat site crititzing the people that actually make progressive change.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Look the Cong supported a dictatorship what you'd call "state capitalists" so they weren't any more or perhaps equally moral as the Americans.

They where just finishing what they started in the Indochina War. I dont deny that Vietnam has suffered at the hands of communism but it was their country, not ours and not the French.

[RGacky3]

Cuba are multi-party, sadly.

I am strongly FOR a one party system in Cuba. If we allow other parties to organise and become active, The Capitalist regimes shall infiltrate Cuba and try to forceit into Capitalism.

Thats rediculous, more democracy give Capitalists LESS oportunities, because then the actual people are in control.

Also if the revolution does'nt result in a democratic society, then its a betrayed revolution.


Both Fidel and Raul have risked their LIVES for Cuba. Cuba currently cant achieve true Socialism because if they tried it would fail, and many people would die


So what, kings risk their lives for their countries too sometimes, it does'nt justify their power. If a poor peasents in Chiapas can succede in making true socialism so can cuba. The fact is, the government wants ITS socialism, it does'nt trust the people, which essencially kills socialism. Its like saying, I'll all for democracy, as long as I have the last say.


HOW DO YOU EXPECT CUBA TO ACHIEVE SOCIALISM WHEN THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IS SITTING 90 MILES AWAY TRYING TO FORCE CUBA INTO CAPITALISM?????

Not through dictatorship, the worst thing for the United States when it comes to other contrires, is a functioning democratic socialist society. Dictatorial "socialist" countries are easier, because they just have to deal with the leader.


I'd like to see anybody here achieve more than what Fidel and Cuba has achieved. Or better still, I'd like to see one person here risk their lives the way Fidel and the people of Cuba have. Your big to sit here calling Fidel and Raul "power-hungry" and how badly they run the country, when all your doing is sitting here on an internet chat site crititzing the people that actually make progressive change.

Thats great, and they are heros, but that does'nt justify their power, I'm sorry.

[Radical]

Thats great, and they are heros, but that does'nt justify their power, I'm sorry.

Their power is justified when they are elected every five years. I support most of the policies on-going in Cuba currently.

It is the people of Cuba that have survived Socialism. Not Fidel or Cubas Policies. The Unity of the Cuban people have stood united against 50 years of Capitalist infiltration. Socialism will never been unleashed until the people of Cuba unleash it.

As your a Conservative pig, I expect you to crititize me.
+ I wasent even talking to you

[RGacky3]

Their power is justified when they are elected every five years. I support most of the policies on-going in Cuba currently.


Both you know, and I know Cuba is not a functioning democracy (I'm not saying its worse than the United states, or most of europe, because its not).

It does'nt matter if YOU support them, what matters is if the people support them.


It is the people of Cuba that have survived Socialism. Not Fidel or Cubas Policies. The Unity of the Cuban people have stood united against 50 years of Capitalist infiltration. Socialism will never been unleashed until the people of Cuba unleash it.


I agree, but other things have been unleashed on the people of Cuba that they did'nt want, like suppression of free speach, certain human rights and the such.


As your a Conservative pig, I expect you to crititize me.

First of all, where are you getting this conservative pig from.

Second I'm not critizizing you, I don't care about you, I'm talking about Fidel Castro's regeme, and I'm challenging your statements. If your gonna take it personally then maybe you can't have an actual discussion.


+ I wasent even talking to you

This is a forum. Also, if you can't respond or back up your statements with substance, then I suppose you hav'nt really thought about it.

[Bud Struggle]

As your a Conservative pig, I expect you to crititize me.


The old Gackenheimer may be a lot of things, but a Conservative pig--he's not. :D