Spanish Civil War

[Richard Nixon]

I'm very much interested in the Spanish Civil War and having been reading up on it in Wikipedia.

Now I'd like a few words on why the Republicans/Loyalists lost the civil war. I think there were several causes the most notable and widely stated is that they lost because of the Fascists/Nationalists/Insurgents military superiority and foreign aid. However other reasons too abound. Much of the Spanish Republic especially the anarchist and communist enclaves were actively anti-religious and attacked and killed clergymen and destroyed churches. Also notable was the communist persecution of other factions in the Republican side especially the anarcho-syndicalists.

[Plagueround]

I don't think the killing of clergy and destruction of churches was a reason for their downfall as most of it occurred early in the revolution and was part of the elimination of fascist elements (the church, for the most part, openly sided with Franco). It's not as if they pulled troops from the lines in favor of tearing down churches while the fascist ran amok. The Spanish Civil War was lost because Germany and Italy basically used it as practice for another war you may have heard of (and even that is a simplification).

[danyboy27]

franco won beccause the socialist where divided, plus hitler gave a LOT of support; advisor, tanks planes, german general where on the field dirrecting operations.

to match this the soviet would have to mobilize more, wich could have lead to an all out war with germany, and they really didnt wanted to start a fight with hitler.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm very much interested in the Spanish Civil War and having been reading up on it in Wikipedia.
You might want to use Wiki only sparingly for a sensitive subject like the Spanish Civil War, at least don't simply believe everything you read right off the back. Just a recommendation.



The Spanish Civil War was lost because Germany and Italy basically used it as practice for another war you may have heard of (and even that is a simplification).
To touch on this, the Republicans were facing a particularly strong enemy (or the record I believe this is the primary reason for the demise of the Spanish republic) consisting of the Nationalist rebels, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and the US. The "non-intervention" policy taken by the majority of the world (the Soviet Union did initially; France was kind of forced into the committee) outlined that "neither side" was to be supported. This left the Republicans completely alone at the onset of their revolutionary war. In 1936 the Soviet Union left the Non-Intervention committee (as it had been exposed as nothing more than bloc allied against the Republic) and began sending military aid to Spain; I believe the only other country to aid Republican Spain was Mexico. The united republican front was overwhelmed, and the situation grew worse when the Republicans were unable to avoid infighting which led to events like the Barcelona May Days. All of this led to the Republic's demise.

[Richard Nixon]

No, MKHAB, I don't completely believe everything on Wiki.

[bcbm]

The fascists won because the workers who took up arms against the coup were prevented from completing what they had started in the first weeks- destroying the Republic.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Even I, and I am known for my blind anti-usa feelings, wouldn't dare to say they were 'allies' of Franco. Neither was the non-intervention-commitee intentionally anti-republic, although effectively, it was.

Even Portugal wasn't actively allied. It didn't send troops or aid. However, it did let through fascists and fascist supplies while it arrested lefties that tried to cross the border.

So basicly, Franco's allies were Germany, Italy and only to a certain degree Portugal. The problem was that Germany was the biggest military power in the world, and Portugal, Italy and Germany were pretty damn close to Spain, while the USSR had to get it's aid to Spain from a far more difficult location. And Mexico... well, Mexico was enormously far away (although it didn't have to cope with germany being in the way) but moreover the state of Mexican military wasn't really good enough to be of a great aid.
(Although every bullet mattered)

[Richard Nixon]

The fascists won because the workers who took up arms against the coup were prevented from completing what they had started in the first weeks- destroying the Republic.

LOL, no. A destruction of the Spanish Republic and imposition of a hyper anarchist collective would have alienated the vast majority of moderate Republicans, liberals, socialists, and others.

[bcbm]

LOL, no. A destruction of the Spanish Republic and imposition of a hyper anarchist collective would have alienated the vast majority of moderate Republicans, liberals, socialists, and others.

You mean it would've alienated those who initially were more than willing to capitulate to the fascists? Let's be clear- if the working class had not openly disobeyed the ruling class and launched their own insurrection, the coup would've gone off without barely a bullet fired. The only thing that forced the ruling class into a civil war with itself was the uprising of the workers, and in the immediate aftermath of that uprising it was the workers (not just anarchists, but the class) who held the real power in half the country. Instead of consolidating their gains and pushing the revolution forward, they decided to turn power back over to the scum you describe, who promptly waged a much more effective war against the rebellous workers than the fascists. The spectre of communism is more troubling to the rulers than a military dictatorship of their own class.

[Richard Nixon]

You mean it would've alienated those who initially were more than willing to capitulate to the fascists? Let's be clear- if the working class had not openly disobeyed the ruling class and launched their own insurrection, the coup would've gone off without barely a bullet fired. The only thing that forced the ruling class into a civil war with itself was the uprising of the workers, and in the immediate aftermath of that uprising it was the workers (not just anarchists, but the class) who held the real power in half the country. Instead of consolidating their gains and pushing the revolution forward, they decided to turn power back over to the scum you describe, who promptly waged a much more effective war against the rebellous workers than the fascists. The spectre of communism is more troubling to the rulers than a military dictatorship of their own class.

Except however however the moderates constituted a large portion of the Spanish Republic and no support from them would have insured a Republican collapse. Also a Francoist dictatorship was better then a Soviet puppet in Spain after all compare the living conditions to-day of Spain and say Poland or Hungary.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Also a Francoist dictatorship was better then a Soviet puppet in Spain after all compare the living conditions to-day of Spain and say Poland or Hungary.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Do you really think there was much difference between life in Franco Spain and Soviet Poland or Hungary? Dictatorships are dictatorships--it matters little who is doing the dictating.

[RGacky3]

Do you really think there was much difference between life in Franco Spain and Soviet Poland or Hungary? Dictatorships are dictatorships--it matters little who is doing the dictating.
__________________


There is a difference, the same way there is somewhat of a difference between say, Sweedish democracy, and United States democracy.

[Richard Nixon]

There is a difference, the same way there is somewhat of a difference between say, Sweedish democracy, and United States democracy.

Yes and from the evidence a Francoist dictatorship fell in 1975 a decade and more earlier then the communist dictatorships and Spain to-day is far wealthier then Poland or Hungary.

[Conquer or Die]

Fascism wasn't at odds with most interests of the current ruling powers at the time. Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain, after all, and the USA had plenty of fascists in power. The USSR was struggling with internal problems but still managed to give aid to the proletarian cause. If the imperialist countries were nominally humanitarian they would've picked sides quickly (with the republicans) but they were still weighing fascism against democracy as a means of procuring power (democracy won thanks to communism). So, it could be said that the weakness of international communism at that point had failed to stop fascism in Spain whereas the strength of international communism during the late 1930's (thanks to a genius industrial collectivization) forced capitalist democracy to choose a side.

[danyboy27]

Yes and from the evidence a Francoist dictatorship fell in 1975 a decade and more earlier then the communist dictatorships and Spain to-day is far wealthier then Poland or Hungary.

spain wasnt a slave-state, that the big difference.
russia made sure that countries like poland and hungrary where not enough self sufficent in order to keep a strong grip on them. from the armed forces to the industries those countries always been heavily dependent to russia to make things works.

also, take notice that poland was severly damaged during ww2, we are talking about carpet bombing targeting industries of all kind. German took everything they could; factories, natural ressources etc etc.
they also had the end of the cold war and the tremendous economic thrauma they suffered, chaqnging their economic system at a abnormal speed.

you really cant expect from a dead broke country to work like a swiss watch .

in comparaison spain had it the easy way.

its really have nothing to do with communism.

[Richard Nixon]

spain wasnt a slave-state, that the big difference.
russia made sure that countries like poland and hungrary where not enough self sufficent in order to keep a strong grip on them. from the armed forces to the industries those countries always been heavily dependent to russia to make things works.

also, take notice that poland was severly damaged during ww2, we are talking about carpet bombing targeting industries of all kind. German took everything they could; factories, natural ressources etc etc.
they also had the end of the cold war and the tremendous economic thrauma they suffered, chaqnging their economic system at a abnormal speed.

you really cant expect from a dead broke country to work like a swiss watch .

in comparaison spain had it the easy way.

its really have nothing to do with communism.

Spain too suffered quite bloodily in the Spanish Civil War although I will agree it wasn't bad as Poland. Then what about the Republic of Korea and Hungary? Korea for most of it's time since independence was under right wing dictatorship. If you compared Korea and Hungary in 1945 Hungary despite World War 2 would be far more industrialized and better off. Yet now Korea has outpaced Hungary in industry and prosperity.

[Nwoye]

Much of the Spanish Republic especially the anarchist and communist enclaves were actively anti-religious and attacked and killed clergymen and destroyed churches.
while i don't endorse or support the killing of clergymen (or anyone really), the Catholic Church in Spain during that time period was an extremely oppressive institution. They were basically another branch of government, right alongside the army or the police. During the war Spanish bishops were in fact blessing the purging of atheists being done by the rebel forces, which amounted to killing anyone suspected of being a "red".

[bcbm]

Except however however the moderates constituted a large portion of the Spanish Republic and no support from them would have insured a Republican collapse.

In the immediate outbreak of war it was the workers who held power in most of the country and the beginning of a social revolution was carried out. They did this more or less unopposed. Losing the moderates would've meant nothing because, again, the workers already had control. If they decided not to turn power over to the Republican authorities, they would've been able to quickly undercut the coup by granting independence to Morocco. In the early stage that fascists didn't even have a major city captured as well and so it would've been pretty easy to isolate and neutralize whatever fascist forces remained after their base in Morocco was undercut.


Also a Francoist dictatorship was better then a Soviet puppet in Spain

A worker's Spain would not have been a Soviet puppet. The USSR was completely opposed to the revolution and supported the Spanish state once they decided to take a side.


after all compare the living conditions to-day of Spain and say Poland or Hungary.

This is a completely disgusting thing to say. I suppose this would be a good place to note that production increased under collectivization in Spain.

[Richard Nixon]

In the immediate outbreak of war it was the workers who held power in most of the country and the beginning of a social revolution was carried out. They did this more or less unopposed. Losing the moderates would've meant nothing because, again, the workers already had control. If they decided not to turn power over to the Republican authorities, they would've been able to quickly undercut the coup by granting independence to Morocco. In the early stage that fascists didn't even have a major city captured as well and so it would've been pretty easy to isolate and neutralize whatever fascist forces remained after their base in Morocco was undercut.

Even if you gave independence to Morocco the Francoist army was still there so it wouldn't matter. Also tens of thousands of Moroccans fought for the Franocist armies.



A worker's Spain would not have been a Soviet puppet. The USSR was completely opposed to the revolution and supported the Spanish state once they decided to take a side.


Depends on which leftists take power, if the communists take over it'll be supported by the Soviets but if the anarchists take power it will be interesting in the Chinese sense.



This is a completely disgusting thing to say. I suppose this would be a good place to note that production increased under collectivization in Spain.

Why is it "disgusting"? I only noted a fact. Also could you cite?

[Bud Struggle]

Depends on which leftists take power, if the communists take over it'll be supported by the Soviets but if the anarchists take power it will be interesting in the Chinese sense.


As charming as the Commies may want to make the "leftside" iin th Spanish Civil war, they hated each other more than they hated the Fascists.

Burrow down and you may find something--but on the whole they deserved what they got. They lost because that's what people like that do.....loose.

Time to move on from that group.

[bcbm]

Even if you gave independence to Morocco the Francoist army was still there so it wouldn't matter.

Would you like to be a comparably small army of foreign legionaries led by a general distinguished for crushing the last fight for independence in Morocco when that country was suddenly released from the colonial yoke?


Also tens of thousands of Moroccans fought for the Franocist armies.

I'm aware. Granting independence to Morocco would likely have sent many of these thousands out of the army and back to their newly freed homeland, severely damaging the fascist war effort.


Depends on which leftists take power, if the communists take over it'll be supported by the Soviets but if the anarchists take power it will be interesting in the Chinese sense.

What are you talking about? The workers who took up arms and began taking revolutionary steps would not have been supported by the USSR because the USSR supported the Republic. There was no threat of a "Soviet dictatorship" in Spain, merely the dueling of two competing capitalist fascisms.


Why is it "disgusting"?

Well at the time certainly no one could predict what the living standards of various countries would be three-quarters of a century later and, even if they could have, to use that as grounds for justifying the mass murder conducted by the Franco regime is disgusting.


Also could you cite?

This (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws91/sapin33.html) summarizes some the work of a French anarchist who documented the collectivization process.

[bcbm]

As charming as the Commies may want to make the "leftside" iin th Spanish Civil war, they hated each other more than they hated the Fascists.


The "infighting" on the side of the Republic was class warfare, not mere sectarian strife. The workers who had countered the insurrection of the fascists were viewed as more dangerous by the Republic because they represented a break from the capitalist system, whereas the fascists didn't.

[Bud Struggle]

The "infighting" on the side of the Republic was class warfare, not mere sectarian strife. The workers who had countered the insurrection of the fascists were viewed as more dangerous by the Republic because they represented a break from the capitalist system, whereas the fascists didn't.

Exactly. A Lifestile issue. But that is the definition of Communism. Lifestile.

[bcbm]

Exactly. A Lifestile issue. But that is the definition of Communism. Lifestile.

:rolleyes:

[Richard Nixon]

Would you like to be a comparably small army of foreign legionaries led by a general distinguished for crushing the last fight for independence in Morocco when that country was suddenly released from the colonial yoke?



I'm aware. Granting independence to Morocco would likely have sent many of these thousands out of the army and back to their newly freed homeland, severely damaging the fascist war effort.

If the Moroccans wished independence and there was a civil war in their colonizers' nation why didn't they revolt in the first place as soon as war broke out? In fact about a decade and a half before the civil war the Moroccans defeated a Spanish army at Aneruel.




What are you talking about? The workers who took up arms and began taking revolutionary steps would not have been supported by the USSR because the USSR supported the Republic. There was no threat of a "Soviet dictatorship" in Spain, merely the dueling of two competing capitalist fascisms.

Uhh yes they were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War


Communists committed numerous atrocities against fellow Republicans: André Marty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Marty), known as the Butcher of Albacete, was responsible for the deaths of some 500 members of the International Brigades,[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#cite_note-69) and Andreu Nin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreu_Nin), leader of the POUM, and many prominent POUM members were murdered by the Communists.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#cite_note-70)




Well at the time certainly no one could predict what the living standards of various countries would be three-quarters of a century later and, even if they could have, to use that as grounds for justifying the mass murder conducted by the Franco regime is disgusting.


As mentioned above the Spanish Left were not above commiting atrocities. It was basically A murdering B and B murdering C and C murdering A and D murdering B and etc. http://en.wikipedia.rog/wiki/Red_terror_(Spain) (http://en.wikipedia.rog/wiki/Red_terror_%28Spain%29)


This (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws91/sapin33.html) summarizes some the work of a French anarchist who documented the collectivization process.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

Hmm interesting.

[bcbm]

If the Moroccans wished independence and there was a civil war in their colonizers' nation why didn't they revolt in the first place as soon as war broke out?

Who knows? The point is that granting Morocco independence would've been a severe blow to Franco.


Uhh yes they were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War)

The "Communists" in question were those under the influence of the USSR, who supported the Republic and did everything in their power to suppress worker control. By defending the Republic they were throwing their lot in with the ruling class against the workers and limiting the struggle to a battle between two capitalist factions.


It was basically A murdering B and B murdering C and C murdering A and D murdering B and etc. http://en.wikipedia.rog/wiki/Red_terror_(Spain) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.rog/wiki/Red_terror_%28Spain%29)

What you link to primarily talks about Republican acts against the Catholic church, which was deeply connected in Spain with the landowners, monarchy and the fascist rebels. Certainly there were atrocities. I think they pale in comparison to what the ruling class did on both sides to protect themselves.

[Richard Nixon]

Who knows? The point is that granting Morocco independence would've been a severe blow to Franco.


Possibly but in World War 2 not that many Southeast Asians or Indians revolted when Japan offered them aid nor did the Boers when Germany declared war on the UK in World War I.


The "Communists" in question were those under the influence of the USSR, who supported the Republic and did everything in their power to suppress worker control. By defending the Republic they were throwing their lot in with the ruling class against the workers and limiting the struggle to a battle between two capitalist factions.



If that is true the only true leftists in Spain were the anarchists which I said would be interesting.


What you link to primarily talks about Republican acts against the Catholic church, which was deeply connected in Spain with the landowners, monarchy and the fascist rebels. Certainly there were atrocities. I think they pale in comparison to what the ruling class did on both sides to protect themselves.

True, but the Spanish Republicans also carried out internal purges and so on.

[bcbm]

Possibly but in World War 2 not that many Southeast Asians or Indians revolted when Japan offered them aid nor did the Boers when Germany declared war on the UK in World War I.


Its all speculation, of course, but given that there had been independence movements in recent years I think Moroccan independence would've made a big difference. It would've made Franco's just harder just through adding a bit of confusion if nothing else and given the militias a chance to secure their gains and move to prevent the fascists from capturing major cities.


If that is true the only true leftists in Spain were the anarchists which I said would be interesting.

It wasn't just the anarchists who carried out collectivizations or took up arms in the early days of the coup. This is why I am describing the sides in class terms rather than factional ones.


True, but the Spanish Republicans also carried out internal purges and so on.

I was referring to that when I said

I think they pale in comparison to what the ruling class did on both sides to protect themselves.

[Richard Nixon]

Its all speculation, of course, but given that there had been independence movements in recent years I think Moroccan independence would've made a big difference. It would've made Franco's just harder just through adding a bit of confusion if nothing else and given the militias a chance to secure their gains and move to prevent the fascists from capturing major cities.



Quite true.


It wasn't just the anarchists who carried out collectivizations or took up arms in the early days of the coup. This is why I am describing the sides in class terms rather than factional ones.

However there were upper class people (the liberal ones) supporting the Republic and peasents and workers supporting the Nationalists.




I was referring to that when I said

OK.

[bcbm]

However there were upper class people (the liberal ones) supporting the Republic and peasents and workers supporting the Nationalists.

The Republic is a part of the capitalist ruling class. It and Franco are part of the same class. Their supporters from the lower classes are still supporting the ruling class, just as, say, a landowner who decided to support collectivization would be supporting the working class.

[Richard Nixon]

The Republic is a part of the capitalist ruling class. It and Franco are part of the same class. Their supporters from the lower classes are still supporting the ruling class, just as, say, a landowner who decided to support collectivization would be supporting the working class.

That would mean it the Spanish Civil War was an ideological conflict not a class conflict.

[bcbm]

That would mean it the Spanish Civil War was an ideological conflict not a class conflict.

The conflict between the insurrectionary workers and the fascists/Republic was a class conflict. The conflict between the Republic and Franco was a civil war between capitalist factions.

[Richard Nixon]

The conflict between the insurrectionary workers and the fascists/Republic was a class conflict. The conflict between the Republic and Franco was a civil war between capitalist factions.

However it was only the workers who were ideological leftists that revolted against the Republic. Indeed I would say that most if not all class conflicts are driven by ideology. For instance during the labour disputes in the Nineteenth Century America most workers who were not driven by leftism and instead subscribed to say Samuel Gompers' political beliefs did not riot.

[Red Icepick]

Why did they lose? Because they had to rely on motivation and organize themselves as they went along. Republican/Loyalist side basically consisted of workers taking up arms while the Fascists were organized militaries. Franco had the Army of Africa, by far the strongest force of the entire conflict, along with German and Italian air and armored forces. They also successfully unified their command structure by shoving Falangists, Carlists, and Alphonsines into a single coherent group. The Soviets attempted to do the same, but Trotskyites and Anarchists resisted all the way through. It didn't help that the Soviets primarily supported the hated Republic, so you can't blaim everyone for not wanting to go along, however from a strictly military point of view, that was the smartest and most practical decision.

Also, it was a much harder logistical problem moving aid from the Soviet Union to Spain than it is to move it from Germany and Italy. The geographics of it were impossible. The Red Army was also still in a developing phase, as well. My favorite part of the war, and I believe the most inspiring, was the International Brigades. They were phenomenal, but they still relied on what the Spanish workers had been relying on: motivation. There weren't enough trained soldiers, and war is not something you want to learn as you go along.

Basically, it's not hard to see why Fascists won. If anything, it's surprising it took them so long. Three military powers fighting conventional battles against left-wing factions that were being trained and assembled on the spot? It's really surprising how long the war lasted. It was an impossible battle, and that's part of what makes it so inspiring.

[RGacky3]

However it was only the workers who were ideological leftists that revolted against the Republic. Indeed I would say that most if not all class conflicts are driven by ideology. For instance during the labour disputes in the Nineteenth Century America most workers who were not driven by leftism and instead subscribed to say Samuel Gompers' political beliefs did not riot.

Anything to back that up? What drove it for workers was not ideology it was their actual conditions.


However there were upper class people (the liberal ones) supporting the Republic and peasents and workers supporting the Nationalists.

Sure, there are ideologically motivated people, but first of all, most workers and peasents supporting the nationalists did'nt have and strong organization supporting them around.

Most of it is class based.


Exactly. A Lifestile issue. But that is the definition of Communism. Lifestile.

Whether or not you support freedom or not, is not a lifestyle.

[bailey_187]

Spain too suffered quite bloodily in the Spanish Civil War although I will agree it wasn't bad as Poland. Then what about the Republic of Korea and Hungary? Korea for most of it's time since independence was under right wing dictatorship. If you compared Korea and Hungary in 1945 Hungary despite World War 2 would be far more industrialized and better off. Yet now Korea has outpaced Hungary in industry and prosperity.

Compare India and China in 1948/9

China has suffered years of civil war, Japanese invasion etc

India had a fairly advanced administration, and in comparison to China a more peaceful road to independence.

Now look, China has outpaced India in Industry and prosperity

point: these analogies can be used either way.

[Bud Struggle]

Whether or not you support freedom or not, is not a lifestyle.

Commentaries boarding on the profound aside, while being a Communist in the real world once looked like a real option it seems of late circumstances have made such opportunities unlikely.

I would suggest if one is really interested in the betterment of humanity that one deals with the circumstances at hand and with the tools at hand rather than indulging in flights of fancy.

Right now being a Communist is a lifestyle choice--nothing more. Like being a Goth or an Emo. Nothing wrong with any of those. But if you really want to change the world use the tools available instead of wishing for the impossible.

[RGacky3]

while being a Communist in the real world once looked like a real option it seems of late circumstances have made such opportunities unlikely.

What part of the world are you talking about? In many parts of the world "communists" ARE making real changes.


I would suggest if one is really interested in the betterment of humanity that one deals with the circumstances at hand and with the tools at hand rather than indulging in flights of fancy.

I agree, which is why I don't really call myself a communist, even though technically I am one, I don't fly red flags and hammers and sickles, I'm a communist, in the same way noam chomsky is a communist, or micheal moore is one (he's not I know, but you know what I mean).


Right now being a Communist is a lifestyle choice--nothing more. Like being a Goth or an Emo. Nothing wrong with any of those. But if you really want to change the world use the tools available instead of wishing for the impossible.

Goth and Emo are musical styles with a fassion and consequent attitude attached. I guarantee you, you could'nt point me out as a communist if you did'nt know it.

[#FF0000]

I guarantee you, you could'nt point me out as a communist if you did'nt know it.

Yeah same here. That's a pretty strange comment, Bud.

[Richard Nixon]

Anything to back that up? What drove it for workers was not ideology it was their actual conditions.


It should be despite their condition America's working classes overall did not subscribe to leftism and instead to more moderate policies.


Sure, there are ideologically motivated people, but first of all, most workers and peasents supporting the nationalists did'nt have and strong organization supporting them around.

Most of it is class based.


I'll give you the argument here as Spain was a very class divided society.



Whether or not you support freedom or not, is not a lifestyle.

Yes but I hope you aren't equating leftism with freedom. For instance most people who support capitalist democracy would say it is supporting freedom, so freedom depends on the person's opinion of what freedom is. To some people freedom means the right to voice your thoughts and other rights guaranteed in the US Constitution while to other freedom includes the right to pedophilia.

[RGacky3]

It should be despite their condition America's working classes overall did not subscribe to leftism and instead to more moderate policies.


By the conditions do you mean violent repression against leftist? Corporate attacks on the left? Blacklisting? You can't ignore all of that.


Yes but I hope you aren't equating leftism with freedom. For instance most people who support capitalist democracy would say it is supporting freedom, so freedom depends on the person's opinion of what freedom is. To some people freedom means the right to voice your thoughts and other rights guaranteed in the US Constitution while to other freedom includes the right to pedophilia.

Socialism, meaning democratic control of the economy rather than corporate control, DOES mean more freedom. The same way democracy is more free than an olagarchy.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah same here. That's a pretty strange comment, Bud.

I don't think you'd have to look a certain way to live a "lifestyle." I'd also say that being a Capitalist was a lifestyle choice. I wasn't born to a Capitalist family--my dad was a union guy (URW) I "chose" to invest some money in some realestate and I continued to choose to reinvest untill I was making a living from it.

My choice--my lifestyle.



By the conditions do you mean violent repression against leftist? Corporate attacks on the left? Blacklisting? You can't ignore all of that. No, I played a part--but I douby a big part. If people really wanted it it would have happened. I seem to have a lot more faith in the will of the people than you do.


Socialism, meaning democratic control of the economy rather than corporate control, DOES mean more freedom. The same way democracy is more free than an olagarchy.

Also while you say Socialism is more free than Democracy--it's never played out that way when Socialism is tried. Socialist countries are always more dictatorial than Democratic countries. Yea, and there are little conclaves of thes and that where people under socialism are doing pretty well--nut nothing on a large scale has ever worked. And it's been tried.

[RGacky3]

No, I played a part--but I douby a big part. If people really wanted it it would have happened. I seem to have a lot more faith in the will of the people than you do.

Does that mean people WANTED slavery for centuries and centuries???


Also while you say Socialism is more free than Democracy--it's never played out that way when Socialism is tried. Socialist countries are always more dictatorial than Democratic countries. Yea, and there are little conclaves of thes and that where people under socialism are doing pretty well--nut nothing on a large scale has ever worked. And it's been tried.

Socialism = Democratic control of the economy.

If its not that its not socialism. Period.

[Richard Nixon]

By the conditions do you mean violent repression against leftist? Corporate attacks on the left? Blacklisting? You can't ignore all of that.


Leftists in Russia were far more repressed then in the USA yet there they triumphed.

[RGacky3]

Leftists in Russia were far more repressed then in the USA yet there they triumphed.

Yeah, :), your point? Pointing out individual exmples does'nt proove anything. A broken clock is right twice a day, In Russia an amazing and inspiring thing happened (before it was destroyed by the bolsheviks).


I'd also say that being a Capitalist was a lifestyle choice. I wasn't born to a Capitalist family--my dad was a union guy (URW) I "chose" to invest some money in some realestate and I continued to choose to reinvest untill I was making a living from it.

My choice--my lifestyle.


I guess poor people have chosen to be poor, hmm, dumbasses I guess.

[Bud Struggle]

I guess poor people have chosen to be poor, hmm, dumbasses I guess.

Well that's here in the USA of course. Things are different in different places. As I said it was my choice to not be poor or working class--and there are plenty of of opportunities in the US both educationally and in business to become successful. One doesn't have to become rich with I'll grant you is an abnormality--but one could easily make oneself a comfortable life in America, which is not an abnormality.

[RGacky3]

Well that's here in the USA of course. Things are different in different places.

So poor people IN THE USA choose to be poor?

[Die Rote Fahne]

If you are interested, check out George Orwell's experience.'

"Homage to Catalonia" is the book you should look for.

[bcbm]

there are plenty of of opportunities in the US both educationally and in business to become successful

even if upward mobility were possible in america, it can't be possible for everyone. somebody has to do the shit jobs; capitalism requires an underclasses.

[Bud Struggle]

even if upward mobility were possible in america, it can't be possible for everyone. somebody has to do the shit jobs; capitalism requires an underclasses.

As does Socialism as does Communism as does Anarchism. There always will be shit jobs until technology does something about it.

[bcbm]

As does Socialism as does Communism as does Anarchism. There always will be shit jobs until technology does something about it.

there will always be shit jobs, but communism won't require an underclass to do them because they will be a collective, instead of individual, responsibility.

[Bud Struggle]

there will always be shit jobs, but communism won't require an underclass to do them because they will be a collective, instead of individual, responsibility.


Do you really think that's how things will play out? We'll all take turns being TV News anchor then security guard then power plant manager then rest room attendant.

Cool.

[RGacky3]

Do you really think that's how things will play out? We'll all take turns being TV News anchor then security guard then power plant manager then rest room attendant.

Cool.

Do you really think democracy does'nt work?

[Bud Struggle]

Do you really think democracy does'nt work?

Oh, democracy works--job rotation, not so much. I honestly don't see my job being much different in a Capitalist society or a Communist one. (Or my rewards.)

Many Capitalists have a proven track record of getting things done. That kind of ability to accomplish things should be rewarded in any society.

Bring on Communism. (And tell Yurgi to have my car brought round to take me to my dacha. :D)

[RGacky3]

Many Capitalists have a proven track record of getting things done. That kind of ability to accomplish things should be rewarded in any society.


Fine, thats democracy, if your good at what you do, then people will recognise that and support you doing it.

[Bud Struggle]

Fine, thats democracy, if your good at what you do, then people will recognise that and support you doing it.

Damn it Gack!

I hate when you make sense. There may be something to this Communism yet. :lol:

[bcbm]

Do you really think that's how things will play out? We'll all take turns being TV News anchor then security guard then power plant manager then rest room attendant.

Cool.

i don't recall saying that we'll each get a new job every week. could you point out where i did?

[Bud Struggle]

i don't recall saying that we'll each get a new job every week. could you point out where i did?

So who's doing the shit jobs then? Would those people be different then the people doing the shit jobs now?

[bcbm]

So who's doing the shit jobs then? Would those people be different then the people doing the shit jobs now?

i think many "shit jobs" as they exist today would not exist under communism. i think we could easily do away with say, janitors by making the cleaning and maintenance of a building the responsibility of all who work there. other shit jobs could be made infinitely more pleasurable by improving the conditions, etc to the point where people might like to work them. and everyone would be working much less, of course.

[Bud Struggle]

i think many "shit jobs" as they exist today would not exist under communism. i think we could easily do away with say, janitors by making the cleaning and maintenance of a building the responsibility of all who work there. other shit jobs could be made infinitely more pleasurable by improving the conditions, etc to the point where people might like to work them. and everyone would be working much less, of course.

Actually--that's a pretty good plan.