View Full Version : Why violence and bloodshed?
It is a revolutionary change in the heart and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed. Has not violence, war, and bloodshed repeatedly been seen to open the door for those who would take advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship, to weaken the Cause with internal conflict, to turn the People against those who sparked the conflict, and to unify the reactionaries and dis-empowered in their struggle to reestablish the status quo ante?
Why wish for such things and not seek peaceable solutions whenever possible?
Blake's Baby
14th June 2010, 09:54
Because the war is already being waged and has been for 400 years. And we didn't start it.
Right, so some vague 'war' has been waged for 400 years that justifies slaughter and chaos instead of the peaceful formation of an alternative system whenever possible :rolleyes:
Because the war is already being waged and has been for 400 years. And we didn't start it.
This.
New class systems and social hierarchy rarely come about in peaceful ways. The bourgeoisie got their status as ruling class through revolution and war. The feudal lords and monarchs before them got their power through war. We will overthrow this rotten system through revolution. This system cannot be reformed, like some would have us believe.
New class systems and social hierarchy rarely come about in peaceful ways.
The end goal isn't a new hierarchy, remember?
The bourgeoisie got their status as ruling class through revolution and war. The feudal lords and monarchs before them got their power through war
As did Stalin. In both cases, the result was not the end of oppression, but a regime change.
Once again I call you attention to the Amish and the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.
We will overthrow this rotten system through revolution.
and we're to expect different results than every other time such promises were made?
This system cannot be reformed, like some would have us believe.
The creation of an alternative system can never be achieved on the battlefield, but only in the hearts and minds of men, and in the peaceful cooperation of men as equals.
Again, compare the FEC and the Amish to the CCCP, Cambodia, and China.
Right, so some vague 'war' has been waged for 400 years that justifies slaughter and chaos instead of the peaceful formation of an alternative system whenever possible :rolleyes:
That "vague war" is class struggle. Capital and labour have been opposed to each other since the capitalist mode of production began.
And what are you going to do? Elect a worker to office who will then become bourgeois? Try to strip away private property rights and meet armed opposition from the imperialist states? Become state capitalist if you prevail?
Reform won't work. Deal with it.
Jimmie Higgins
14th June 2010, 10:10
For one thing, revolution doesn't equal violent action necessarily. Most of the revolutionary left in bourgeois democracies (i.e. aside from parties that operate under dictatorships or some kind of active repression by the state) spend their energies trying to organize other workers, not training for some fight with the government or cops like a right-wing militia.
We focus on other workers because we see direct and collective participation of great numbers of people as the way that the working class can end capitalism and organize society and economy along democratic lines.
But ultimately systems that exist right now - from China to the US and so on are run by and for the interests of a small percentage of the population and they rule through direct or implied violence (i.e. step out of line and we will economically destroy you with fines and legal challenges - if that doesn't work we will imprison you and destroy your organizations and groups). So even if our means are peaceful, if organized workers are effective and actually vying with our rulers for political power then we will be faced with violence. Just think about a picket line - we have the "right" to strike, but if we excercize it, our rights are severely limited by the courts and we are threatened with injunctions if the picket is effective and keeps out scabs. So the legal system is used to try and make our action ineffective - in war it would be like if one side was allowed to do whatever it wants, but the other side was only allowed to go on the offensive during certain hours of the day and they are not allowed to cross into enemy territory. If workers occupy a workplace or if students nonviolently occupy an administration building, we are met with violence.
In short, violence, I think, will unfortunately play a part. But from us, only defensive violence is needed because the working class far out numbers the small percentage of big companies and owners - also these companies can not make anything unless workers cooperate, so just by stopping production we can be more effective and damaging to our rulers than if we went to the hills and trained some kind of workers militia. That being said, we live in a violent society where even unarmed peace protesters are shot by commandos - civil rights activists are hit with fire-hoses and attacked by dogs - trade-unionists are lynched or assassinated by hired thugs... all this in non-revolutionary times. Imagine how hard they will want to attack us when the population is actually challenging the system and fighting to replace it.
They will probably always out gun us, but if we organize and show that militant working class action can force the bosses to grant justice, then we will have the numbers and it will be hard for the rich to keep the majority in line after that.
The end goal isn't a new hierarchy, remember?
I do remember. That's exactly why I'm an anarchist.
As did Stalin. In both cases, the result was not the end of oppression, but a regime change.
Exactly - albeit one that favoured workers and peasants slightly more than any other state has. But it's still another reason why I'm a libertarian socialist and in opposition to the USSR.
Once again I call you attention to the Amish and the Federation of Egalitarian Communities.
Oh? You're coming out as a primitivist now?
and we're to expect different results than every other time such promises were made?
Because, after all, as an anarchist, it's my life goal to subvert the revolution and seize state power. :rolleyes:
The creation of an alternative system can never be achieved on the battlefield, but only in the hearts and minds of men, and in the peaceful cooperation of men as equals.
You think the capitalists are going to co-operate when a bunch of government suits say "fuck you, give us your private property"?
Again, compare the FEC and the Amish to the CCCP, Cambodia, and China.
It takes a real douche to not only ignore my political beliefs, but to claim the state capitalist states of the past as socialist and had everything according to plan.
That "vague war" is class struggle.
Which began 400 years ago? Try at least 6000.
Capital and labour have been opposed to each other since the capitalist mode of production began.And the ruling and the ruled were opposed long before the rise of capitalism
And what are you going to do? Elect a worker to office who will then become bourgeois? Try to strip away private property rights I've never advocated the abolition of all private property, though many marxists have, and similar calls for the abolition of private property can be found even in Manifesto.
and meet armed opposition from the imperialist states? Become state capitalist if you prevail?
I'm not the one calling for needless warfare
Reform won't work. Deal with it.Who said I advocated reform as a final end? I have repeatedly called for the creation of an alternative system with reform to the current system as only a temporary measure while such societies are established as a foundation for the spread of a greater socio-communist consciousness/system. Reform is the anesthesia and the blood transfusions and other life-support systems that keep the patient alive during the operation. Temporary measures while the long-term solution is implemented.
For one thing, revolution doesn't equal violent action necessarily.
Either they mean a literal revolutionary armed conflict, and therefore bloodshed and death, or they mean some vague 'revolutionary' change in the system, and I am by definition a revolutionary (raising again the question of why I have been purged).
Violence is a tool, and war is to be waged only when there is no other possible solution- that s, when the peaceable formation of alternative society is impossible. Violence and death- the bloody revolution this board and its (primarily Marxist) members advocate should never be something desired. Only a truly depraved individual advocates such things as a desirable end.
If workers occupy a workplace or if students nonviolently occupy an administration building, we are met with violence.
Then leave that workplace and form your own parallel society as the Amish and the FEC.
In short, violence, I think, will unfortunately play a part.
Yet to wish for it? How are we to trust anyone who happily and readily calls for bloodshed as a goal?
Exactly - albeit one that favoured workers and peasants slightly more than any other state has. But it's still another reason why I'm a libertarian socialist and in opposition to the USSR.
Really? You mean to tell the victims of the holodomor and mass murders that Stalin favoured them more than any other system that has ever been put in place? and you expect to be taken seriously?
Oh? You're coming out as a primitivist now?
What are you babbling about? They provide examples on non-violent creation of an alternative society. Are you implying that a socio-communist society is incapable of technological advancement and can only acquire any technology inherets from the capitalist system before it?
Because, after all, as an anarchist, it's my life goal to subvert the revolution and seize state power. :rolleyes:
Stalin and the rest made similar promises. You advocate the same bloodshed as they and you expect to be trusted as being any different?
You think the capitalists are going to co-operate when a bunch of government suits say "fuck you, give us your private property"?
Who said anything about the existing State demanding that the capitlists surrnder their factories? When have I advocated nationalization by the existing State? BTW, such has been done before, so you might want to stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself
...to claim the state capitalist states of the past as socialist and had everything according to plan.
Can you please learn how to form a sentence?
Which began 400 years ago? Try at least 6000.
They were talking about class conflict under capitalism specifically.
And the ruling and the ruled were opposed long before the rise of capitalism
Yes, but I was talking about capitalism specifically. You don't have capital under feudalism.
I've never advocated the abolition of all private property, though many marxists have, and similar calls for the abolition of private property can be found even in Manifesto.
If you're talking about the Communist Manifesto, then that's by far the most obvious statement ever.
You can't create an equal society whilst private property still exists.
If you're one of those nut-jobs who thinks the term capitalism applies only to a free market, think again or you find yourself having a similar mindset to Mussolini and Hitler who both opposed "capitalism" yet upheld private property.
I'm not the one calling for needless warfare
Neither am I. I'm just attacking pacifism. In fact, class warfare is the last resort for me. I prefer non-violent means before any other. Inevitably, due to the scale of strikes and the threat against the bourgeoisie's private property (thanks to workplace occupations and workers taking them over), police will be called in. And there will be nothing for it. It will be time to fight to end the capitalist system.
Who said I advocated reform as a final end? I have repeatedly called for the creation of an alternative system with reform to the current system as only a temporary measure while such societies are established as a foundation for the spread of a greater socio-communist consciousness/system. Reform is the anesthesia and the blood transfusions and other life-support systems that keep the patient alive during the operation. Temporary measures while the long-term solution is implemented.
Then what is the operation you plan to perform? You said you weren't in favour of abolishing private property, so I can't imagine what would be next.
Blake's Baby
14th June 2010, 10:40
Not many call for bloodshed as a goal. Anyone who glorifies the idea of shooting bankers is I think is at the very least missing the point. That is not a revolution. JH did not call for violence, he said that 'unfortunately' violence will play a part. Because there is no possibility that capitalism and those who currently hold military and legal power over us will 'go gently into that good night'.
Do you know anything about the revolutions of the early 20th century? The most deadly and destructive war in human history was being waged and the revolutionary actions of the Russian and German proletariats ended it, saving millions of lives. Their revolutions stopped war. What happened afterwards was not the fault of the Russian and German workers - Russia invaded by 14 different countries and support for the White armies from the capitalist powers; the German proletariat defeated by its own Social Democratic Party re-aming the defeated Wehrmacht, backed by France and Britain. Did you know that the French wanted to take all the German Army's machine guns, but when the High Command protested that the Berlin Workers were revolting, the French agreed to let them keep 30,000 machine guns to use on their own working class? That's the enlightened democratic republican government of France that was supported by the French social-democrats, by the way.
Social-democratic reformism is a blood-soaked travesty of the workers movement. It has no honour and no history beyond playing loyal opposition to the conservative faction of the bourgeoisie. Reformism is dead and has been since the social patriots of the Second Internation betrayed the working class by lining up as recruiting sergeants in WWI.
--------------------
The class struggle between workers and capitalists began 400 years ago, ish. That's what I was referring to. I hadn't mentioned any previous class struggles but they happened and they were violent. The war, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, began about 400 years ago.
You don't have capital under feudalism.
Before the rise of capitalism (as a specific form or a term), the Lords still took the fruits of the peasent's labour, often trading or selling it at the markets, be the system mercantile or some other form. Were there not markets in ancient Rome? Have not the lords and kings, lords, dominos, etc always traded (and what is 'to sell', but to trade for a common currency) the grain and the goods produced by the lower castes to gain those goods they desired for themselves?
In the end, the situation was/is ultimately the same.
You can't create an equal society whilst private property still exists.
Really? How does the recognition that you are entitled to have your own clothes and me my own make it impossible for us to be equal in our possession of clothes, even of the same sort, fitted for our own size?
Neither am I. I'm just attacking pacifism.
Really? Please show us the pacifists in this thread you're attacking.
In fact, class warfare is the last resort for me.
Class warfare is the problem, not a proposed solution. Remember, Proletariat v Bourgeoisie, Laobur versus the Capitlists, etc? Can't keep up on your own rhetoric?
You said you weren't in favour of abolishing private property,
To abolish it entirely leads to the Tragedy of the Commons, which can lead to future shortages as well as abuse by the few that harms the many. The member societies of the FEC, while imperfect, seem to do quite well.
Really? You mean to tell the victims of the holodomor and mass murders that Stalin favoured them more than any other system that has ever been put in place? and you expect to be taken seriously?
This is a strawman. Whilst I'm far from defending Stalin and his cronies, it is important that you know who he killed. The Gulag system killed political enemies of his, i.e., those members of the party that were in opposition to him, it killed other dissidents and many many white army officers and soldiers. The Soviet Union never killed workers for the sake of killing workers, it was to keep it's rulers in power.
It's sad to say, but the USSR was one of the most worker-friendly states in terms of it's welfare programs and free utilities and all that.
What are you babbling about? They provide examples on non-violent creation of an alternative society. Are you implying that a socio-communist society is incapable of technological advancement and can only acquire any technology inherets from the capitalist system before it?
The Amish are not known for their superior technological advances.
Stalin and the rest made similar promises. You advocate the same bloodshed as they and you expect to be trusted as being any different?
There's a difference. I don't seek to gain power post-revolution - the Bolsheviks did. I don't want to emancipate the working class; I want the working class to emancipate itself.
My motto is Autogestion and Autonomy; self-management and self-government.
Who said anything about the existing State demanding that the capitlists surrnder their factories? When have I advocated nationalization by the existing State? BTW, such has been done before, so you might want to stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself
Are you serious? You have actual proof of a state seizing all private property from capitalists? Without hostilities?
I don't actually see how you plan to create an egalitarian society...
Can you please learn how to form a sentence?
Could you learn how to spell "capitalists surrender"?
...capitlists surrnder...
Not many call for bloodshed as a goal.
Really?
Is the entire board not one of revolutionary communsts, who advocate revolution as a preferred means? Indeed, those of us who call for first seeking and tryng all peacable alternatives are 'restricted' so you can easil avoid needing to address the voice of reason.
Anyone who glorifies the idea of shooting bankers is I think is at the very least missing the point. That is not a revolution. JH did not call for violence, he said that 'unfortunately' violence will play a part. Because there is no possibility that capitalism and those who currently hold military and legal power over us will 'go gently into that good night'.
Do you know anything about the revolutions of the early 20th century? The most deadly and destructive war in human history was being waged and the revolutionary actions of the Russian and German proletariats ended it, saving millions of lives. Their revolutions stopped war.
And set the stage for the emergence of tyrannies that slaughtered and starved millions. Hardly an example anyone in their right mind would wish to emulate. War tends to breed regime changes, rather than any realend to the existence of oppressive regimes. Just look at the USA< where the Liberals who rid themselves of the king became the Bourgeoisie, readily oppressing women, Blacks, and the poor and just as willing to concoct ideologies justifying their actions.
Social-democratic reformism is a blood-soaked travesty of the workers movement
Need I once again point at the oceans of blood wrought by Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot and compare them to the soil beneath the FEC and the Amish (the Amish admittedly being imperfect in several regards, but still nowhere near the same league as the revolution marxo-communists)
The class struggle between workers and capitalists began 400 years ago, ish. That's what I was referring to. I hadn't mentioned any previous class struggles but they happened and they were violent. The war, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, began about 400 years ago.
No, the conflict, between ruler and ruled, oppressor and oppressed- regardless of the specific names they've adopted/been given at different points- began before human memory, has raged continuously in all but a few isolated patches of peace, and will continue until mans Heart and Mind changes. Until then, no lasting or meaningful changes can be made to his systems.
The Amish are not known for their superior technological advances.
And? You keep implying that it's due to the fact that they are peaceable socico-communists (not ideologically, but in much of their soci-economic reality). The implication is that communism = backwardness and technological advancement is impossible, the only technology available being that inherited from the capitalist era.
Of course, this is a slap in the face of communists, since you're basically saying they're too stupid to make any technological advancements without the Capitalists' guiding hand, and you totally ignore the religious aspect of the Amish society that affects their refusal to adopt much of modern technology, but if you wish to continue to make a fool of yourself, go right ahead.
I don't actually see how you plan to create an egalitarian society...
I've given you examples of societies that do quite well.
Perhaps you should define 'egalitarian', since you seem to equate it with the mythical Utopian '100% classless' society in which persons are 100% equal (possessing all and only the exact same things, even the men and the women?) despite differences in individual nature, needs, and desire.
Before the rise of capitalism (as a specific form or a term), the Lords still took the fruits of the peasent's labour, often trading or selling it at the markets, be the system mercantile or some other form. Were there not markets in ancient Rome? Have not the lords and kings, lords, dominos, etc always traded (and what is 'to sell', but to trade for a common currency) the grain and the goods produced by the lower castes to gain those goods they desired for themselves?
In the end, the situation was/is ultimately the same.
That is a different mode of production. I was talking about the feudal mode of production. The emerging capitalist mode of production under feudalism stopped the system from being strictly feudal. It was a sort of transitional stage, albeit less dramatic and obvious than the dictatorship of the proletariat that many Marxists propose.
Really? How does the recognition that you are entitled to have your own clothes and me my own make it impossible for us to be equal in our possession of clothes, even of the same sort, fitted for our own size?
You overlook income disparity, wealth disparity and the disparity in living conditions.
Your idea of an egalitarian society under capitalism will go down the drain as soon as you realise the capitalists will pay you different wages and sell things at unaffordable prices.
Really? Please show us the pacifists in this thread you're attacking.
You.
See thread title.
Class warfare is the problem, not a proposed solution. Remember, Proletariat v Bourgeoisie, Laobur versus the Capitlists, etc? Can't keep up on your own rhetoric?
They are essentially the same, but I found the latter to be more fitting and aesthetically appealing than the former.
To abolish it entirely leads to the Tragedy of the Commons, which can lead to future shortages as well as abuse by the few that harms the many. The member societies of the FEC, while imperfect, seem to do quite well.
So you're guessing that all the resources will be swallowed up in a big scramble as soon as private property rights go down the shitter? Leading to chaos? Never mind that we anarchists propose a wide co-ordinated system of workers' councils and peoples' assemblies designed to keep things in order and that we value mutual aid as a guiding principle. Never mind all that. Who needs proper arguments when you have strawmen?
I've given you examples of societies that do quite well.
Perhaps you should define 'egalitarian', since you seem to equate it with the mythical Utopian '100% classless' society in which persons are 100% equal (possessing all and only the exact same things, even the men and the women?) despite differences in individual nature, needs, and desire.
In the gift economy anarchists propose, (i.e., moneyless) people would be guided by the principles of mutual aid and sharing. If there is no need for greed, then no-one will be greedy. Greed and need both arise from economic inequality. Economic inequality does not mean "he has more material possessions than I", rather, it is the measure of the disparities between wealth and income. In an anarchist society, there is neither, with the lack of relations to sources of social power (economic and political) therefore eliminating classes. You take what you need, you give as much labour power as you can. Everything you need is provided for you by others, so long as your provide for them. No-one rules over anyone else.
From each according to ability; to each according to need.
(Yes, I know Zanthorus will come and give me a lecture on the context in which it was first quoted, but we find it to be a good principle, anyway)
Blake's Baby
14th June 2010, 11:14
Really?
Is the entire board not one of revolutionary communsts, who advocate revolution as a preferred means? Indeed, those of us who call for first seeking and tryng all peacable alternatives are 'restricted' so you can easil avoid needing to address the voice of reason...
You can't actually engage with people's arguments can you?
You think 'revolution' is about crazed insurrectionist death squads launching coups and terrorising people. I don't. I think it's the majority of people refusing to take the system of death and carnege that's heaped upon us.
Reformism has failed. It failed a hundred years ago.
And set the stage for the emergence of tyrannies that slaughtered and starved millions. Hardly an example anyone in their right mind would wish to emulate. War tends to breed regime changes, rather than any realend to the existence of oppressive regimes. Just look at the USA< where the Liberals who rid themselves of the king became the Bourgeoisie, readily oppressing women, Blacks, and the poor and just as willing to concoct ideologies justifying their actions.
Need I once again point at the oceans of blood wrought by Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot and compare them to the soil beneath the FEC and the Amish (the Amish admittedly being imperfect in several regards, but still nowhere near the same league as the revolution marxo-communists)
Wow, what a revelation - class society is horrible. Guess what? We know that, that's why we're trying to abolish it.
...
No, the conflict, between ruler and ruled, oppressor and oppressed- regardless of the specific names they've adopted/been given at different points- began before human memory, has raged continuously in all but a few isolated patches of peace, and will continue until mans Heart and Mind changes. Until then, no lasting or meaningful changes can be made to his systems.
So, I say that the war between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie has been going on for 400 years, and you say no, the war between oppressed and oppressor has been going on for millennia.
I say this week has been going on since Sunday, you say, no, this century has been going on since 2001.
I say this thread has been going for a couple of days, you say no, the internet was invented in the 1990s.
I say it's time for my breakfast, you say no food was invented a long time ago.
Way to go mate. Contradict someone by talking about something else.
The thing about people changing their mindset is, ideas are a reflection the reality we inhabit. That's why we're not Tolstoyans or Ghandians. We realise that a change in material circumstance is a necessary step in helping people to grow and develop. Hence the necessity of revolution.
Che a chara
14th June 2010, 11:25
Burn the banks. Storm police stations. Civil disobedience.
Peaceful but aggressive acts should be the main focal part of a revolution. There should be no diluting or hiding the facts of what we want to achieve, what our aims are and what the goal is. This will be heavily resisted. Why would the ruling class want to give up it's ill-gotten gains ? why would the capitalist and the elite want to lose their privilege and prestige ? All these will be met with resistance, so it's only natural for there to be acceptance and support for violence in return. The workers must be armed and ready for such an outcome.... with a vanguard as a voice in leading and directing.
Really?
Is the entire board not one of revolutionary communsts, who advocate revolution as a preferred means? Indeed, those of us who call for first seeking and tryng all peacable alternatives are 'restricted' so you can easil avoid needing to address the voice of reason.
It is regrettable that many would be killed or injured in this revolution. But we make this revolution to stop the many capitalist by-products that will arise as a result of the system going on and thriving:
Inequality (that's basically what our whole movement is about; trying to fix it)
Poverty
Worker exploitation
Imperialist war
Crime (most is forced by economic conditions, with the rest being brought on by social pressures that are results of discrimination which are in turn the tactics that capitalists use to divide us and maintain their rule)
Environmental destruction and degradation (through a thirst for profits and the pursuit of capital whilst ignoring environmental and ecological concerns)
And set the stage for the emergence of tyrannies that slaughtered and starved millions. Hardly an example anyone in their right mind would wish to emulate. War tends to breed regime changes, rather than any realend to the existence of oppressive regimes. Just look at the USA< where the Liberals who rid themselves of the king became the Bourgeoisie, readily oppressing women, Blacks, and the poor and just as willing to concoct ideologies justifying their actions.
The revolutions were working-class in nature, but were quickly subverted by the Bolsheviks. No parties that seek to seize state power post-revolution = no problem.
Need I once again point at the oceans of blood wrought by Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot and compare them to the soil beneath the FEC and the Amish (the Amish admittedly being imperfect in several regards, but still nowhere near the same league as the revolution marxo-communists)
See above. It is stupid to claim that the actions of the USSR and PRC are the inevitable consequences of Marxism. They were just the result of the opportunistic power-seizure by their respective vanguards (something I oppose, btw). As for Pol Pot; he was a primmie bastard. To hell with Pol Pot.
No, the conflict, between ruler and ruled, oppressor and oppressed- regardless of the specific names they've adopted/been given at different points- began before human memory, has raged continuously in all but a few isolated patches of peace, and will continue until mans Heart and Mind changes. Until then, no lasting or meaningful changes can be made to his systems.
My god you are a funny character. It's not so simple. Some possess power but have less than others. Some possess no power. Some possess the power to rule over everyone below them. There are classes and they matter; like it or not. Ultimately, it is the lowest class that is the largest in number. And there are higher classes, with the sources of social power becoming ever concentrated and centralised as we go up the hierarchy.
Jimmie Higgins
14th June 2010, 11:42
Violence and death- the bloody revolution this board and its (primarily Marxist) members advocate should never be something desired. Only a truly depraved individual advocates such things as a desirable end.Most of the topics here are on current events, history, and ongoing social movements. Often there are some inexperienced members who like to fantasize about some video-game or action movie scenario, but that is a small group and I don't think I have ever seen any adventurist or insurrectionist comment go unchallenged. Once again you are making a straw-man: conflating revolution and violence.
Then leave that workplace and form your own parallel society as the Amish and the FEC.Love it or leave it - wow so fresh! Did you just find out about cell phones and the Walkman too?
Ok, so how do I follow your suggestion? Will you pay for my debts? Will you give me enough money to make the transition since I never have more than $200 in the bank after I pay rent? Will you give me money to live while you also train this life-long working class urbanite how to farm and provide food on this parallel society?
So do you work in a collective co-op or on a commune somewhere? Tell me all about it. Where did you get the start-up capital, what's the standard of living like? How do you get supplies and materials without any contact with the capitalist system. Because if you are farming or baking bred in a co-op but then also have to rely on the capitalist system for machines and resources and land, then you are still subject to the pressures of capitalism - you have just made yourself a more egalitarian version of a petite-bourgeois business owner, you have done nothing to liberate yourself from the system (small business owners and co-ops and communes have a very high failure rate) not the mention the millions of other workers.
Yet to wish for it? How are we to trust anyone who happily and readily calls for bloodshed as a goal?Again, the goal is a society run democratically in both decision making and the economy by the working class themselves. Bloodshed is not desirable at all because - guess what - when the ruling class attacks us, it won't be Bill Gates blood on the streets it will be protesters and strikers and so on.
If a slave ran away from his master and was hunted down by hired thugs - would you say that any potential bloodshed was the fault of the slave for running away? When the pro-Palestinian protesters were attacked and killed by the IDF commandos - do you agree with the Pentagon that it was the fault of the protesters? When the US drops a bomb on a villiage in Afghanistan or Iraq or back in Vietnam, do you say that the villagers were causing the bloodshed for being in support of the resistance?
Working class people do not need more bloodshed in their lives. Our goal is socialism and full democracy so that we do not have a small group oppressing people (usually through violence of some kind). Unfortunately, we are going to bleed no matter what happens - we can be peaceful and do nothing as the US bombs hundreds of thousands of people oversees; we can let business do what it wants and allow people to die by the thousands from bad workplace conditions, pollution, tainted food or drugs, neglect, homelessness. We can sit by and let capitalist competition between the US and China lead to proxy wars and maybe even the end of human society through a nuclear conflict. We can do nothing as Chemical companies get to pollute water supplies in India leading to the deaths of 40,000 people and ruined lives for generations.
Or we can organize and try and put power into our own collective hands so that our blood is not shed, so that small groups of men don't get to decide that 100,000s of people should be thrown against each-other in wars for the power and continued dominance of those small groups. We don't need to kill the rich as individuals or set up a guillotine, we just need to get rid of the system they use to keep themselves in power over the rest of us.
And? You keep implying that it's due to the fact that they are peaceable socico-communists (not ideologically, but in much of their soci-economic reality). The implication is that communism = backwardness and technological advancement is impossible, the only technology available being that inherited from the capitalist era.
So you think that the Amish are communists?
Never mind that being a communist (Marxist or Anarchist) entails that you seek to create a global stateless, classless society.
You might think the Amish want people to be equal, but they just wanted to be free of the few repressive and alienating elements of modern technology. They were founded as a conservative religious movement, not an egalitarian one.
AOf course, this is a slap in the face of communists, since you're basically saying they're too stupid to make any technological advancements without the Capitalists' guiding hand, and you totally ignore the religious aspect of the Amish society that affects their refusal to adopt much of modern technology, but if you wish to continue to make a fool of yourself, go right ahead.
No. They're just going by the laws of their religion. If the Amish had the means of production in their hands, they would have built something super-cool and useful by now. I never said they should get capitalist help. The problem is that their religion tells them to be simple.
And you talk of the tragedy of the commons. Yet, wikipedia gives us this:
Hardin's work has been criticised on the grounds of historical inaccuracy, and for failing to distinguish between common property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_property) and open access (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access) resources. Subsequent work by Elinor Ostrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom) and others suggest that using Hardin's work to argue for privatization of resources is an "overstatement" of the case.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-3) Nonetheless, Ostrom recognizes that there are real problems, and even limited situations where the tragedy of the common applies to real-world resource management.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-urlOstrom_revisits_the_commons_in_Science-4) While the implications of Hardin's essay are broadly defined, a central point of his essay was that adding offspring to the human population was a freedom, and that in order to prevent the degradation of the earth and its ability to support human existence, humanity needed to cede the freedom to reproduce.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-hardin68-0)
If anything, I think the world's resources are far less safe in the hands of a few greedy billionaires.
Jazzratt
14th June 2010, 11:58
JTB your assumption that the current structure won't do everything possible to defend itself (including violence) is hilarious.
Mahatma Gandhi
14th June 2010, 14:50
It is a revolutionary change in the hearty and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed. Has not violence, war, and bloodshed repeatedly been seen to open the door for those who would take advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship, to weaken the Cause with internal conflict, to turn the People against those who sparked the conflict, and to unify the reactionaries and dis-empowered in their struggle to reestablish the status quo ante?
Why wish for such things and not seek peaceable solutions whenever possible?
Spot on! A revolution achieved through violence will be destroyed by the very same violence. Charismatic leaders exploit the clueless masses on this basis. It has happened times without number, yet most communists seem to fetishize violence....
Mahatma Gandhi
14th June 2010, 15:01
JTB your assumption that the current structure won't do everything possible to defend itself (including violence) is hilarious.
Of course, they will. But if you respond with violence, not only are you going to be outnumbered and outgunned, but you'll also end up terrorizing ordinary workers. Passive resistance, on the other hand, wins friends whilst transforming the enemy's heart.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 15:16
Spot on! A revolution achieved through violence will be destroyed by the very same violence. Charismatic leaders exploit the clueless masses on this basis. It has happened times without number, yet most communists seem to fetishize violence....
So you think that workers are "clueless" and that communists "fetishize violence". I'd love to see you try to justify those claims.
Of course, they will. But if you respond with violence, not only are you going to be outnumbered and outgunned, but you'll also end up terrorizing ordinary workers. Passive resistance, on the other hand, wins friends whilst transforming the enemy's heart.
And how many times has "transforming the enemy's heart" ever worked? How'd that Quit India thing go? You might think yourself winning friends, but true friends defend their loved ones, so those who reject self-defense are incapable of being a friend.
Che a chara
14th June 2010, 15:23
If violence is necessary, it'll be used.
Bakunin's theory of violence on buildings and institutions within the establishment, not the people who administer them, is a start, but it's delusional to think that these wont be defended by the use of violence.
Hopefully some of the security forces who would be expected to defend the status-quo, would either be ousted from their means and control, or be 'converted' or class conscious and sympathetic to the revolution and cause. Even the threat of violence from this maybe enough.....
Demogorgon
14th June 2010, 15:28
As I say whenever this comes up:
All else being equal if there is a violent and non violent way to achieve something and both will be equally effective, the non violent way is always preferable, and anybody who disagrees and thinks violence is a good thing in of itself is a lunatic. However those in power naturally try to hold onto power and will normally use violence to retain it if necessary. At that point your choice is simple: surrender or resist.
Dean
14th June 2010, 15:28
Of course, they will. But if you respond with violence, not only are you going to be outnumbered and outgunned, but you'll also end up terrorizing ordinary workers. Passive resistance, on the other hand, wins friends whilst transforming the enemy's heart.
You shouldn't be touting Gandhi. He rejected non-violence where you were sending yourself into the bayonet of your enemy. He said that those who were non violent in the fact of fatal violence were just as cowardly as those who refused to resist at all.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 15:38
Of course, they will. But if you respond with violence, not only are you going to be outnumbered and outgunned, but you'll also end up terrorizing ordinary workers. .
I think MG makes a good point about outnumbered and outgunned. Back in the day (1917) it might have been a lot easier for a Proletarian crowd to fight off a bunch of Kassacks (not that it WAS all that easy) but now adays a handful of guys could hold off thousands with the right equipment.
I would imagine the terms of Proletarian/Bourgeoise warfare have been changed considerably.
And the point about workers--the ones I know are ALL Red White and Blue. It's going to take some convincing then to fight against the status quo--but that's another story.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 15:50
I think MG makes a good point about outnumbered and outgunned. Back in the day (1917) it might have been a lot easier for a Proletarian crowd to fight off a bunch of Kassacks (not that it WAS all that easy) but now adays a handful of guys could hold off thousands with the right equipment.
That sword cuts both ways. Modern guerrilla warfare (a la Che) is as effective as it is thanks to improvements in small arms weaponry. Plus, experiences in Somalia show that unsupported infantry (considerably more than a "handful of guys") get pinned down and trapped by untrained militia even with all the "right equipment".
And the point about workers--the ones I know are ALL Red White and Blue. It's going to take some convincing then to fight against the status quo--but that's another story.But that doesn't mean we should become pacifists, now does it? By the way, patriotism and communism go together quite well, so I don't sweat the red, white and blue factor all that much.
Mahatma Gandhi
14th June 2010, 16:00
So you think that workers are "clueless" and that communists "fetishize violence". I'd love to see you try to justify those claims.
Not all workers are as intelligent and enlightened as you are; most of them have absolutely no class consciousness at all. They are too busy trying to imitate the bourgeois, competing with fellow workers, watching movies and worshiping celebrities, and so forth. You honestly don't think these 'workers' go to bed after reading a chapter from Das Kapital, do you?
In fact, if you try to tell these workers that they are being exploited by the capitalists, they'll call you a commie bastard. So much for workers' solidarity!
As for communists fetishizing violence, you only have to peek into the lives of glorious leaders like Mao, Stalin, and the rest to get a better idea.
And how many times has "transforming the enemy's heart" ever worked? How'd that Quit India thing go?
At least, it got people from around the world to sympathize with the workers. What more could anyone have done under those circumstances?
You might think yourself winning friends, but true friends defend their loved ones, so those who reject self-defense are incapable of being a friend.
The question is how.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 16:09
Not all workers are as intelligent and enlightened as you are; most of them have absolutely no class consciousness at all. They are too busy trying to imitate the bourgeois, competing with fellow workers, watching movies and worshiping celebrities, and so forth. You honestly don't think these 'workers' go to bed after reading a chapter from Das Kapital, do you?
In fact, if you try to tell these workers that they are being exploited by the capitalists, they'll call you a commie bastard. So much for workers' solidarity!
Firstly, being interested in pop culture does not make one clueless. Secondly, not being a communist does not make one clueless. Try again.
As for communists fetishizing violence, you only have to peek into the lives of glorious leaders like Mao, Stalin, and the rest to get a better idea.
I've more than peeked into their policies, but that doesn't answer my question. How did Mao, for instance, fetishize violence specifically? He used violent means where they were necessary for the liberation of China. Just because he recognized the realities of politics doesn't mean he fetishized anything.
At least, it got people from around the world to sympathize with the workers. What more could anyone have done under those circumstances?
What the workers of India did right after the Quit India campaign: defeat colonialism.
The question is how.
The question is how...to fight back. Which means violence if it is necessary.
REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL
14th June 2010, 16:19
It is a revolutionary change in the hearty and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed. Has not violence, war, and bloodshed repeatedly been seen to open the door for those who would take advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship, to weaken the Cause with internal conflict, to turn the People against those who sparked the conflict, and to unify the reactionaries and dis-empowered in their struggle to reestablish the status quo ante?
Why wish for such things and not seek peaceable solutions whenever possible?
I sense a disturbing lack of materialism in this thread.
Dr Mindbender
14th June 2010, 16:36
obvious troll is obvious.
Mahatma Gandhi
14th June 2010, 17:35
Firstly, being interested in pop culture does not make one clueless. Secondly, not being a communist does not make one clueless. Try again.
Okay, workers are wonderful beings. That's why they never vote for socialists and always favor reactionary governments, wars, right-wing parties, racism, sexism, homophobia, violence and draconian laws against immigrants etc. etc. Makes a lot of sense.:rolleyes:
I've more than peeked into their policies, but that doesn't answer my question. How did Mao, for instance, fetishize violence specifically? He used violent means where they were necessary for the liberation of China. Just because he recognized the realities of politics doesn't mean he fetishized anything.
Ask yourself this question: who can influence the masses---a gentle person with practical ideas or an aggressive guy with a chip on his shoulder and a gun in his hands?
What the workers of India did right after the Quit India campaign: defeat colonialism.
People can only try. You win some, you lose some. That's life.
The question is how...to fight back. Which means violence if it is necessary.
That's a schoolboy fantasy, isn't it? Let's be realistic. Violence against a superior enemy is suicide.
Jimmie Higgins
14th June 2010, 17:48
Not all workers are as intelligent and enlightened as you are;"intelligence" or "enlightenment" have nothing to do with it. Most people at all times go along with the ruling order of the day - Feudal, Capitalist, Stalinist or whatnot. Most people are just trying to live their lives and don't want extra conflict or problems and so if you can it's easy enough to go along to get along.
most of them have absolutely no class consciousness at all. They are too busy trying to imitate the bourgeois, competing with fellow workers, watching movies and worshiping celebrities, and so forth. You honestly don't think these 'workers' go to bed after reading a chapter from Das Kapital, do you? No, do you think that? I think it's pretty clear that no one here is arguing that we are currently living through a revolution - if all workers were class conscious all at the same time, we probably would be. So that's why great effort is put into making society that seems classless: "What's good for business is good for Americans" or "Everyone in America is 'middle class'" or "Americans believe in rugged individualism" or "If you don't like your job you can work somewhere else or start a business" or "In America, you can grow up to be anything you want if you work hard".
I could go on. These sound familiar, right? People didn't spontaneously come up with this, we are sold this myth from early on. For us, these ideas are the same as it was for people in Feudal times believing that the King was appointed by God or that your caste was naturally your lot in life and pre-determined by birth.
In fact, if you try to tell these workers that they are being exploited by the capitalists, they'll call you a commie bastard. So much for workers' solidarity!Well if you use jargon that doesn't make sense to people, it's easy to be dismissed. But if you have co-workers, what are the likely subjects that come up about work in conversation? In my experience, people gripe a lot; talk about stupid management decisions; talk about how broke they are or how they need more hours; talk about how they don't have enough back-up or time to do their job properly, talk about how they know how to do things better and more efficiently, but the manager rejects their ideas... get the point? If you've ever had any wage-job, then you should know exactly what I'm talking about.
scarletghoul
14th June 2010, 18:12
You shouldn't be touting Gandhi. He rejected non-violence where you were sending yourself into the bayonet of your enemy. He said that those who were non violent in the fact of fatal violence were just as cowardly as those who refused to resist at all.
Really ? I know he said, about the holocaust, that "the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
He also hated black people, and said they were like animals. He loved the caste system too. He had many many other highly reactionary views. This, and his annoying liberal following, are why I dislike him.
Fuck Gandhi, he was scum.
scarletghoul
14th June 2010, 18:15
And yeah we would all freakin love it if humanity could be liberated peacefully. But that will never happen. It has been tried so many times, and failed every time. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution.
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. We may not like it, but that's the way it is and we have to deal with that.
Mahatma Gandhi
14th June 2010, 18:25
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. We may not like it, but that's the way it is and we have to deal with that.
Quoting Mao doesn't help a bit. Where's Mao now and his dream of revolution? Buried in the dust! More importantly, who do you think inspires civilized and educated people of this world, the likes of Mao/Stalin or the likes of Gandhi and MLK? The world doesn't need aggressive wolves but gentle sheep.
#FF0000
14th June 2010, 19:10
No matter what you do it's almost guaranteed that there'll be some violence at least, or at least the threat of it, in the transition from capitalism to socialism. It's naive to believe that the bourgeoisie won't use violence to protect their status and privilege, and stupid to think that it would be wrong to use violence in self-defense where necessary.
Ultimately, revolution is an act of self-defense, so there's nothing at all wrong with the necessary revolutionary violence.
Lyev
14th June 2010, 19:15
Why bloodshed and violence?This is precisely what we need to ask the bourgeoisie every single day.
Jimmie Higgins
14th June 2010, 19:28
The world doesn't need aggressive wolves but gentle sheep....for the slaughter? It seems like pacifists while claiming to be against bloodshed are always actually calling for bloodshed... only its our blood.
Why is it so important for you to tell us to be nonviolent? I've been a revolutionary for about a decade and in that time I have not been in a fight, not shot anyone, not purged anyone, not broken a window, not thrown a rock at anyone, not burned property...
In that same time, a cop shot Oscar Grant in my neighborhood, the US has bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and probably other places I can't remember. I have witnessed police striking dozens of unarmed people. I have seen sheriffs forcibly evicting people in my neighborhood. I have seen anti-immigrant racists attack people.
It seems like you are telling the wrong people to be peaceful.
Quoting Mao doesn't help a bit. Where's Mao now and his dream of revolution? Buried in the dust! More importantly, who do you think inspires civilized and educated people of this world, the likes of Mao/Stalin or the likes of Gandhi and MLK? Civilized and educated? Wow, that's elitist.
IMO neither violence or nonviolence should be seen as a principle in of itself. Pacifists and Insurrectionists are two sides of the same coin - mistaking a tactic for politics.
I oppose a Che or militia style "revolution" not because of some attachment to an abstract moral judgment, but because 1) it won't help working class people to take power into their own hands and learn collectively how to run society 2)The ruling class will always out gun us - hell the have nukes when it comes down to it.
On the other hand if forcibly holding a picket-line and keeping a scab out of a work-site meant wining or loosing a strike (and all the jobs of all the strikers) then I would not hesitate to push back when the scabs push forward towards the line. Allowing them through (which is what all US unions do for fear of injunction) has reduced most strikes to an ineffective symbolic protest.
Os Cangaceiros
14th June 2010, 19:28
The collapse of capitalism will be violent, but violence will not be the centerpiece of it, or the key driving force of change. I've quoted this once before on this site:
Power does not come from the barrel of a gun any more than it comes from a ballot box. No revolution is peaceful, but the military dimension is not the central one. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armories, but whether they unleash what they are: commodified beings who no longer can and no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes the logic of capitalism. Barricades and machine guns flow from this "weapon".
Zanthorus
14th June 2010, 19:55
More importantly, who do you think inspires civilized and educated people of this world, the likes of Mao/Stalin or the likes of Gandhi and MLK?
Gandhi and MLk of course, because those "civilised and educate people" have been indoctrinated into ignoring Baghat Singh, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.
Ele'ill
14th June 2010, 20:05
It is a revolutionary change in the hearty and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed. Has not violence, war, and bloodshed repeatedly been seen to open the door for those who would take advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship, to weaken the Cause with internal conflict, to turn the People against those who sparked the conflict, and to unify the reactionaries and dis-empowered in their struggle to reestablish the status quo ante?
Why wish for such things and not seek peaceable solutions whenever possible?
Are any of your posts not offensively over-dramatic?
Jazzratt
14th June 2010, 21:00
That's a schoolboy fantasy, isn't it? Let's be realistic. Violence against a superior enemy is suicide.
And letting an enemy kill you on some inane principle is what?
Burn the banks. Storm police stations. Civil disobedience.
Peaceful but aggressive acts should be the main focal part of a revolution.
How are those peaceful acts?
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 21:15
How are those peaceful acts?
This is all hypothetical. Nobody would ever do such things. :)
You[/I] think 'revolution' is about crazed insurrectionist death squads launching coups and terrorising people. I don't.
Then you know nothing of hstory. Begn with the French Revolution, then read about the Russian revoluton and its aftermath, the KMT v the Communists and what happened afterward, the deaths surrounding the Cuban revolution...
Reformism has failed. It failed a hundred years ago.
Is not the protected proletariat class (the 'middle class' that enjoys protective reforms such as minimum wages, child labour and workplace safety laws, etc) in the West much better off than the proletriat in regions where such reforms have not been put in place (China, VietNam, etc)? Is not the condition of the working class in England today greatly improved over its condition in 1844?
Reform has done much to alleviate the suffering of the working class while the stage is set for the creation, peaceably whenever possible, of alternative societies and parallel systes, such as the FEC. Reform, understood appropriately as a necessary step for immediate improvement pending the establishment of an alternative system, was a great success, even with the betrayal of the unions and more recent problems caused by people forgetting the end goal and society backsliding towards crony capitalism.
The thing about people changing their mindset is, ideas are a reflection the reality we inhabit
Except so many of you ignore the reality that what you advocate has led, every single time, to mass death and the suffering of the poor.
We realise that a change in material circumstance is a necessary step in helping people to grow and develop. Hence the necessity of revolution.
-hence the need for reform to alleviate the material needs of the proletariat pending their enlightenment. Why do you think great communist thinkers were almost always educated men and rarely, if ever, originated from, the very poorest classes? A man who spends every moment of his life struggling to eat does not have the time or strength to dedicate himself to ideology, philosophy, theory, or revolution.
This is all hypothetical. Nobody would ever do such things. :)
So it's all empty and meaningless rhetoric?
Os Cangaceiros
14th June 2010, 21:24
This is all hypothetical. Nobody would ever do such things. :)
No one has ever burned a bank or stormed a police station?
Glenn Beck
14th June 2010, 21:26
It is a revolutionary change in the heart and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed. Has not violence, war, and bloodshed repeatedly been seen to open the door for those who would take advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship, to weaken the Cause with internal conflict, to turn the People against those who sparked the conflict, and to unify the reactionaries and dis-empowered in their struggle to reestablish the status quo ante?
Why wish for such things and not seek peaceable solutions whenever possible?
Some words from the man you and your ilk would write off as "butcher":
Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote... the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.
However...
When forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law, peace is considered already broken.
And...
Is it possible or not, given the present conditions in our continent, to achieve it (socialist power, that is) by peaceful means? We emphatically answer that, in the great majority of cases, this is not possible. The most that could be achieved would be the formal takeover of the bourgeois superstructure of power and the transition to socialism of that government which, under the established bourgeois legal system, having achieved formal power will still have to wage a very violent struggle against all who attempt, in one way or another, to check its progress toward new social structures.
The key phrase within your question that undermines it is "whenever possible". Socialists have pursued systemic change through peaceful means essentially every single time the opportunity has presented itself. That strategy has pretty much a 100% failure rate except for the times that progressive forces have proceeded to respond in kind when repressed with force. Whether they have or they haven't, they tend to get massacred.
Every radical movement faces constant provocations from the very beginning and the moment circumstance drives them to respond rather than turn cheek people like you will always be there to bleat your litany of condemnations and "I told you sos".
And of course never mind the question of who has the power to define which actions are peaceful and which are not . . .
conflating revolution and violence.
Revolutionary war, as all war, is violent by its very nature.
Ok, so how do I follow your suggestion? Will you pay for my debts? Will you give me enough money to make the transition since I never have more than $200 in the bank after I pay rent?
Against I draw your attention to the FEC.
Will you give me money to live while you also train this life-long working class urbanite how to farm and provide food on this parallel society?
Again, I draw your attention to the FEC, as well as a large number of smaller, less organize communes around the nation.
Again, the goal is a society run democratically in both decision making and the economy by the working class themselves.
Really? I thought it was the elimination of the class system? You can't eliminate social classes yet have a 'working class', distinct form any other class, doing anything. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
Bloodshed is not desirable at all because - guess what - when the ruling class attacks us, it won't be Bill Gates blood on the streets it will be protesters and strikers and so on.
Then why the calls for violence?There is a reason the revolutionaries/bloodthirsty have been disowned by more reasonable persons. This is the largest schism in leftist thought (and mirrored on the right): the maniacal versus the reasonable.
Working class people do not need more bloodshed in their lives.
Hence the condemnation of the calls for death and bloodshed by the revolutionary/maniacal/bloodthirsty who wish for exactly that instead of viewing violence as a matter of absolute last resort.
The problem is that their religion tells them to be simple.
wow, you repeated what I told you
you're a genius :rolleyes:
mikelepore
14th June 2010, 21:29
It is a revolutionary change in the heart and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed. Has not violence, war, and bloodshed repeatedly been seen to open the door for those who would take advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship, to weaken the Cause with internal conflict, to turn the People against those who sparked the conflict, and to unify the reactionaries and dis-empowered in their struggle to reestablish the status quo ante?
Why wish for such things and not seek peaceable solutions whenever possible?
In the most industrialized countries, if violent methods of revolution were attempted, people wouldn't even get to that point of having a revolution and then finding that someone takes advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship. The revolution would be prevented completely as the heavily-armed government massacres millions of working class people. A strategy to change society that includes violence is simply not an option at all. Use of the political process is the only option that isn't mass suicide.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 21:30
No one has ever burned a bank or stormed a police station?
Not in the USA. People ROB banks--for the money, but not for any political purposes--hasn't happened for a long while, maybe since Patty Hurst.
Maybe it's me, but I think there needs to be a "center" to the Radical Left. It's just all over the place. the Tea Baggers are all all Tea Baggers for different reasons, taxes, abortion, ant-gay rights, whatever, but they seem to live with each other's quirks and say: "hey, I'm pro abortion, but I'll let that slide if I can get a Flat Tax." They have a sort of center.
I just don't see that in the Radical Left.
You know--RevLeft could be that center.
So it's all empty and meaningless rhetoric? It seems so.
As I say whenever this comes up:
All else being equal if there is a violent and non violent way to achieve something and both will be equally effective, the non violent way is always preferable
And that is the difference between the 'reformists' you condemn and the revolutionaries who attack all who are reluctant to see bloodshed. Of course, you know which side has called for and still calls for purges and the elimination of all who criticize.
Os Cangaceiros
14th June 2010, 21:32
Not in the USA. People ROB banks--for the money, but not for any political purposes--hasn't happened for a long while, maybe since Patty Hurst.
I wasn't aware that we were referring exclusively to the U.S. in this discussion.
Violence against a superior enemy is suicide.
Define 'superior'. Technologically? Numerically? Tactically? Strategically?
Recall that to win, a conventional force must eliminate its enemy and its ability to fight. To win, a guerrilla force need only continue to exist and make its existence felt. That's why the USA can never defeat the insurgency. Victory for the US means killing every insurgent or getting them to lay down their arms. So long as the insurgency exists and makes its presence known, it is winning, as the conventional army is likely to lose support at home. That's how the NVZ and VC beat America- by existing and breaking the American people's will to keep up the conflict.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 21:38
Other posters have already skewered your rhetoric enough, but I might as well add my opinion as well.
Okay, workers are wonderful beings. That's why they never vote for socialists and always favor reactionary governments, wars, right-wing parties, racism, sexism, homophobia, violence and draconian laws against immigrants etc. etc. Makes a lot of sense.:rolleyes:
Your lack of understanding for the workers is noted. Workers have anti-socialist propaganda drilled into their heads before they can read or write. But you think this some inborn characteristic of working-class people instead of a political condition that can be changed.
Workers, by and large, are wonderful people. Try to get to know some.
Ask yourself this question: who can influence the masses---a gentle person with practical ideas or an aggressive guy with a chip on his shoulder and a gun in his hands?
The vast majority of communists don't have guns in their hands, and they have very practical ideas. That's why communists influence their fellow workers towards progress while pacifists only accomplish things when the ruling class co-opts their entire program to their benefit.
People can only try. You win some, you lose some. That's life.
No, the non-violent campaign failed. The workers of India forced the colonialists out through the threat of country-wide violence. You tell me what works better.
That's a schoolboy fantasy, isn't it? Let's be realistic. Violence against a superior enemy is suicide.
Obviously you were never a very good schoolboy, because if you ever read history you'd know that "superior enemies" have been defeated time and again. A cursory look at military history will yield this conclusion. Of all the fields of human activity, armed conflict is hardly among the most predictable, and quite the opposite. Even still, I defy you to cite an example of leftists committing suicide through self-defense.
And yeah we would all freakin love it if humanity could be liberated peacefully. But that will never happen. It has been tried so many times, and failed every time. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution.
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. We may not like it, but that's the way it is and we have to deal with that.
every time your violent revolution has been tried
-well, go to the history session of your local library
Quoting Mao doesn't help a bit. Where's Mao now and his dream of revolution? Buried in the dust! More importantly, who do you think inspires civilized and educated people of this world, the likes of Mao/Stalin or the likes of Gandhi and MLK? The world doesn't need aggressive wolves but gentle sheep.
fuck mlkj. He didn't beleive in equality, but in inversing, not abolishing, the system of oppression and inequality
Os Cangaceiros
14th June 2010, 21:41
Use of the political process is the only option that isn't mass suicide.
What on earth makes you think that the ruling class will accept their defeat through their own invention: the political process?
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 21:42
I wasn't aware that we were referring exclusively to the U.S. in this discussion.
Sorry, they don't rob banks for money anywhere else around the world? Maybe it's me--but for all the rhetoric about a "new" Communism, something not USSRish or Maoist, but new and clean and egalitarian, I just see the usual suspects, union/gay hating Maoists in Nepal, "drug lord" Communism in Bolivia, Peru and Columbia; Abicrombie Anarchism in Greece.
How does all the rhetoric translate into real life?
.hell the have nukes when it comes down to it.
They're to nuke us when are among them?
In the most industrialized countries, if violent methods of revolution were attempted, people wouldn't even get to that point of having a revolution and then finding that someone takes advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship. The revolution would be prevented completely as the heavily-armed government massacres millions of working class people. A strategy to change society that includes violence is simply not an option at all. Use of the political process is the only option that isn't mass suicide.
you sound like a reformist
restrict the traitor! purge him!
Glenn Beck
14th June 2010, 21:45
Is not the protected proletariat class (the 'middle class' that enjoys protective reforms such as minimum wages, child labour and workplace safety laws, etc) in the West much better off than the proletriat in regions where such reforms have not been put in place (China, VietNam, etc)? Is not the condition of the working class in England today greatly improved over its condition in 1844?
Reform has done much to alleviate the suffering of the working class while the stage is set for the creation, peaceably whenever possible, of alternative societies and parallel systes, such as the FEC. Reform, understood appropriately as a necessary step for immediate improvement pending the establishment of an alternative system, was a great success, even with the betrayal of the unions and more recent problems caused by people forgetting the end goal and society backsliding towards crony capitalism.
You sanctify the oppression of the the overwhelming majority of the world on the basis that a few have been saved by the dominant position of their nations over others. You seem to utterly absolve these very "democratic" countries you praise of any involvement in the immiseration of others. You ascribe their poverty to a lack of reform, ignoring the brutality through which your benign "democratic" capitalism has sought to suppress any attempt at analogous reforms in nations lacking them.
If you acknowledge these faults at all then you no doubt ascribe them to this construct of yours of "crony capitalism", just as you do all the other faults of the western imperialist nations that you cannot succeed in ignoring. Tell me: what is "crony capitalism" and where did it come from? Why is it that the governments of the "democratic" capitalist countries favor the capitalist interests that dominate their national economies over the interests of their broader populations?
What implications do you think this has for the prospects of your gradual and peaceful implementation of "something like socialism"? Doesn't it tell you something about the nature of capitalism itself that reforms can be won and lost in the brief span of decades, and seem to be far more contingent on historical and political circumstance than on the desire for them?
manic expression
14th June 2010, 21:48
every time your violent revolution has been tried
-well, go to the history session of your local library
...And get books on the revolutions of Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and a few others.
...Not to mention books on the non-socialist revolutions of France, South Africa, South America, the US, Mexico, Algeria, Turkey and just about every other country that's ever had a change of government.
Os Cangaceiros
14th June 2010, 21:49
Sorry, they don't rob banks for money anywhere else around the world?
Having a conversation with you is really confusing.
You said that burning banks, storming police stations et al is just rhetoric. I asked if no one burned banks or stormed police stations. You said "not in the USA". Then I said that I wasn't aware that this was exclusively about the USA. And now this random reply about robbing banks.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 21:52
...And get books on the revolutions of Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and a few others. All in the end...dead or dying. Maybe the time to try that sort of thing is over.
Reform--over time, it worked for the Blacks, the gays, women--not to say they all don't have a long way to go. But it works.
...Not to mention books on the non-socialist revolutions of France, South Africa, South America, the US, Mexico, Algeria, Turkey and just about every other country that's ever had a change of government. Hey South America had I think 111 Revolution is the 19th century. each with more of the same. Governments change--attitudes don't.
Exactly. That is exactly hat scarlet needs to do
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 21:54
Having a conversation with you is really confusing.
You said that burning banks, storming police stations et al is just rhetoric. I asked if no one burned banks or stormed police stations. You said "not in the USA". Then I said that I wasn't aware that this was exclusively about the USA. And now this random reply about robbing banks.
People do all sorts of stuff--do you see any "Communist" bank robbing?
Hey South America had I think 111 Revolution is the 19th century. each with more of the same. Governments change--attitudes don't.
It is a revolutionary change in the heart and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed.
;)
Os Cangaceiros
14th June 2010, 21:57
People do all sorts of stuff--do you see any "Communist" bank robbing?
Yes, there have been politically motivated bank robberies, and anarchist/communist bank robbers. In fact I met one once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashanti_Alston)
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 21:59
Now how do you take a Revolution--and change people's heart's with it?
manic expression
14th June 2010, 22:00
All in the end...dead or dying. Maybe the time to try that sort of thing is over.
Outside of Russia, no, you're wrong, and even that was hardly inevitable.
Reform--over time, it worked for the Blacks, the gays, women--not to say they all don't have a long way to go. But it works.
:lol: Yes, the condition of Blacks is a great advertisement for reform. The median net worth for single Black women is $5.00, so you're at least half-right, reform does work...for the capitalists.
Hey South America had I think 111 Revolution is the 19th century. each with more of the same. Governments change--attitudes don't.
South America had one big revolution in the 19th Century that defeated Spanish colonialism and was a great step for its people. I'd like to hear you argue that independence for those nations didn't change a thing. Go ahead, I look forward to it.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 22:00
Yes, there have been politically motivated bank robberies, and anarchist/communist bank robbers. In fact I met one once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashanti_Alston)
Fine. All good.. But small change in the end.
Glenn Beck
14th June 2010, 22:04
Now how do you take a Revolution--and change people's heart's with it?
You don't. It doesn't matter. People don't have "hearts" to change. You're just wrong about "attitudes" shaping history. You should go read some good long books on 19th century South American history or whatever and learn about why things actually happened, or else just keep your mouth shut. You're disrespecting yourself and others by trying to pass off touchy-feely bullshit about the "power of the heart" as some kind of historical insight.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 22:11
Outside of Russia, no, you're wrong, and even that was hardly inevitable.
So here's your list:
...And get books on the revolutions of Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and a few others China is growing more Capitalist every day and rapeing African minerals (and the people that own them in a breathtakingly Capitalist way.) Cuba--cute, but no cigar. They are trying to be sure, but the Capitalism will take over when the Castro dinasty dies. Vietnam is growing more Capitalist day to day. Korea--surely you jest, the third generation of Royal Family is about to take control of the country.
Maybe you see some "Communism" in all of this--frankly I see it as a disapointment.
:lol: Yes, the condition of Blacks is a great advertisement for reform. The median net worth for single Black women is $5.00, so you're at least half-right, reform does work...for the capitalists. It's changing--not fast, but faster than any comming Revolution.
South America had one big revolution in the 19th Century that defeated Spanish colonialism and was a great step for its people. I'd like to hear you argue that independence for those nations didn't change a thing. Go ahead, I look forward to it. Indeed you are right there. All the people of South America are free and equal. Property and money is handed out equally. There's no discrimination because of color or because of class. People live free and equal. I stand corrected.
this is an invasion
14th June 2010, 22:18
Revolution for me has always been about spilling as much blood as possible.
Glenn Beck
14th June 2010, 22:18
Indeed you are right there. All the people of South America are free and equal. Property and money is handed out equally. There's no discrimination because of color or because of class. People live free and equal. I stand corrected.
Fuck, if only the people of the 13 Colonies realized that getting rid of King George wouldn't actually change anything, all those innocent people wouldn't have been forced into exile or hanged or tarred and feathered or anything like that.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 22:20
Revolution for me has always been about spilling as much blood as possible.
All fine. But there has to be an end--a purpose. The radical Left has to decide it wants to do something and unite. Two hundred different flavors of Trotskyism or Maoism or Anarchism--go nowhere.
this is an invasion
14th June 2010, 22:23
All fine. But there has to be an end--a purpose. The radical Left has to decide it wants to do something and unite. Two hundred different flavors of Trotskyism or Maoism or Anarchism--go nowhere.
I think the purpose is to destroy as many things as possible - humans, animals, buildings, whatever.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 22:25
I think the purpose is to destroy as many things as possible - humans, animals, buildings, whatever.
That's a good answer!
this is an invasion
14th June 2010, 22:27
That's a good answer!
Thank you :)
manic expression
14th June 2010, 22:29
China is growing more Capitalist every day and rapeing African minerals (and the people that own them in a breathtakingly Capitalist way.) Cuba--cute, but no cigar. They are trying to be sure, but the Capitalism will take over when the Castro dinasty dies. Vietnam is growing more Capitalist day to day. Korea--surely you jest, the third generation of Royal Family is about to take control of the country.
Actually, China is curtailing the market, and has been for some time:
Beijing has crafted "very direct policies of favoritism for Chinese state industry that are hitting foreign companies"
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_14/b4172032516519_page_3.htm
On Cuba, capitalist apologists like yourself have been predicting the "capitalist takeover" for decades...the worst of Cuba's economic woes are over, and socialism thrives. And Raul is more than qualified to lead Cuba. Got anything else?
On Korea, I don't jest. Whatever your qualms about the government, it is defending socialism from a veritable siege.
Maybe you see some "Communism" in all of this--frankly I see it as a disapointment.
Then we must be doing something right.
It's changing--not fast, but faster than any comming Revolution.
Funny how working-class wages have been going down for almost three decades now, and you're sitting here telling me things are getting better. Things are getting worse, and it's only accelerating.
All this points to two things: the failure of reform and the necessity for revolution.
Indeed you are right there. All the people of South America are free and equal. Property and money is handed out equally. There's no discrimination because of color or because of class. People live free and equal. I stand corrected.
The above is a small argument made by a small mind. South America has a long way to go still, but one of its most important steps in history was the violent overthrow of Spanish colonialism. I said it was a step forward, not the final step, and history agrees with me.
Zanthorus
14th June 2010, 22:54
you sound like a reformist
restrict the traitor! purge him!
Lepore isn't getting restricted because he doesn't put "moderate social-democrat" in his user title and post trollish rants about how everyone on Revleft is an evil stalinist conspiring against him.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 23:04
Actually, China is curtailing the market, and has been for some time:
Beijing has crafted "very direct policies of favoritism for Chinese state industry that are hitting foreign companies"
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_14/b4172032516519_page_3.htm But it seems that China now has first dibs on Afghan minerals NOT THE AMERICANS. And the articles isn't about how China operates in places like Africa. As a matter of fact I don't know what this article has to do with the issue in question.
On Cuba, capitalist apologists like yourself have been predicting the "capitalist takeover" for decades...the worst of Cuba's economic woes are over, and socialism thrives. And Raul is more than qualified to lead Cuba. Got anything else? Raul is indeed qualified, so will his nephew be and maybe a grandson--but what has nepotism to do with Communism?
On Korea, I don't jest. Whatever your qualms about the government, it is defending socialism from a veritable siege. Third generation of the royal family up for the Gracious Leaderhood. Korea is where Communism comes full circle to Monarchy.
Then we must be doing something right. I've been promised better--right here on RevLeft.
Funny how working-class wages have been going down for almost three decades now, and you're sitting here telling me things are getting better. Things are getting worse, and it's only accelerating. It is a long process--while wages have been stagnent at best, social action has be vibrent over the last three decades--Blacks, women, gays are doing well--THEY AREN'T THERE but certainly better off than they were.
All this points to two things: the failure of reform and the necessity for revolution. 'Cept people are reforming and NO ONE is Revolutionizing. Go with the flow, Comrade--because the only bombs being thrown are fir Islamic fundamentalism--not Radical Leftist politics.
The above is a small argument made by a small mind. South America has a long way to go still, but one of its most important steps in history was the violent overthrow of Spanish colonialism. I said it was a step forward, not the final step, and history agrees with me.
Spain is a lot better off than any of it's colonies. Maybe if they kept with the Spanish plan--South America would be more like Spain than what they are today--RevLeft thought for today! :) :D
Ele'ill
14th June 2010, 23:20
In an ideal situation reform will lead to education and we'll have to assume or pretend the population that is held down attempts to rise up. In which case you will have aggressive or- violent by the real definition of the word- actions against the state because the top will never relinquish its power.
If there's a suggestion that the masses can change things slowly and peacefully through simple infiltration of business and government then this is a suggestion I strongly disagree with. There would be no solid support network for those willing to get into business for the goal of radical social change- they would be unable to compete on a large scale without utilizing various methods of exploitation. I also don't think a military or government can be infiltrated and changed. At least not in this case. For obvious reasons.
Che a chara
14th June 2010, 23:27
How are those peaceful acts?
By violence and bloodshed I presumed you meant human on human contact. Either way, I'd still call them peaceful, as they are legitimate forms of protest given the circumstances. Occupations and civil disobedience are peaceful by law anyway.
Bud Struggle
14th June 2010, 23:36
If there's a suggestion that the masses can change things slowly and peacefully through simple infiltration of business and government then this is a suggestion I strongly disagree with. There would be no solid support network for those willing to get into business for the goal of radical social change- they would be unable to compete on a large scale without utilizing various methods of exploitation. I also don't think a military or government can be infiltrated and changed. At least not in this case. For obvious reasons.
I understand. And because I don't think Revolution will ever come about I languish (loudly) in OI. I certainly agree with (most) of Communist's aims, I just don't see how some sort of a "Revolution" will come to anything more than countless other Revolutions have come to--dead ends, Socialistique states (Korea, China, USSR) or one man bravado states, (Castro, Chavez, Korea and anything that was EVER in Eastern Europe after WWII to the Velvet REVOLUTION!)
Communism seems to be all talk.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 23:39
But it seems that China now has first dibs on Afghan minerals NOT THE AMERICANS. And the articles isn't about how China operates in places like Africa. As a matter of fact I don't know what this article has to do with the issue in question.
:lol: It shows that China is cutting back its market functions, which is the entire basis of capitalism, meaning your assumptions need to be rethought with the facts in mind.
Raul is indeed qualified, so will his nephew be and maybe a grandson--but what has nepotism to do with Communism?
Raul is qualified because he was one of the central leaders of the July 26 Movement and has been a key figure in the Cuban state since 1959. But what do facts have to do with your warped view of Cuba?
Third generation of the royal family up for the Gracious Leaderhood. Korea is where Communism comes full circle to Monarchy.
Are they defending socialism or not?
I've been promised better--right here on RevLeft.
Just as long as you're disappointed, we're doing just fine.
It is a long process--while wages have been stagnent at best, social action has be vibrent over the last three decades--Blacks, women, gays are doing well--THEY AREN'T THERE but certainly better off than they were.
Wages have not been "stagnant at best", look at the long-term trends:
For a quarter of a century, from 1980 to 2004, while U.S. gross domestic product per person rose by almost two-thirds, the wages of the average worker fell after adjusting for inflation.
http://monthlyreview.org/0607wkt.htm
Blacks are not "doing well". Women's basic rights are under attack (abortion rights, specifically). Black women, as I pointed out, are doing horribly. Gays are treated as second class citizens in law and in the streets it's about as bad as it's ever been. But as we've seen, you just make things up, so no big deal.
Most importantly, the only progress that's been made has been because of independent working-class struggles against capitalists. So all your "reforms" are nothing more than the fruit of working-class campaigns...this means that the capitalists are simply an obstacle to be rid of.
'Cept people are reforming and NO ONE is Revolutionizing. Go with the flow, Comrade--because the only bombs being thrown are fir Islamic fundamentalism--not Radical Leftist politics.
:lol: Nepal, India, Greece, Venezuela, Bolivia, the Philippines...get real. Almost every important political struggle on the part of the workers is being led or partially-led by revolutionary socialists. The biggest force behind the anti-war movement in the US is...communists.
Spain is a lot better off than any of it's colonies. Maybe if they kept with the Spanish plan--South America would be more like Spain than what they are today--RevLeft thought for today! :) :D
Another small argument formed in a small mind. Spain got rich because it was shamelessly colonizing the Americas (that wealth was duly pissed away by idiotic kings). The "Spanish plan" was the exploitation of Spanish-held America. After Franco (part of your little "Spanish plan", I assume), the "Spanish plan" became economic integration with Europe, which it was geographically part of. I'm wondering, just how would Chile have been admitted to the Schengen Agreement? RevLeft thought for today: you're a clueless shill for colonialism.
Ele'ill
15th June 2010, 00:03
I understand. And because I don't think Revolution will ever come about I languish (loudly) in OI. I certainly agree with (most) of Communist's aims, I just don't see how some sort of a "Revolution" will come to anything more than countless other Revolutions have come to--dead ends, Socialistique states (Korea, China, USSR) or one man bravado states, (Castro, Chavez, Korea and anything that was EVER in Eastern Europe after WWII to the Velvet REVOLUTION!)
Communism seems to be all talk.
We need to start utilizing objects, ideas and situations that are unique to our time. A 2010 revolution better fucking not look anything like a revolution from a hundred years ago.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 00:16
:lol: It shows that China is cutting back its market functions, which is the entire basis of capitalism, meaning your assumptions need to be rethought with the facts in mind. Yea! they are going back to Mao. That's the plan! Hardley--they are retrenching like any good Capitalist would.
Raul is qualified because he was one of the central leaders of the July 26 Movement and has been a key figure in the Cuban state since 1959. But what do facts have to do with your warped view of Cuba? Been there--last time 11 years ago, to be fair. Nice--a bit of 50s history encapuslated in one place. I wish them well, I truly do.
Are they defending socialism or not? As much as they are defending Monarchy. Anyway the answer is no--they are defending a personal godship, anything else is TRULY SECONDARY.
Wages have not been "stagnant at best", look at the long-term trends:
For a quarter of a century, from 1980 to 2004, while U.S. gross domestic product per person rose by almost two-thirds, the wages of the average worker fell after adjusting for inflation.
http://monthlyreview.org/0607wkt.htm A bit.
Blacks are not "doing well". Women's basic rights are under attack (abortion rights, specifically). Black women, as I pointed out, are doing horribly. Gays are treated as second class citizens in law and in the streets it's about as bad as it's ever been. But as we've seen, you just make things up, so no big deal. Reform isn't "Magic." That's what Revolution is all about. It takes time--decades, but things will get better. There ain't no Tooth Fairy, there ain't no Santa Clause, there ain't no Easter Bunny and there ain't no Revolution. Time to grow up.
Most importantly, the only progress that's been made has been because of independent working-class struggles against capitalists. So all your "reforms" are nothing more than the fruit of working-class campaigns...this means that the capitalists are simply an obstacle to be rid of. You misunderstand the role of Labor. It counteracts and adds to the quality of business. It gets higher wages for workers and it makes besuness better and more productive.
:lol: Nepal, India, Greece, Venezuela, Bolivia, the Philippines...get real. Almost every important political struggle on the part of the workers is being led or partially-led by revolutionary socialists. The biggest force behind the anti-war movement in the US is...communists. Then he "Communists" have 59 seats in the Senate. We call those people Democrats around here.
Another small argument formed in a small mind. Spain got rich because it was shamelessly colonizing the Americas (that wealth was duly pissed away by idiotic kings). The "Spanish plan" was the exploitation of Spanish-held America. After Franco (part of your little "Spanish plan", I assume), the "Spanish plan" became economic integration with Europe, which it was geographically part of. I'm wondering, just how would Chile have been admitted to the Schengen Agreement? RevLeft thought for today: you're a clueless shill for colonialism. Spain developed ANARCHISM--how would that have worked out--if the Communist didn't quell that little idea. It takes time to develop ideas--and often revolution is part of those reforms. Often it kills them.
But the revolutions that have gone on--are with a small "r". They increase and add to Reform. Even the Russian and Chinese revolutions have been with a small "r"--they just proved a bump in the overall Reform of mankind.
Nothing wrong with that.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 00:35
Yea! they are going back to Mao. That's the plan! Hardley--they are retrenching like any good Capitalist would.
Good capitalists, in your opinion, favor state-owned industry?
By the way, thanks for conceding the point on Cuba.
As much as they are defending Monarchy. Anyway the answer is no--they are defending a personal godship, anything else is TRULY SECONDARY.
You didn't even try to answer my question. Go back and make an attempt this time.
A bit.
Translation: your reform is making workers lose wages. Your reform is making workers' lives worse. And these reports were before the shit really hit the fan in 2009.
Reform isn't "Magic." That's what Revolution is all about. It takes time--decades, but things will get better. There ain't no Tooth Fairy, there ain't no Santa Clause, there ain't no Easter Bunny and there ain't no Revolution. Time to grow up.
:lol: So the suffering of Blacks, women and LGBT is all because we don't have a magic wand. Right.
Here's the most idiotic part of your position: your claims rest merely on faith. "Things will get better"...this is not based on reality but on a personal faith in capitalism. The statistics indicate that things have been getting consistently worse for three decades, but you say the opposite. So in truth, I'm the one responding to facts, you're the one ignoring them.
You misunderstand the role of Labor. It counteracts and adds to thequality of business. It gets higher wages for workers and it ameks besuness better and more productive.
You misunderstand capitalism. Without labor, business does not exist. Business exploits and deprives labor for its own benefit. Labor, then, must struggle against business to win basic gains. Business fights labor at every step.
Then he "Communists" have 509 seats in the Senate. We call those people Democrats around here.
Obviously you haven't been keeping up to date with the anti-war movement since 2008. The Democrats largely fell in line behind Obama and his "good war(s)". ANSWER is the only significant anti-war force in the country at the moment, and it's more than partially led by communists. And since you jumped the facts like the dishonest capitalist apologist you are, here's the list again: Nepal, India, Greece, Venezuela, Bolivia, the Philippines.
Spain developed ANARCHISM--how would that have worked out--of the Communist didn't quell that little idea. It takes time to develop ideas--and often revolution is part of those reforms.
Ah, so the development of anarchism in northern Spain (Catalonia, actually), which was subsequently swept away by just about every other political tendency in Spain within the span of a few years...was the true "Spanish plan". Cortes and Pizarro were really secret anarchists, huh. Also, you do know that anarchism, as a tendency, didn't come from Spain, right? You really are clueless.
But the revolutions that have gone on--are with a small "r". They increase and add to Reform. Even the Russian and Chinese revolutions have been with a small "r"--they just proved a bump in the overall Reform of mankind.
I don't respond to ramblings, please use logic next time.
Nothing wrong with that.
Aside from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, of course.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 01:06
Good capitalists, in your opinion, favor state-owned industry? Hmmm--is that Socialist or fascist?
By the way, thanks for conceding the point on Cuba. As I said I like the place.
You didn't even try to answer my question. Go back and make an attempt this time. It's isn't Socialist. Now answer my question--is it a Morarchy?
Translation: your reform is making workers lose wages. Your reform is making workers' lives worse. And these reports were before the shit really hit the fan in 2009. Except worker's live pretty decently these days--you don't here them complaining, do you? Any talk of "revolution?" No... For they most part they are content.
:lol: So the suffering of Blacks, women and LGBT is all because we don't have a magic wand. Right. You missed the point there.
Here's the most idiotic part of your position: your claims rest merely on faith. "Things will get better"...this is not based on reality but on a personal faith in capitalism. The statistics indicate that things have been getting consistently worse for three decades, but you say the opposite. So in truth, I'm the one responding to facts, you're the one ignoring them. And you have PERSONAL faith in Communism. And further--you have personal faith that there ever will be a Revolution and THEN, and THEN this happy happy world where everyone is equal and everyhting fair and everything is done by some basic democracy will just HAPPEN.
Comrade if my faith was as large as your--it would move mountains.
You misunderstand capitalism. Without labor, business does not exist. Business exploits and deprives labor for its own benefit. Labor, then, must struggle against business to win basic gains. Business fights labor at every step. Without business Labor wouldn't exist. They need each other. The bust businesses work with labor--and the best labor works with business. That's the best arangement. Everything else is out of skew.
Obviously you haven't been keeping up to date with the anti-war movement since 2008. The Democrats largely fell in line behind Obama and his "good war(s)". ANSWER is the only significant anti-war force in the country at the moment, and it's more than partially led by communists. And since you jumped the facts like the dishonest capitalist apologist you are, here's the list again: Nepal, India, Greece, Venezuela, Bolivia, the Philippines. I gave the litany on those countries: Nepal, anti gay and anti Labor; India, a bunch of thugs killing people on a train; Greece, REALLY? They belong to the IMF now. Venezuela, Chavez is nice and all--but hardly a Communist. He's a Populist, much like Peron. Bolivia and Philippines--just bunches of guys running around in the jungle in their underwear shooting guns.
Ah, so the development of anarchism in northern Spain (Catalonia, actually), which was subsequently swept away by just about every other political tendency in Spain within the span of a few years...was the true "Spanish plan". Cortes and Pizarro were really secret anarchists, huh. Also, you do know that anarchism, as a tendency, didn't come from Spain, right? You really are clueless. There no plan. There's no grand sweep of history. There is nothing--only winners and loosers. And guess who has been the big looser of the 20th Century? Communism. And it doesn't matter where things come from--it matters where things flurish.
Aside from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, of course. Charmed as always! :D
I have nothing against Communuist at all--I just don't blindly believe.
Dermezel
15th June 2010, 01:25
Because of the Bourgeoisie.
Nolan
15th June 2010, 02:13
The OP seems to have a thing for the Amish... So to you, have you ever been around them?
Jimmie Higgins
15th June 2010, 03:48
The OP seems to have a thing for the Amish... So to you, have you ever been around them?Yeah he keeps telling us how these things work so well... but he has yet to tell us what commune he lives on.
What kind of job does the OP have - is it at a co-op? Where's your commune? How does it work? How quickly can the entire world's working class population join him at his co-op?
Because if the OP is criticizing people who want to change the world, but is most likely doing nothing himself, then he is just another apologist for the daily bloodshed and violence of a system that lets millions of people starve, let's big powers bomb multiple countries and occupy populations, let's an entire sea get covered by oil, let's banks profit off of kicking people out of their homes, let's people rot on the street, lets the sick needlessly die in order to keep insurance profits up, will drop nuclear weapons on cities, will firebomb working class communities, will destroy forests and dams to starve peasant insurgencies, will imprison millions and torture tens of thousands.
But those of us who want to see the majority of the world's population finally take power into their own hands... yeah, we're the ones who want bloodshed:rolleyes:.
La ComĂŠdie Noire
15th June 2010, 05:06
Is it the violence that causes class society? Classic argument really if only so and so had not turned down the path of darkness humanity could be so much farther than it is right now. As though human History is some steady state where good and evil do battle and all humans need to do is decide not to be bad. The Second Reich and the Meiji Japan were pretty orderly and light on violence, yet they still ended up as midwives to capitalism. Russia wasn't a shit hole because the Bolsheviks were super sadists and Mao did not make the lives of millions shitty by being an asshole.
There were material reasons why these things happened.
ZeroNowhere
15th June 2010, 09:30
you sound like a reformist
restrict the traitor! purge him!A reformist is somebody who aims to reform capitalism. Lepore wishes to abolish it. Therefore, not a reformist.
Spot on! A revolution achieved through violence will be destroyed by the very same violence. Charismatic leaders exploit the clueless masses on this basis. It has happened times without number, yet most communists seem to fetishize violence....
Yet more ignorance of my ideology. I am not one of the few who think the party should seize state power. I am an anarchist and you are an ignorant fool. And I don't see how revolutionary violence will destroy a society. If a fire a gun, does the bullet turn around in mid-air and shoot me in the face? No, it kills what I aim it at.
I think mindless violence and human suffering are some of the worst things that exist today... and that's exactly why I propose creating an alternative system through revolution; because this system is the breeding ground for such evils. In fact, by definition, revolution does not entail violence at all.
Revolution for me has always been about spilling as much blood as possible.
I think the purpose is to destroy as many things as possible - humans, animals, buildings, whatever.
Damn right. Death to humanity! Anarchy in the streets, bro! RIOT! :laugh:
wow, you repeated what I told you
you're a genius :rolleyes:
Because that was the only thing you ever said that made sense.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 11:31
Hmmm--is that Socialist or fascist?
It's a simple question. Go back and try again.
As I said I like the place.
Which doesn't change the fact that you're conceding the point.
It's isn't Socialist. Now answer my question--is it a Morarchy?
It is socialist. It has abolished private ownership of property, abolished the capitalist mode of production and put property under the control of a vanguard.
Is it a monarchy? Of course not. Power doesn't run through blood at all but through the will of the Korean workers.
Except worker's live pretty decently these days--you don't here them complaining, do you? Any talk of "revolution?" No... For they most part they are content.
Workers don't live decently these days. Ever been to NYC? Try going outside of midtown Manhattan next time. You'll meet MTA employees who are homeless...with kids. And I do hear them complaining about all sorts of problems. So no, they are not content.
You missed the point there.
No, I didn't. You're trying to rationalize the terrible suffering of Blacks, women and LGBT as a result of not possessing magic. That's BS. They're suffering because of capitalism and the idiot shills who defend it through denying evidence. That's you.
And you have PERSONAL faith in Communism. And further--you have personal faith that there ever will be a Revolution and THEN, and THEN this happy happy world where everyone is equal and everyhting fair and everything is done by some basic democracy will just HAPPEN.
Wrong. I base my political views on the facts of the situation. I advocate for revolution because reform is proven to fail, because revolution is proven to succeed and because socialism is proven to be better for the majority of humanity than capitalism. You, on the other hand, spurn the facts in favor of a childish infatuation with capitalism.
Without business Labor wouldn't exist. They need each other. The bust businesses work with labor--and the best labor works with business. That's the best arangement. Everything else is out of skew.
False. Labor can now, after the development of capitalist industry, thrive without business. It has been proven time and again in countries that have smashed capitalism. The facts, not your faith, show that this is the best arrangement, for standards of living shoot up in socialism, while they decline in capitalism. I've shown you the facts, but you ignore them because you lack intellectual honesty.
I gave the litany on those countries: Nepal, anti gay and anti Labor; India, a bunch of thugs killing people on a train; Greece, REALLY? They belong to the IMF now. Venezuela, Chavez is nice and all--but hardly a Communist. He's a Populist, much like Peron. Bolivia and Philippines--just bunches of guys running around in the jungle in their underwear shooting guns.
You're in denial. The Nepali communists are not anti-labor and they're not anti-gay. The Indian communists did not kill those people on a train, your blind faith in whatever the capitalists tell you is at work here. Greece just saw a veritable uprising that shook the foundations of its state and economy, and it's only just beginning as the EU scrambles for air. Venezuela is undergoing a revolution as we speak, Chavez might not be a communist but he's a socialist revolutionary, and tendency is secondary to action. Peron didn't expropriate a wide range of industries in favor of the workers. "Bunches of guys running around in the jungle...shooting guns" is what overthrew capitalism in China, Cuba and Vietnam, so thanks for proving my point, shill.
There no plan.
Maybe if they kept with the Spanish plan
You're either a liar or an idiot.
Charmed as always! :D
So you're charmed...and clueless.
I have nothing against Communuist at all--I just don't blindly believe.
Oh yes, you blindly believe, in capitalism. Just like any blind apologist. You run away from facts and reality in favor of your beliefs. You change your arguments on the fly to fit your beliefs.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 13:28
It's a simple question. Go back and try again. I'm not a fan of state owned businesses--if that was the question.
Which doesn't change the fact that you're conceding the point. I like retro stuff. Old TV shows, antique cars--why not an antique economy? ;)
It is socialist. It has abolished private ownership of property, abolished the capitalist mode of production and put property under the control of a vanguard. And that vanguard is the first Glorious Leader--then his son and now soon to be--his grandson!
Is it a monarchy? Of course not. Power doesn't run through blood at all but through the will of the Korean workers. Si it's just lucky that all the Gloious Leaders of North Korea have and looks like will have the name Kim and be linial decendants ofone another?
Workers don't live decently these days. Ever been to NYC? Try going outside of midtown Manhattan next time. You'll meet MTA employees who are homeless...with kids. And I do hear them complaining about all sorts of problems. So no, they are not content. I lived in Manhattan for 18 years. :) I was just reading that janators at some schools make well into the six figures--but those are the exception, as are the homeless MTA workers. Most people live pretty well. As far as complaining--nobody's joining the Communist Party or anything similar. No talk ov overthrowing the government. They talk of voting.
No, I didn't. You're trying to rationalize the terrible suffering of Blacks, women and LGBT as a result of not possessing magic. That's BS. They're suffering because of capitalism and the idiot shills who defend it through denying evidence. That's you. I never said the Blacks didn't suffer--I said things are getting better. There's a difference.
Wrong. I base my political views on the facts of the situation. I advocate for revolution because reform is proven to fail, because revolution is proven to succeed and because socialism is proven to be better for the majority of humanity than capitalism. You, on the other hand, spurn the facts in favor of a childish infatuation with capitalism. Well I must admit I was in favor of the Velvet Revolution in the USSR and Eastern Europe! :) Also the Capitalist style economic Revolution that is going on in China at the moment looks good, too. I think things have to improve--and Capitalism isn't perfect--neither is pure Socialism, su a blend of private capital with state supervision sowks the best--Social Democracy, Christian Socialism--something of the sort. We need to gradually move in that direction.
False. Labor can now, after the development of capitalist industry, thrive without business. It has been proven time and again in countries that have smashed capitalism. The facts, not your faith, show that this is the best arrangement, for standards of living shoot up in socialism, while they decline in capitalism. I've shown you the facts, but you ignore them because you lack intellectual honesty. Well a lot of the countries that have "smashed capitalism" certainly are doing their darndest to unsmash it these days.
You're in denial. The Nepali communists are not anti-labor and they're not anti-gay. The Indian communists did not kill those people on a train, your blind faith in whatever the capitalists tell you is at work here. Greece just saw a veritable uprising that shook the foundations of its state and economy, and it's only just beginning as the EU scrambles for air. Venezuela is undergoing a revolution as we speak, Chavez might not be a communist but he's a socialist revolutionary, and tendency is secondary to action. Peron didn't expropriate a wide range of industries in favor of the workers. "Bunches of guys running around in the jungle...shooting guns" is what overthrew capitalism in China, Cuba and Vietnam, so thanks for proving my point, shill. I am singularly unimpressed by all of this. And China is on the road back to Capitalism, so is Vietnam, and if the USA didn't put up that stupid embargo of Cuba so would Cuba.
Maybe if they kept with the Spanish plan
You're either a liar or an idiot. Of course these is no plan. There's no Communist plan either. there is just what happens. I for one just don't think that South America is a wonderland for the poor that you seem to think it is.
So you're charmed...and clueless. It is a pleasure now and then to take a break from discussing things with rational Communists and talk with a "true believer" apologist such as yourself. Just when I think Communism might work along comes someone like you to set the world aright. :)
Oh yes, you blindly believe, in capitalism. Just like any blind apologist. You run away from facts and reality in favor of your beliefs. You change your arguments on the fly to fit your beliefs. I'm NOT a believer in pure Capitalism. I'm a Social Democrat--I believe in change and in the betterment of lives of all of the people around the world. I think there is a mechanism for doing that and I think it is in place. It's going to take some time to come to fruition--but it's not like the Revolution is right around the corner either. Right now all people of good faith could do is work for that happy day when all people on earth will have equal rights and opportunities. :)
RGacky3
15th June 2010, 14:07
Except worker's live pretty decently these days--you don't here them complaining, do you?
You dont????
Without business Labor wouldn't exist. They need each other. The bust businesses work with labor--and the best labor works with business. That's the best arangement. Everything else is out of skew.
Thats like saying kings need peasants nad peasants need kings. workers, don't need buisinesses, the only reason they depend on them now is because of Capitalist property laws and the capitalist system.
I gave the litany on those countries: Nepal, anti gay and anti Labor; India, a bunch of thugs killing people on a train; Greece, REALLY? They belong to the IMF now. Venezuela, Chavez is nice and all--but hardly a Communist. He's a Populist, much like Peron. Bolivia and Philippines--just bunches of guys running around in the jungle in their underwear shooting guns.
Chavez is nationalizing industry and collectivising, Bolivia is doing the same.
I'm not a fan of state owned businesses--if that was the question.
Again, HOW are you a socialist?
su a blend of private capital with state supervision sowks the best--Social Democracy, Christian Socialism--something of the sort. We need to gradually move in that direction.
Thats not Social Democracy, thats regulated capitalism, Social Democracy is where the industries and resources with national interest (major banks, big industries nad hte such) are under Public ownership and control, what your suggesting is just Capitalism that does'nt implode right away, i.e. regulated capitalism.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 14:13
I'm not a fan of state owned businesses--if that was the question.
It wasn't. Try again.
I like retro stuff. Old TV shows, antique cars--why not an antique economy? ;)Yeah, 'cause market economies didn't exist in the 19th Century.
And that vanguard is the first Glorious Leader--then his son and now soon to be--his grandson!Try the KWP.
Si it's just lucky that all the Gloious Leaders of North Korea have and looks like will have the name Kim and be linial decendants ofone another?The decision of the KWP isn't lucky, it's the will of the workers.
I lived in Manhattan for 18 years. :) I was just reading that janators at some schools make well into the six figures--but those are the exception, as are the homeless MTA workers. Most people live pretty well. As far as complaining--nobody's joining the Communist Party or anything similar. No talk ov overthrowing the government. They talk of voting.Just as I thought. There are 4 other boroughs. Most people don't live "pretty well", again you're either lying or clueless. And now you admit that workers are complaining and want to vote for change...that's precisely my point; that sentiment is what are resonating with. Our movement is growing every day, reaching more and more people. The PSL candidate in Long Beach, Stevie Merino, just drew thousands of votes...it's only a matter of reaching the countless people who are fed up with the thousand problems capitalism has caused, and so it's only a matter of time.
I never said the Blacks didn't suffer--I said things are getting better. There's a difference.Can you support that claim? No, you won't, because you can't. I thought as much.
Well I must admit I was in favor of the Velvet Revolution in the USSR and Eastern Europe! :) Also the Capitalist style economic Revolution that is going on in China at the moment looks good, too.I doubt you really know all that much about the Velvet Revolution if you think it happened in the USSR. Anyway, the political trends in China (and thus the economic trends) are in the opposite direction, I've shown this to be the case. Please pay attention.
Well a lot of the countries that have "smashed capitalism" certainly are doing their darndest to unsmash it these days.That might have made sense in the 90's. Now, not so much. The market reforms in worker-controlled countries have been curtailed for the most part.
I am singularly unimpressed by all of this. And China is on the road back to Capitalism, so is Vietnam, and if the USA didn't put up that stupid embargo of Cuba so would Cuba.Your faith is touching. Too bad it's without evidence.
Of course these is no plan. There's no Communist plan either. there is just what happens. I for one just don't think that South America is a wonderland for the poor that you seem to think it is.Funny how you were saying there was a plan just a few posts ago. Running away from your words seems to be your style, however. Further, I've already dealt with your mindless misunderstanding of Latin American independence. It was an important step, not the last. Again, try to pay attention.
It is a pleasure now and then to take a break from discussing things with rational Communists and talk with a "true believer" apologist such as yourself. Just when I think Communism might work along comes someone like you to set the world aright.I know it's difficult when people bring up facts and statistics that clearly prove you wrong. As I have. Multiple times. Better luck next time.
I'm NOT a believer in pure Capitalism.Of course you are. You're sitting here, saying capitalist society is making things better, when it is most obvious that this is not the case. Your faith in capitalist society is the only thing buffering your argument...history and reality, however, are your staunch opponents. You're not doing so well against them, and thus you're not doing so well against me.
Blake's Baby
15th June 2010, 14:13
Social democracy is capitalism anyway. But you're right that what Bud is talking about isn't social democracy. In most of Europe, that ideology is the one espoused by the Right, such as the Christian Democrats in Germany or the Conservatives in Britain.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 14:31
Yeah, 'cause market economies didn't exist in the 19th Century. I was talking about the retro lifestyle in Cuba. It is very nice--if you can visit and then come back to the good old USA!
The decision of the KWP isn't lucky, it's the will of the workers. You reall believe that, don't you?
Just as I thought. There are 4 other boroughs. Most people don't live "pretty well", again you're either lying or clueless. And now you admit that workers are complaining and want to vote for change...that's precisely my point; that sentiment is what are resonating with. Our movement is growing every day, reaching more and more people. The PSL candidate in Long Beach, Stevie Merino, just drew thousands of votes...it's only a matter of reaching the countless people who are fed up with the thousand problems capitalism has caused, and so it's only a matter of time. I don't "admit" anything. Some worker want change--that's how democracy works. As a matter of fact we just GOT change--"Hope and Change." :) And nice that some guy got a couple of votes--lots of wackos gets a couple of thousands votes.
Can you support that claim? No, you won't, because you can't. I thought as much. You don't think things are better for Blacks than they were 30 years ago?
I doubt you really know all that much about the Velvet Revolution if you think it happened in the USSR. Anyway, the political trends in China (and thus the economic trends) are in the opposite direction, I've shown this to be the case. Please pay attention. Sotrry about that I ment to say the Velvet Revolution and the other revolutions in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Anyway, things wiggle--those countries ARE NOT going back to Communism. And little by little China is moving towards Capitalism.
That might have made sense in the 90's. Now, not so much. The market reforms in worker-controlled countries have been curtailed for the most part. YES. that's the point--everything is moving by REFORM toward a decent center. There's no revolution--there is just slow and constant Reform. You are making my point.
Funny how you were saying there was a plan just a few posts ago. Running away from your words seems to be your style, however. Further, I've already dealt with your mindless misunderstanding of Latin American independence. It was an important step, not the last. Again, try to pay attention. Is English your first language? No criticism meant--but I wasn't actually implying there was an actual plan.
I know it's difficult when people bring up facts and statistics that clearly prove you wrong. As I have. Multiple times. Better luck next time. It's people like you that brought an end to Communism in the first place. Personally, if I could I'm put you on National TV. :)
Of course you are. You're sitting here, saying capitalist society is making things better, when it is most obvious that this is not the case. Your faith in capitalist society is the only thing buffering your argument...history and reality, however, are your staunch opponents. You're not doing so well against them, and thus you're not doing so well against me. Fine, fine. But in the end there are only winners and loosers (see the quote in Robert's sig line). If you don't think that Communism is fine in North Korea and that it is functioning well in China and that Poland and East Germany are going back to the Stalinist model--fine. I can't argue with you.
RGacky3
15th June 2010, 14:42
It's people like you that brought an end to Communism in the first place. Personally, if I could I'm put you on National TV.
Although I don't agree with you most of the time, I agree with you here, Lenin is dead and buried, let him go.
YES. that's the point--everything is moving by REFORM toward a decent center. There's no revolution--there is just slow and constant Reform. You are making my point.
The problem is who makes the reform and how they make it, you have to remember whos in control here.
Your example with gays women and blacks are a different issue, they are cultural, not socio-economic, when power and money are involved its a whole different thing.
Dimentio
15th June 2010, 14:44
I think the tragedy of western radical leftism is that it seems to attract a lot of frustrated young males who dream about storming the Winter Palace and killing the tsar, instead of being motivated by basic empathy for the people and for those who are oppressed. Some leftists seem to dream to make it as violent as possible, instead of seeing violence as something which should be avoided and minimised.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 14:49
I was talking about the retro lifestyle in Cuba.
...why not an antique economy?
I thought so.
You reall believe that, don't you?Of course I do. The KWP is the reason the DPRK is free from imperialist oppression.
I don't "admit" anything. Some worker want change--that's how democracy works. As a matter of fact we just GOT change--"Hope and Change."Yes, you are now admitting that workers are not content (after denying it). Thanks for conceding the point yet again.
You don't think things are better for Blacks than they were 30 years ago?"Getting better" is the present progressive form, meaning they are presently getting better. The civil rights campaign that ended in bloodshed decades ago does not mean things are getting better.
Sotrry about that I ment to say the Velvet Revolution and the other revolutions in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Anyway, things wiggle--those countries ARE NOT going back to Communism. And little by little China is moving towards Capitalism. It's OK, I expect such mistakes. Anyway, China is moving away from capitalism, I've shown this to be true.
YES. that's the point--everything is moving by REFORM toward a decent center. There's no revolution--there is just slow and constant Reform. You are making my point.You mean anti-market reforms of countries that have already underwent working-class revolutions. Which means your point is entirely meaningless here because you've lost all sense of the context.
Is English your first language? No criticism meant--but I wasn't actually implying there was an actual plan. Maybe if they kept with the Spanish plan...
You don't even know what you're implying anymore.
It's people like you that brought an end to Communism in the first place. Personally, if I could I'm put you on National TV.You'd regret it. Communism is back in the spotlight in every continent thanks to revolutionaries...and without mainstream media exposure.
I can't argue with you.You may have finally said something reasonable after all.
RGacky3
15th June 2010, 14:54
As a matter of fact we just GOT change--"Hope and Change." :) And nice that some guy got a couple of votes--lots of wackos gets a couple of thousands votes.
Exactly what "change" have we gotten? Wheres the reform?
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 15:30
Exactly what "change" have we gotten? Wheres the reform?
It was a play on the words of Obama's Presidential election slogan.
And we got Obama! :D
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 15:59
...why not an antique economy?
I thought so. Isn't Communism the Retro economy these days?
Of course I do. The KWP is the reason the DPRK is free from imperialist oppression. The difference between you and me is that I admit there are problems with Capitalsim. I'm honest about it. But you going on and on supporting that crapfest North Korea is rediculous. There are "good" Communistesque places, Anarchist Spain (for a brief moment of sunshine) and certainly what those EZLN coffee pickers in Mexico ae doing is quite lovely. But Kim Il Jong? You a pal of Pol Pot too?
Yes, you are now admitting that workers are not content (after denying it). Thanks for conceding the point yet again. Sure they are! They voted Democratic instead of Republican. And maybe next time they are not content they will vote Repulican instead of Democrat. And if they are REALLY PISSED OFF they will vote Tea Party. (And unlike your "Comrade Two Thousand Votes" from Long Island--they are getting people elected.)
"Getting better" is the present progressive form, meaning they are presently getting better. The civil rights campaign that ended in bloodshed decades ago does not mean things are getting better. Did you notice the title of this thread? Well I think things are getting better--a long way to go--but getting better. I guess we disagree.
It's OK, I expect such mistakes. Anyway, China is moving away from capitalism, I've shown this to be true. You've shown one article in Business Week. Check out this one from the Shanghai Daily! It will make you cry.
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2010/201006/20100601/article_438799.htm
You mean anti-market reforms of countries that have already underwent working-class revolutions. Which means your point is entirely meaningless here because you've lost all sense of the context. I'm saying these countries are no more Communist for the most part than France.
You'd regret it. Communism is back in the spotlight in every continent thanks to revolutionaries...and without mainstream media exposure. There's people the Demogorgon and Red Anarchist and Jazzratt and Demento and the Best Mod and a few more that can actually make a pretty good case for Communism--I'd be afraid to put them on TV. You--not so much. ;)
You may have finally said something reasonable after all.
I think you are wacko when it comes to places like North Korea, but FWIW your hearts in the right place. :)
manic expression
15th June 2010, 16:11
Isn't Communism the Retro economy these days?
The capitalist economy predates the socialist economy. Nice try, but you're wrong.
The difference between you and me is that I admit there are problems with Capitalsim. I'm honest about it. But you going on and on supporting that crapfest North Korea is rediculous. There are "good Communistesque places, Anarchist Spain (for a brief moment of sunshine) and certainly what those EZLN coffee pickers in Mexico ae doing is quite lovely. But Kim Il Jong? You a pal of Pol Pot too?
You admit there are problems in capitalism, but you defend them all the same, for you don't understand them. Likewise, you don't understand the shortcomings of socialist societies. The DPRK's economic issues stem from the 90's and the fall of its only consistent trading partner. Of course they have trouble with things like food...their imports disappeared so quickly. If that happened to any country there would be massive problems, but unlike in capitalist societies, the DPRK strove to ensure a decent standard of living for all, and it is still struggling to do so against the aggression of imperialism.
That you make the comparison to Pol Pot shows you have no idea of what you're talking about. Go read a history book.
She they are! They voted Democratic instead of Republican. And maybe next time they are not content they will vote Repulican instead of Democrat. And if they are REALLY PISSED OFF they will vote Tea Party. (And unlike your Comrade Two Thousand Votes--they are getting people elected.)
So first, you're now arguing the opposite of what you argued before. Thanks for admitting you have no intellectual integrity. Second, workers vote for Democrats and Republicans because they haven't yet been exposed to revolutionary alternatives. That is changing, and unlike you I can point to evidence that shows it is changing. The PSL campaign in Long Beach is one example of this, more and more people are turning onto socialism and revolutionary politics. I know you hate it, but those are the facts. Deal with it.
Did you notice the title of this thread? Well I think things are getting better--a long way to go--but getting better. I guess we disagree.
You can think that all you want, you're arguing against the facts. So you lose. Typically.
You've shown one article in Business Week. Check out this one from the Shanghai Daily!
I've shown that the Chinese state is moving away from market policies and towards state-owned industry. You, like the clueless shill that you are, ran away from this fact. And now you post an article about the vernacular of China. Great. Too bad that doesn't change the political and economic trends of the PRC, which are now going against the market.
I'm saying these countries are no more Communist for the most part than France.
And I'm showing you that you're clueless.
There's people the Demogorgon and Red Anarchist and Jazzratt and Demento and the Best Mod and a few more that can actually make a pretty good case for Communism--I'd be afraid to put them on TV. You--not so much. ;)
Like I said, I know it's frustrating that you're being proven wrong so consistently, but do try to hide it.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 16:24
The capitalist economy predates the socialist economy. Nice try, but you're wrong. Have your been reading RevLeft? There's lots of people here that think Communism existed for a hundred thousand years. And Communism came and it went.
You admit there are problems in capitalism, but you defend them all the same, for you don't understand them. Likewise, you don't understand the shortcomings of socialist societies. The DPRK's economic issues stem from the 90's and the fall of its only consistent trading partner. Of course they have trouble with things like food...their imports disappeared so quickly. If that happened to any country there would be massive problems, but unlike in capitalist societies, the DPRK strove to ensure a decent standard of living for all, and it is still struggling to do so against the aggression of imperialism. I could care less about NKs fianacial problems. It is a nasty dictatorship that brainwashes it's people into believin it;s Glorious Leader is a demi-god.
that you make the comparison to Pol Pot shows you have no idea of what you're talking about. Go read a history book. Well at least Pol Pot's not on your "Hero of the Revolution" list.
So first, you're now arguing the opposite of what you argued before. Thanks for admitting you have no intellectual integrity. Second, workers vote for Democrats and Republicans because they haven't yet been exposed to revolutionary alternatives. That is changing, and unlike you I can point to evidence that shows it is changing. The PSL campaign in Long Beach is one example of this, more and more people are turning onto socialism and revolutionary politics. I know you hate it, but those are the facts. Deal with it. The tea Parties are a better example than the PSL, don't you think? People actually vote for their candidates.
You can think that all you want, you're arguing against the facts. So you lose. Typically. :D
I've shown that the Chinese state is moving away from market policies and towards state-owned industry. You, like the clueless shill that you are, ran away from this fact. And now you post an article about the vernacular of China. Great. Too bad that doesn't change the political and economic trends of the PRC, which are now going against the market. There are all sorts of trends going on in China, some are toward market economy--some towards state owned business--but this is a far cry from any sort of real Communism. And China is definitely loosing all of its Communist chaptrap of calling each other "Comrade." Pretty soon the only place people will be calling each other Comrade will be on revLeft. :D
Like I said, I know it's frustrating that you're being proven wrong so consistently, but do try to hide it. You are a true believer, I'll give you that. :)
manic expression
15th June 2010, 16:33
Have your been reading RevLeft? There's lots of people here that think Communism existed for a hundred thousand years. And Communism came and it went.
Apparently, you haven't been reading the thread. The socialist economy that exists in Cuba is predated by the market economy that exists in the capitalist world. You lose.
I could care less about NKs fianacial problems. It is a nasty dictatorship that brainwashes it's people into believin it;s Glorious Leader is a demi-god.
It is not, you just can't bring yourself to question the rhetoric of your capitalist puppeteers.
Well at least Pol Pot's not on your "Hero of the Revolution" list.
Were you even vaguely acquainted with history and politics, I wouldn't have to point that out.
The tea Parties are a better example than the PSL, don't you think? People actually vote for their candidates.
People actually vote for our candidates, we just don't get the media attention the tea baggers do. FOX is practically the only reason anyone knows about them.
:D
Thanks for conceding yet another point.
There are all sorts of trends going on in China, some are toward market economy
Try quantifying that. Have fun.
You are a true believer, I'll give you that. :)
I'm the one who's posting evidence and facts. You're the one who's clueless, I'll give you that.
piet11111
15th June 2010, 16:34
Our power comes from being over 90% of the population we are the working class when we stop working nothing will be moving.
That is why we are more powerful with our hands in our pockets then all the armed soldiers the state can send us.
BeerShaman
15th June 2010, 17:38
Because the war is already being waged and has been for 400 years. And we didn't start it.
Respect!:thumbup1:
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 21:12
Apparently, you haven't been reading the thread. The socialist economy that exists in Cuba is predated by the market economy that exists in the capitalist world. You lose. Aparently you haven't been reading RevLeft--there a long history of portraying human history as the long like of Communism. (You obviously never took debating in HS, did you? :D)
It is not, you just can't bring yourself to question the rhetoric of your capitalist puppeteers. I'll give up this point to you--the Glorious Leader Kim Il Jong shopuld be worshiped and admired. His greatness is a reflection of the people. All glory and honor to him.
Were you even vaguely acquainted with history and politics, I wouldn't have to point that out. I never know where you Cool-ade drinkers are going.
People actually vote for our candidates, we just don't get the media attention the tea baggers do. FOX is practically the only reason anyone knows about them. So it's a PLOT!
Thanks for conceding yet another point. :D means I'm laughing at you--not conceding a point.
I'm the one who's posting evidence and facts. You're the one who's clueless, I'll give you that. It doesn't matter really if Communism or Capitalism or even Feudalism wins out. There are certain people that will be on top of the heap.
And it's always the same people. ;)
How does Bud Il Jong sound? :D
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 21:15
Our power comes from being over 90% of the population we are the working class when we stop working nothing will be moving.
That is why we are more powerful with our hands in our pockets then all the armed soldiers the state can send us.
And then when one man who owns the factory closes it--where does all that working class power go?
manic expression
15th June 2010, 21:21
Aparently you haven't been reading RevLeft--there a long history of portraying human history as the long like of Communism. (You obviously never took debating in HS, did you? :D)
Apparently you haven't been reading history books. Capitalism predates socialism. Sorry, you've already lost.
I'll give up this point to you--the Glorious Leader Kim Il Jong shopuld be worshiped and admired. His greatness is a reflection of the people. All glory and honor to him.
So you're not going to discuss the facts of the matter. Your choice.
I never know where you Cool-ade drinkers are going.
"Cool-ade [sic] drinkers" being people who know the first thing about politics.
So it's a PLOT!
No, it's capitalism. Learn about it for once.
:D means I'm laughing at you--not conceding a point.
No, it means you're refusing to make an argument. Thanks again.
It doesn't matter really if Communism or Capitalism or even Feudalism wins out. There are certain people that will be on top of the heap.
And it's always the same people. ;)
Yes, the Bourbon Dynasty still rules France. Clueless as ever, you are.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 21:30
Apparently you haven't been reading history books. Capitalism predates socialism. Sorry, you've already lost.
Primitive Communism. Look it up.
So you're not going to discuss the facts of the matter. Your choice. I'm not going to take NK as an honest expression of Communism--it would be an insult to real Communism.
"Cool-ade [sic] drinkers" being people who know the first thing about politics. I think you are a bit askew from the actual politics of things.
No, it's capitalism. Learn about it for once. Do you think I could argue for Capitalism in NK as you do for Communism in America? Who is more free?
Yes, the Bourbon Dynasty still rules France. Clueless as ever, you are. well the Windsors still rule Great Britain. But no, there are certain people that take the lead and rule. They are the people that run corporations--and they are the commissars--the fall of the SU showed us that those people were one and the same.
[edit] Check out these "also rans" for President from Wiki
Alan Keyes (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Alan_Keyes) (America's Independent Party (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/America%27s_Independent_Party)) received 47,768 votes; listed in three states: Colorado and Florida, plus California (listed as American Independent), and also had write-in status in Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Utah.
Ron Paul (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ron_Paul) received 41,905 votes; listed in Louisiana (Louisiana Taxpayers) and in Montana (Constitution), with write-in status in California.
Róger Calero (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero) (Socialist Workers Party (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(United_States))) received 7,561 votes; listed in ten states. He was listed by name in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. James Harris was listed as his stand-in in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and Washington, and also had write-in status in California.
Brian Moore (Socialist Party (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Socialist_Party_USA), see Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Brian_Moore_presidential_campaign,_2008)) received 6,566 votes; listed in eight states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin, and Tennessee (independent) and Vermont (Liberty Union). He also filed for write-in status in 17 other states: Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
Gloria La Riva (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Gloria_La_Riva) (Party for Socialism and Liberation (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation)) received 6,808 votes[198] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-197) nationally; listed in 12 states: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Charles Jay (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Charles_Jay) (Boston Tea Party (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party))) received 2,420 votes; listed in Colorado and Florida, and in Tennessee (as independent), with write-in status in Arizona, Montana, and Utah.
Tom Stevens (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Thomas_Stevens_(politician)) (Objectivist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Objectivist_Party)) received 755 votes; listed in Colorado and Florida.
Gene Amondson (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Gene_Amondson) (Prohibition (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Prohibition_Party)) received 653 votes; listed in Colorado, Florida, and Louisiana.
Jonathan Allen (HeartQuake (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=HeartQuake&action=edit&redlink=1)) received 483 votes; listed only in Colorado, with write-in status in Arizona, Georgia, Montana, Texas, and other states.
The following candidates (parties) were listed on ballot in only one state:
Richard Duncan (Independent) - Ohio; 3,902 votes.
John Joseph Polachek (New Party (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/New_Party_(United_States))) Illinois; 1,149 votes.
Frank McEnulty (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Frank_McEnulty) (New American Independent (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/New_American_Independent_Party)) - Colorado (listed as unaffiliated); 828 votes.
Jeffrey Wamboldt (We the People (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/We_the_People_Foundation)) - Wisconsin; 764 votes.
Jeffrey Boss (Vote Here Party (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=Vote_Here_Party&action=edit&redlink=1)) - New Jersey; 639 votes.
George Phillies (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/George_Phillies) - New Hampshire (also listed with the label Libertarian); 522 votes.
Ted Weill (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ted_Weill) (Reform (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America)) - Mississippi; 481 votes.
Bradford Lyttle (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bradford_Lyttle) (U.S. Pacifist (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=U.S._Pacifist&action=edit&redlink=1)) - Colorado; 110 votes.
I don't see your boy.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 21:36
Primitive Communism. Look it up.
So you're saying Cuba is a primitive communist society...cute, but clueless.
I'm not going to take NK as an honest expression of Communism--it would be an insult to real Communism.
Then we must be doing something right.
I think you are a bit askew from the actual politics of things.
As in knowing that the Velvet Revolution didn't take place in Russia? :lol:
Do you think I could argue for Capitalism in NK as you do for Communism in America? Who is more free?
Who is more free from imperialism? That's an easy answer.
well the Windsors still rule France. But no, there are certain people that take the lead and rule. They are the people that run corporations--and they are the commissars--the fall of the SU showed us that those people were one and the same.
Corporations make lots of money off of the suffering of workers. Commissars lead the charge against corporations and don't make money off of the suffering of workers. Like I said, go read a history book.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 21:44
So you're saying Cuba is a primitive communist society...cute, but clueless. I said that Communism predates Capitalism. I didn't say as to where.
As in knowing that the Velvet Revolution didn't take place in Russia? :lol: As I said I wrote that a bit fast. But Communis DID FALL in the USSR and Eastern Europe--a point you concede.
Who is more free from imperialism? That's an easy answer. Who has freedom of speech? And don't you think the Chinese are Imperialists in Tibet?
Corporations make lots of money off of the suffering of workers. Commissars lead the charge against corporations and don't make money off of the suffering of workers. Like I said, go read a history book.
The commissars the ran the SU became the capitalists that run Russian business today. THey are the same people.
Note my edit--where is your boy?
Dimentio
15th June 2010, 21:46
Whatever Manic Expression is smoking right now, I want some of it.
*facepalm*
As for Bud Struggle, cut the semi-trolling...
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 21:48
As for Bud Struggle, cut the semi-trolling...
Sorry.
mykittyhasaboner
15th June 2010, 21:50
Reform isn't "Magic." That's what Revolution is all about. It takes time--decades, but things will get better. There ain't no Tooth Fairy, there ain't no Santa Clause, there ain't no Easter Bunny and there ain't no Revolution. Time to grow up.
But the revolutions that have gone on--are with a small "r". They increase and add to Reform. Even the Russian and Chinese revolutions have been with a small "r"--they just proved a bump in the overall Reform of mankind.
I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds.
Communism seems to be all talk.
I'm truly astounded by your ignorance and hypocrisy.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 21:52
I said that Communism predates Capitalism. I didn't say as to where.
So you don't know what you're talking about. Of course. In case you were wondering, primitive communism has nothing to do with modern socialist societies. You lost.
As I said I wrote that a bit fast. But Communis DID FALL in the USSR and Eastern Europe--a point you concede.
Keep using that excuse, it's funny when you try to cover up how clueless you are. And I never contended that communist-rule didn't fall in the USSR and Eastern Europe...I wonder why you're making even more stuff up. You're either a liar or you're clueless, which one is it?
Who has freedom of speech? And don't you think the Chinese are Imperialists in Tibet?
The workers of the DPRK are enfranchised, unlike workers in capitalism. The position of the KWP is evidence of this. And the PRC is very much not imperialist, it liberated Tibet from feudalism. The PRC has, far from using Tibet for profit, made sacrifices to help its people.
The commissars the ran the SU became the capitalists that run Russian business today. THey are the same people.
Name one commissar that runs Russian business today.
No, I didn't. You're trying to rationalize the terrible suffering of Blacks, women and LGBT as a result of not possessing magic. That's BS. They're suffering because of capitalism and the idiot shills who defend it through denying evidence.
Right, because their troubles began with the rise of capitalism :rolleyes:
It's not the creation and accumulation of capital that's the problem, it's the existence of antagonistic socio-economic classes and the rule of one over another and the exploitation of the weak at the hands of the strong.
it began long before capitalism and it will not end simply because capitalism joins mercantilism and old-school tribal collectivism in the annals of history
But don't let reality bother you; you seem comfortable with your simplistic worldview, so long as gives you something simple to complain about.
lack intellectual honesty
see above
You run away from facts and reality in favor of your beliefs
*whistles*
manic expression
15th June 2010, 21:55
Right, because their troubles began with the rise of capitalism :rolleyes:
Did I say that? Where did I state that pre-capitalist societies were free of troubles? Where, exactly?
this is an invasion
15th June 2010, 21:56
Right, because their troubles began with the rise of capitalism :rolleyes:
It's not the creation and accumulation of capital that's the problem, it's the existence of antagonistic socio-economic classes and the rule of one over another and the exploitation of the weak at the hands of the strong.
it began long before capitalism and it will not end simply because capitalism joins mercantilism and old-school tribal collectivism in the annals of history
But don't let reality bother you; you seem comfortable with your simplistic worldview, so long as gives you something simple to complain about.
see above
*whistles*
When I have more rep power, I'm going to negative rep you.
I think the tragedy of western radical leftism is that it seems to attract a lot of frustrated young males who dream about storming the Winter Palace and killing the tsar, instead of being motivated by basic empathy for the people and for those who are oppressed. Some leftists seem to dream to make it as violent as possible, instead of seeing violence as something which should be avoided and minimised.
so you agree with the evil social democrat OP when he says that peacable alternatives should be exhausted and violence only used reluctantly and as a last resort?
Dimentio
15th June 2010, 21:57
If the workers of DPRK are enfranchised, then what a socialist paradise ancient Egypt must have been! They also had a planned economy you know. I actually even think the pharaohs lived less luxurious lives than the Kim dynasty.
Dimentio
15th June 2010, 21:58
so you agree with the evil social democrat OP when he says that peacable alternatives should be exhausted and violence only used reluctantly and as a last resort?
What I say is that violence as the first resort is a terribly unpredictable way of dealing with social problems, and that it tends to spiral out of control to situations which no one anticipated from the beginning.
Moreover, if revolutions could be scientifically predicted and are the only way of achieving change, why openly state that you are for a political revolution - a thing which would penalise you. Why instead not create the conditions for it silently while at the same time officially condemning all the violence?
mykittyhasaboner
15th June 2010, 21:59
It's not the creation and accumulation of capital that's the problem, it's the existence of antagonistic socio-economic classes and the rule of one over another and the exploitation of the weak at the hands of the strong.
But don't let reality bother you; you seem comfortable with your simplistic worldview, so long as gives you something simple to complain about.
:lol:
So antagonistic socio-economic classes don't have anything to do with private accumulation of capital?
The capitalist economy predates the socialist economy
The term, perhaps, but many ancient tribal systems resembled socialism. Even Jesus' disciples and '[a]ll the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.' (The Acts of the Apostles, 2:44)
You can think that all you want, you're arguing against the facts. So you lose. Typically.
Are you familiar with Irony?
Os Cangaceiros
15th June 2010, 22:04
manic expression: How do you feel about the fact that Cuba's economic minister recently announced that the Cuban state will allow private farmers to purchase goods directly from suppliers? It looks to me like the Cuban state is engaging in some liberalization attempts.
And in regards to China, I don't know how anyone can defend their "socialist credentials"...there's an endless torrent of stories coming out of China about the exploitative Chinese state; everything from corrupt party officials collaberating with land developers in order to throw workers out of their homes to the horrible state of conditions in many workplaces.
:lol:
So antagonistic socio-economic classes don't have anything to do with private accumulation of capital?
Antagonistic socio-economic classes predated capitalism and its obsession with accumulating capital. If anything, capitalism is grounded n that preexisting divide between the ruler and the ruled, the rich and the poor, the affluent and the common, rather than the other way around. When those classes are eliminated, capitalism cannot continue to exist n any recognizable form, while those classes can exist long after capitalism, just as they long predated it. The names for the classes might change- slaves, serfs, peasants, proletarians- but the reality of the relationship between the classes has changed little over the past ~6000 years of recorded human history.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 22:10
The term, perhaps, but many ancient tribal systems resembled socialism. Even Jesus' disciples and '[a]ll the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.' (The Acts of the Apostles, 2:44)
OK, I'll bite. What pre-capitalist societies saw the urban proletariat take control of industrial means of production? Jesus doesn't exactly count.
manic expression: How do you feel about the fact that Cuba's economic minister recently announced that the Cuban state will allow private farmers to purchase goods directly from suppliers? It looks to me like the Cuban state is engaging in some liberalization attempts.
First, so long as the Cuban workers are in complete control of the process and decision, then the most important piece of socialism is at work. Second, individuals spending money is fine, Cuba has run restaurants and other establishments in roughly the same manner (small, limited private establishments), but as long as no one is employing anyone and making profit off of a worker's labor, then there's no cause for concern. I think the same holds true here. Decentralization doesn't always mean liberalization, let's not forget.
And in regards to China, I don't know how anyone can defend their "socialist credentials"...there's an endless torrent of stories coming out of China about the exploitative Chinese state; everything from corrupt party officials collaberating with land developers in order to throw workers out of their homes to the horrible state of working conditions in many workplaces.
Granted, but the CPC still holds power, and the capitalist class does not. And also, corruption has been a problem for awhile, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of Chinese society. China's socialism has unfortunately been cut back quite a bit, but now the trends are no longer in that direction, quite the opposite. Simply put, whatever progressive changes are to happen in the PRC, they will come from within, not without, the CPC. That is what we must support.
Did I say that? Where did I state that pre-capitalist societies were free of troubles? Where, exactly?
You said the cause [read:root] of their suffering was capitalism.
You're wrong, of course, as its roots go back thousands of years are really more related to ignorance and religion than to any given economic system, but you've been taught to blame capitalism for everything and you do so like a good little parrot.
When I have more rep power, I'm going to negative rep you.
because you have no rebuttal and your feelings are hurt because you've seen the bullshit you've been taught to spout demolished?
manic expression
15th June 2010, 22:12
You said the cause [read:root] of their suffering was capitalism.
You're wrong, of course, as its roots go back thousands of years are really more related to ignorance and religion than to any given economic system, but you've been taught to blame capitalism for everything and you do so like a good little parrot.
The cause (read: what's causing the suffering at this moment) is capitalism. Feudalism isn't exploiting workers today, tribalism isn't attacking LGBT rights. It would be quite interesting if that was the case, but of course, it isn't.
So yes, the cause for their suffering is capitalism.
What I say is that violence as the first resort is a terribly unpredictable way of dealing with social problems, and that it tends to spiral out of control to situations which no one anticipated from the beginning.
Well said. You might want to edit your post though- you've seen the reaction I've gotten for speaking such things.
Moreover, if revolutions could be scientifically predicted and are the only way of achieving change, why openly state that you are for a political revolution - a thing which would penalise you. Why instead not create the conditions for it silently while at the same time officially condemning all the violence?
some might big ifs you've got there :rolleyes:
scarletghoul
15th June 2010, 22:15
Antagonistic socio-economic classes predated capitalism and its obsession with accumulating capital. If anything, capitalism is grounded n that preexisting divide between the ruler and the ruled, the rich and the poor, the affluent and the common, rather than the other way around. When those classes are eliminated, capitalism cannot continue to exist n any recognizable form, while those classes can exist long after capitalism, just as they long predated it. The names for the classes might change- slaves, serfs, peasants, proletarians- but the reality of the relationship between the classes has changed little over the past ~6000 years of recorded human history.
This is a completely incorrect understanding of human history.
Its not a case of the upper classes just changing their methods of exploitation- its a case of new modes of production arising and new classes arising within them. The bourgeoisie came out of merchants etc, not the aristocracy. It had to fight to overthrow the aristocracy. So your ultrahistoric bullshit view doesnt really work. you seem to think there are just magically rulers and ruled people for no apparent reason. You need to study and see the productive forces that are behind the class structure of society. And when you study them, you can see that the defining factor in capitalist class relations is capital
OK, I'll bite. What pre-capitalist societies saw the urban proletariat take control of industrial means of production? Jesus doesn't exactly count.
lol
Nice try, but that's like asking who's stormed a cyborg factory yet. Only recently did the means of production come to include anything 'industrial' as the word is commonly used.
Such systems as are called communist, socialist, or collectivist predated the steam engine. Or is no communism, regardless of its socio-economic and political structure 'communist' if they don't have an automotive factory? There are an awful lot of communists in an awful lot of communes you need to speak with, then.
Granted, but the CPC still holds power,
If a Party hold power, it's not communism. It's oligarchy There can be no ruling party in a classless society, as those in the party and those outside it comprise two distinct classes in a one-party tyrannical state. In effect, the Party s no different than the Royal Family. China might have nationalized much of its economy, but to say its been socialized is a stretch.
The cause (read: what's causing the suffering at this moment) is capitalism. Feudalism isn't exploiting workers today, tribalism isn't attacking LGBT rights.
Not is capitalism. The religious and the homophobic are. Same as always, under every system.
So yes, the cause for their suffering is capitalism.
Actually, it's homophobia and religious conservatism that teaches that homosexuality s wrong in the eyes of same deity, often justifying it by elevating procreation to some great moral obligation
This is a completely incorrect understanding of human history.
So antaganistic classes didn't exist before capitalism? damned, I guess the peasantry and the tsar were just bestest buddies and next door neighbor who visited eachother all the time:rolleyes:
And when you study them, you can see that the defining factor in capitalist class relations is capital
Not only wealth, but religion and the ability to manipulate, combined with military might and ruthlessness, create ruling classes. Often, barbarians only gained their wealth along with their status as rules through the rape and murder of random people- kinda like many of you people here talk about doing with the violent destruction of all traces of civil society dressed in the guise of some great 'revolution' on the behalf of the people you always end up killing every single time
manic expression
15th June 2010, 22:28
lol
Nice try, but that's like asking who's stormed a cyborg factory yet. Only recently did the means of production come to include anything 'industrial' as the word is commonly used.
I simply asked if you could find a society that matches the basic characteristics of Cuba today. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously, you've failed at this because your argument is concocted with no understanding of what makes Cuba socialist in the first place.
If a Party hold power, it's not communism. It's oligarchy There can be no ruling party in a classless society, as those in the party and those outside it comprise two distinct classes in a one-party tyrannical state. In effect, the Party s no different than the Royal Family. China might have nationalized much of its economy, but to say its been socialized is a stretch.
Good thing, then, that I don't hold Cuba as a classless society.
And the party that rules Cuba is a working-class party.
Not is capitalism. The religious and the homophobic are. Same as always, under every system.
The religious and homophobic are...capitalists. I thought so.
Actually, it's homophobia and religious conservatism that teaches that homosexuality s wrong in the eyes of same deity, often justifying it by elevating procreation to some great moral obligation
Thank god capitalism doesn't promote homophobia and religious conservatism, because then you'd look like a fool. :lol::lol::lol:
Castro is ruling class? Tell what factory he and his brother labour in daily.
The religious and homophobic are...capitalists
really? So then capitalism has been around since the time of the Neanderthal and christian socialists are capitalists?
fascinating. Do you make this up as you go along, or did you read this on 4chgan one day?
Capitalism makes people homophobic? So the gay guy who own the coffee shop downtown is a homphobe? He must be really confused.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 22:44
Castro is ruling class? Tell what factory he and his brother labour in daily.
Fidel is retired and Raul is a senior official in the state and party. Both were professional revolutionaries and then became leaders of the Cuban Revolution. Thus, they have served the interests of the workers since the attack on Moncada and before.
really? So then capitalism has been around since the time of the Neanderthal and christian socialists are capitalists?
Christian socialists aren't homophobic IIRC, and Neanderthals aren't hurting LGBTs, and haven't for some time.
fascinating. Do you make this up as you go along, or did you read this on 4chgan one day?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Capitalism makes people homophobic? So the gay guy who own the coffee shop downtown is a homphobe? He must be really confused.
Capitalism surely does. Homophobic rhetoric is most consistently seen propagated from the capitalist class in many forms, both in politics and in media. The right wing of the capitalist class is, of course, more homophobic, but that changes nothing. As for the guy downtown, he'd only be confused if he read your rambling nonsense.
Nolan
15th June 2010, 22:49
Oh my I've been missing quite a spectacular thread.
really? So then capitalism has been around since the time of the Neanderthal and christian socialists are capitalists?
Communal systems are not in and of themselves socialist.
fascinating. Do you make this up as you go along, or did you read this on 4chgan one day?
Capitalism makes people homophobic? So the gay guy who own the coffee shop downtown is a homphobe? He must be really confused.No, private ownership of the mop and capital accumulation don't in themselves have anything to do with homophobia or racism. But then neither is a hand made for a gun. Capitalism is like any class society. Ruling classes seek to divide and distract lower classes. And, exactly like we'd expect, socially conservative values tend to go hand in hand with pro-capitalist sentiments. Just go to a Tea Party if you need proof. Or better yet, attend a religious school for ten years where your history teacher gets all teary eyed about Che the murderer and American Freedom and then goes on to explain how godlessness and faggots are ruining this country.
mykittyhasaboner
15th June 2010, 22:49
Antagonistic socio-economic classes predated capitalism and its obsession with accumulating capital.
Good so far.
If anything, capitalism is grounded n that preexisting divide between the ruler and the ruled, the rich and the poor, the affluent and the common, rather than the other way around.
Capitalism is grounded in the bourgeoisie's bid for power and the development of the world market and 'free trade'. When the bourgeoisie struggled against the ruling classes of their day, they weren't struggling for abolition of exploitation but for their own prosperity. It is quite clear that the capitalist class vests its rule on private property--how you plan on debating this escapes me.
When those classes are eliminated, capitalism cannot continue to exist n any recognizable form, while those classes can exist long after capitalism, just as they long predated it.
How can the capitalist class exist after capitalism is totally abolished?
The names for the classes might change- slaves, serfs, peasants, proletarians- but the reality of the relationship between the classes has changed little over the past ~6000 years of recorded human history.
Your a fool.
RGacky3
15th June 2010, 22:52
Fidel is retired and Raul is a senior official in the state and party. Both were professional revolutionaries and then became leaders of the Cuban Revolution. Thus, they have served the interests of the workers since the attack on Moncada and before.
Thats the problem with Leninists, you blame people like me of idealism, when you trust a "professsional revolutionary" to do everything in the interests of the workers, that makes no sense, Castro, Raul, Lenin all of those people are people, people that like anyone in power, CEOs, Presidents, anyone, are corrupted by power, and put their own power interest above everything else (its the way it works). Castro is woried about castros power first and formost.
Capitalism surely does. Homophobic rhetoric is most consistently seen propagated from the capitalist class in many forms, both in politics and in media. The right wing of the capitalist class is, of course, more homophobic, but that changes nothing. As for the guy downtown, he'd only be confused if he read your rambling nonsense.
There is nothing intrinciscly homophobic or racist about capitalism, it uses it when it helps its power, but agian, there is nothing intrinsicly in capitalism like that.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 22:56
Thats the problem with Leninists, you blame people like me of idealism, when you trust a "professsional revolutionary" to do everything in the interests of the workers, that makes no sense, Castro, Raul, Lenin all of those people are people, people that like anyone in power, CEOs, Presidents, anyone, are corrupted by power, and put their own power interest above everything else (its the way it works). Castro is woried about castros power first and formost.
They did work for the interests of the workers to the best of their ability and at every turn. The results speak for themselves.
The primary reason Raul was elected a few years back was likely because the US specifically told them not to elect Raul. In response, the Cuban people said "Oh, really? Watch this" and did what the US warned them not to. Plus, Raul is extremely qualified. He put his life on the line (and I mean, on the line) for the liberation of Cuba in Moncada and on the Granma and beyond, and subsequently became a central figure in defending the Revolution after its victory in 1959.
There is nothing intrinciscly homophobic or racist about capitalism, it uses it when it helps its power, but agian, there is nothing intrinsicly in capitalism like that.Theoretically, you have a point. But until the day that capitalism embraces LGBT equality with no reservations, capitalism is the cause of LGBT suffering today. That was all I was saying.
Zanthorus
15th June 2010, 23:08
you trust a "professsional revolutionary"
Here's a thought, instead of slandering Lenin you could bother to learn what a "professional revolutionary" is. A professional revolutionary is someone dedicated to revolution. Someone willing to dedicate most of their time to furthering the cause and who even uses time at work and in trade union organising etc to further the cause. In non-english languages "professional" doesn't have the connotations of the middle-class "professions" that it does over here. A professional revolutionary can be a worker (In fact Lenin himself said in the second congress of the RSDLP that workers become staunch revolutionary Marxists very quickly and advocated restricting the number of intellectuals on party committees).
The point is that you won't get anywhere with a ragtag bunch of half-committed people who only turn up to demo's, rallies, protests etc a quarter of the time. You need people dedicated to the revolution to form a real fighting party capable of victory. This has nothing to do with some crazy Leninist conspiracy to disempower workers. It's simple common sense which even a good deal of anarchists would agree to.
Bud Struggle
15th June 2010, 23:17
Here's a thought, instead of slandering Lenin you could bother to learn what a "professional revolutionary" is.
Personally right now, I'm a professional Capitalist. I have a factory, I have workers I make things work and I do well. I talk the talk, I fight the fight. I come out on top.
Come the Revolution: I'm a professional Revolutionary. I'll rally the workers. I'll make things work, I'll talk the talk, I'll fight the fight. I'll come out on top.
What more do you need to know about the word "Professional?"
RGacky3
15th June 2010, 23:18
A professional revolutionary can be a worker (In fact Lenin himself said in the second congress of the RSDLP that workers become staunch revolutionary Marxists very quickly and advocated restricting the number of intellectuals on party committees).
Once he's in power, he's not a worker anymore.
The point is that you won't get anywhere with a ragtag bunch of half-committed people who only turn up to demo's, rallies, protests etc a quarter of the time. You need people dedicated to the revolution to form a real fighting party capable of victory. This has nothing to do with some crazy Leninist conspiracy to disempower workers. It's simple common sense which even a good deal of anarchists would agree to.
I understand I have no problem with professional revolutionaries, what I have a problem with is giving them unnacountable power, just because they are professional revolutionaries.
They did work for the interests of the workers to the best of their ability and at every turn. The results speak for themselves.
Listen, when it comes to Castro I kind of agree with you, he's one of the few people that managed to not let the power get to him, but you can't count on that, most people arn't like that. But ALSO when it comes to results, his personal power in the country comes before democracy.
The primary reason Raul was elected a few years back was likely because the US specifically told them not to elect Raul. In response, the Cuban people said "Oh, really? Watch this" and did what the US warned them not to. Plus, Raul is extremely qualified. He put his life on the line (and I mean, on the line) for the liberation of Cuba in Moncada and on the Granma and beyond, and subsequently became a central figure in defending the Revolution after its victory in 1959.
So what? He risked his life, he's a hero, that does'nt mean he should be president, btw, who was he running against?
manic expression
15th June 2010, 23:33
Once he's in power, he's not a worker anymore.
He wasn't a worker when he was in the Sierra Maestras. What's your point?
I understand I have no problem with professional revolutionaries, what I have a problem with is giving them unnacountable power, just because they are professional revolutionaries.Fidel was never unaccountable. He was accountable to the people of Cuba, to his party and to the Cuban electoral system.
Listen, when it comes to Castro I kind of agree with you, he's one of the few people that managed to not let the power get to him, but you can't count on that, most people arn't like that. But ALSO when it comes to results, his personal power in the country comes before democracy.Democracy is why Fidel was in power. He was elected consistently to his position, and enjoyed the undoubted backing of the Cuban masses.
So what? He risked his life, he's a hero, that does'nt mean he should be president, btw, who was he running against?His experience as a revolutionary and as a figure in the Cuban government is unimpeachable. Another figure mentioned for the position was Ricardo Alarcon, there were a few others. BBC even ran a profile of a few of them (candidates for the Presidency), but I can't seem to find it.
RGacky3
15th June 2010, 23:46
He wasn't a worker when he was in the Sierra Maestras. What's your point?
My point is that once he's in power things change.
Fidel was never unaccountable. He was accountable to the people of Cuba, to his party and to the Cuban electoral system.
Whats the electoral recall system? Heres the thing, I'm not saying places like the United States are so much more democratic, but Cuba is not a functioning democracy, parts are, local power is very democratic, but federal power is very centralized, and thats not something we should fight for.
Democracy is why Fidel was in power. He was elected consistently to his position, and enjoyed the undoubted backing of the Cuban masses.
Yeah, under a 1 party system using democratic centrism, which is'nt exactly the most bottom up styles of democracy.
His experience as a revolutionary and as a figure in the Cuban government is unimpeachable. Another figure mentioned for the position was Ricardo Alarcon, there were a few others. BBC even ran a profile of a few of them (candidates for the Presidency), but I can't seem to find it.
Listen I'm not saying the Castros were not noble revolutionaries or anything, I'm saying that Socialism does'nt work UNLESS you have a full democracy, because a system where you have a leader that is not fully accountable democratically that controls the economy and the state is inevitably going to end up with that leader putting his power interests first.
I understand the Mechanics of Cuban democracy, but I also understand that just like the US is controlled by corporate interests, Cuban democracy is HIGHLY influenced by the communist party, and both systems have mechanisms of control.
Ultimately what I'm saying is Cuba is not the goal, we can't put our trust in leaders just because they are good people.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 23:51
My point is that once he's in power things change.
Yes, but not the interests he fought for.
Whats the electoral recall system? Heres the thing, I'm not saying places like the United States are so much more democratic, but Cuba is not a functioning democracy, parts are, local power is very democratic, but federal power is very centralized, and thats not something we should fight for.
Local power is what matters to Cuban workers the most. Also, centralized power does not mean undemocratic power; the federalized system ensures that local concerns and voices go all the way to the top. Members of the National Assembly keep their pre-election jobs and pay. All office-holders are subject to recall by the voters who were responsible for electing them.
Yeah, under a 1 party system using democratic centrism, which is'nt exactly the most bottom up styles of democracy.
It's not a one-party electoral system, it's a no-party electoral system. The elections are party-blind.
I understand the Mechanics of Cuban democracy, but I also understand that just like the US is controlled by corporate interests, Cuban democracy is HIGHLY influenced by the communist party, and both systems have mechanisms of control.
Influence does not equal control. Political parties have no role in nominating or electing candidates. The PCC engages in agitprop and advocates for socialism, but that's their right as much as any other political organization in Cuba.
it_ain't_me
16th June 2010, 03:56
i think it's worth pointing out (and no i did not read all 9 pages of this thread) that socialist *revolutions* have usually been remarkably bloodless. it's the civil war which is bloody, if it occurs. and whose fault is the civil war--those who try to cling to their privilege and property, or those who are trying to usher in a system which works equally to the benefit of all? for me, at least, the answer is clear.
Barry Lyndon
16th June 2010, 08:11
Because the war is already being waged and has been for 400 years. And we didn't start it.
More like 500, ever since Columbus landed and the colonization of the Americas began. I am fond of how Subcommandante Marcos referred to 1992 as 'Year 500' of the war between the global North and the global South-because that's exactly what it is.
Barry Lyndon
16th June 2010, 08:34
i think it's worth pointing out (and no i did not read all 9 pages of this thread) that socialist *revolutions* have usually been remarkably bloodless. it's the civil war which is bloody, if it occurs. and whose fault is the civil war--those who try to cling to their privilege and property, or those who are trying to usher in a system which works equally to the benefit of all? for me, at least, the answer is clear.
Yes, this is very true. And it is also worth noting what sort of status quo were/are they defending?
>In czarist Russia in 1916, it is estimated that one out of three babies died before their first birthday of hunger, disease, and cold.
The pro-czarist White Russian forces, in the areas that they controlled during the Russian Civil War, massacred 100-250,000 Jews in pogroms, and after they were defeated disseminated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, blaming the Bolshevik Revolution on the Jews and directly inspiring the Nazis.
>In China prior to the revolution, nearly one sixth of the population-over 90 million people, were opium addicts. In Shanghai in the late 1940's under the Kuomintang, it is estimated that every year the municipal city street sweepers had to clean up 25,000 dead bodies of men, women, and children who had been murdered during night, or had died of disease or starvation.
But were only supposed to condemn the violence of revolution. Who remembers the child prostitutes in 1950's Havana or the starving Vietnamese peasants bled dry by French colonial officials? This is the history that liberals and social democrats are blind to, just like they are blind to the silent death of millions of children who starve to death all over the Third World, quietly murdered by the cold logic of Capital.
Liberals are in no position to denounce the draconian measures the Communists took to alleviate those horrendous conditions and punish those responsible. It's their refusal to take drastic measures to replace such a horrendous system that leads to countless deaths on a regular basis all over the world. But then, if they weren't like that, they wouldn't be liberals.
Dimentio
16th June 2010, 10:33
Theoretically, you have a point. But until the day that capitalism embraces LGBT equality with no reservations, capitalism is the cause of LGBT suffering today. That was all I was saying.
By all respect, you must separate what capitalism is doing from what its agents are doing. Marx acknowledged that capitalism could have an emancipatory effect since it ultimately only values people after what contributions they could make to the system.
Just compare the USA in 1910 with 2010, and you will see that the establishment then was vehemently racist and homophobic, while only parts - which are shrinking - of it today could be characterised by such traits.
In countries like Sweden, the conservative prime minister is marching alongside gays and lesbians on pride day. In Russia and other eastern European countries, it is the right-wing liberal and conservative parties who generally are those who are supportive of gay rights.
Capitalism is only intrinsically racist in the same manner as its ruling class is. Whatever its faults, capitalism is not - unlike feudalism - judging people on their sexuality, race, nationality or similar. It is simply judging people on what they could offer to economic growth, and to some extent their social class. After that, it doesn't care whether or not they starve to death. The vice of capitalism is primarily indifference.
Social development is not an on-&-off switch. Its a gradual process, where the productive relations are changed by technology in a faster rate than human beings could adapt to the changed conditions. That is the main reason why such phenomenons like sexism, homophobia, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia and all other prejudices are lingering on, though in a constantly weakening state.
In general, racism is mostly prevailing in the shadow of the social system. The less included people are in the capitalist accumulation process, the more they tend to view the world in tribal terms. That is why racism often has popular support in the more backward and less developed zones of any given country, like the US south.
When people are completely integrated into the capitalist accumulation process, they tend to view the world in economist terms, which mean that in the cases they employ racism or anti-racism, their reasoning behind it have economic rather than moralist terms, and could change according to conditions.
Blake's Baby
16th June 2010, 10:42
More like 500, ever since Columbus landed and the colonization of the Americas began. I am fond of how Subcommandante Marcos referred to 1992 as 'Year 500' of the war between the global North and the global South-because that's exactly what it is.
The 'war between the global North and the global South' if it exists is not the same as the war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Spain's colonial expansion was feudalistic not capitalist.
RGacky3
16th June 2010, 10:54
Yes, but not the interests he fought for.
So he's got good intentions, so just let him have the power, you can't see the naivity in that? Also what happens when he dies? Do we import dedicated revolutionaries? To make sure, and you HONESTLY don't think that power can corrupt peoples?
Local power is what matters to Cuban workers the most.
I guess you asked them.
Also, centralized power does not mean undemocratic power; the federalized system ensures that local concerns and voices go all the way to the top.
SO what, it does'nt mean that the top is obliged to listen to them if he does'nt want to.
Members of the National Assembly keep their pre-election jobs and pay. All office-holders are subject to recall by the voters who were responsible for electing them.
I understand that, and thats a good system, however the National Assembally, just like the one in the USSR, is HIGHLY subject to the wishes and whims of the communist party, and thus Castro, because of the nominating process.
It's not a one-party electoral system, it's a no-party electoral system. The elections are party-blind.
Thats true but it would be extreamly hard for someone to get elected without ties to the PCC.
Influence does not equal control. Political parties have no role in nominating or electing candidates. The PCC engages in agitprop and advocates for socialism, but that's their right as much as any other political organization in Cuba.
Ok ok ok, however it is strange that party policy almost always becomes state policy.
manic expression
16th June 2010, 14:38
So he's got good intentions, so just let him have the power, you can't see the naivity in that? Also what happens when he dies? Do we import dedicated revolutionaries? To make sure, and you HONESTLY don't think that power can corrupt peoples?
That's not what I said. I was talking about interests, not intentions. Very big difference. You can have good intentions for workers while working for the interests of the capitalists; pushing forth the interests of the workers is quite another thing.
I guess you asked them.No, I read stuff like "The Myth of Cuban Dictatorship" by Professor Charles McKelvey, which for some stupid reason is no longer available on the internet right now. And I get info corroborated by independent research like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-1997-98-Elections-Arnold-August/dp/0968508405
SO what, it does'nt mean that the top is obliged to listen to them if he does'nt want to.It's hard to not listen to them if they are "them". That's how the National Assembly works, it's made up of workers who get no extra salary and keep their pre-election jobs during their time in office. Here's one example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7784234.stm
I understand that, and thats a good system, however the National Assembally, just like the one in the USSR, is HIGHLY subject to the wishes and whims of the communist party, and thus Castro, because of the nominating process.Only because members of the communist party are consistently elected by their fellow community members. The nominating process happens outside of the party, the party has no role in it other than the participation of their members. Membership to the PCC, it should be noted, isn't something you get when you ask for it; candidates for PCC membership must be nominated by their fellow community members and co-workers after displaying an exceptional dedication to the Revolution and the cause of socialism. Only then do candidates really get considered by the party.
Thats true but it would be extreamly hard for someone to get elected without ties to the PCC.Ok ok ok, however it is strange that party policy almost always becomes state policy.[/QUOTE]
I vaguely remember a few cases where party policy didn't become adopted by the state, but nevertheless, the above is only a product of Cuban workers supporting the PCC. The very positive reputation of the PCC among the Cuban masses is due to the PCC proving itself as the vanguard of the Revolution and the Cuban workers...not because people are forced to like the party.
it_ain't_me
16th June 2010, 15:17
In China prior to the revolution, nearly one sixth of the population-over 90 million people, were opium addicts. In Shanghai in the late 1940's under the Kuomintang, it is estimated that every year the municipal city street sweepers had to clean up 25,000 dead bodies of men, women, and children who had been murdered during night, or had died of disease or starvation.
yes, and don't forget the ''white terror'' of 1927:
White Terror (Chinese: 白色恐怖; pinyin: Báisč Kǒngbů) in relation to modern Chinese history is associated with the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek. On April 12, 1927, Chiang carried out purge of Communists from the Kuomintang in Shanghai and began large-scale killings. Chiang's forces turned machine guns on 100,000 workers taking to streets, killing more than 5000 people. Throughout April 1927 in Shanghai, more than 12,000 people were killed. The killing in Shanghai drove most of the Communists out of the urban cities and into the rural countryside.[3] The greatest slaughter took place in the countryside, however. The White Terror in China took millions of lives, most of them in the rural areas.[4] The Chinese Communist Party was virtually extinguished. At the beginning of 1927, the Chinese Communist Party had about 60,000 members. By the end of the year, no more than 10,000 remained. The "White Terror" continued throughout the Chinese Civil War, and also resulted in the assassination of a number of prominent Communists, leftists and democrats such as Wen Yiduo. ultimately, i don't think it's necessary to compare red terror with white terror, though i think it is a useful tactic against those right-wingers and liberals who try to deny history.
Lulznet
16th June 2010, 15:35
I don't see the need of a 'violent' revolution when there can be a peaceful one. If there is an option to get the objectives done peacefully, then by all means we should avoid potential blood shed.
Violence should be a last measure at all costs. :)
the last donut of the night
18th June 2010, 00:28
South America had one big revolution in the 19th Century that defeated Spanish colonialism and was a great step for its people. I'd like to hear you argue that independence for those nations didn't change a thing. Go ahead, I look forward to it.
As somebody coming from SA, I have to disagree. It might've been good for the rich white people, but not for the poor black and native people.
Bud Struggle
18th June 2010, 00:37
As somebody coming from SA, I have to disagree. It might've been good for the rich white people, but not for the poor black and native people.
In the 19th century South America had over 100 Revolutions--and all the people got are some stupid tee shirts!
(And starvation and low and unpaid work and stolen land and burnt forests and dirty rivers and dumps and "freedom."
A Revolutionary Tool
18th June 2010, 01:05
Because it's easy for fascists to smash pacifists and to literally enslave them.
A Revolutionary Tool
18th June 2010, 01:09
In the 19th century South America had over 100 Revolutions--and all the people got are some stupid tee shirts!
(And starvation and low and unpaid work and stolen land and burnt forests and dirty rivers and dumps and "freedom."
In the 19th century many South American countries overthrew their colonial masters and then couldn't overthrow their national bourgeoisie. Their national bourgeoisie forces basically put them back into a colonial state of being when they sold out(Or rather fulfilled their historical duty of being capitalists) their people to foreign companies AKA imperialism.
RGacky3
18th June 2010, 09:56
In the 19th century South America had over 100 Revolutions--and all the people got are some stupid tee shirts!
(And starvation and low and unpaid work and stolen land and burnt forests and dirty rivers and dumps and "freedom."
You don't know what your talking about, South America could have been as bad as Africa if they allowed Europe to compleatly plunder them, what stopped Europe was revolutions. The only way the indigenous got any rights in Mexico was through revolutions, the only reason Bolivians don't have their water taken is through revolution, I can continue, but the fact is you are out of touch with reality.
Fictional
18th June 2010, 10:17
It is a revolutionary change in the heart and mind of Man, of his nature and the nature of the systems he forms for himself, that is needed. Has not violence, war, and bloodshed repeatedly been seen to open the door for those who would take advantage of the chaos to establish a new dictatorship, to weaken the Cause with internal conflict, to turn the People against those who sparked the conflict, and to unify the reactionaries and dis-empowered in their struggle to reestablish the status quo ante?
Why wish for such things and not seek peaceable solutions whenever possible?
Have you ever stood infront of a Neo-Nazi and said "Please stop hitting me in the face with that large metal bat." - it doesn't work.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.