North Korea's Kim Re-elected in a Landslide

[elijahcraig]

Comrades give Kim a 100 per cent vote of confidence

August 5 2003

North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, won a seat on the nation's rubber-stamp parliament with a widely expected 100 per cent of the vote in legislative elections, Pyongyang's official media said yesterday.

Mr Kim was one of 687 candidates handpicked by the ruling Workers Party who stood unopposed and each of whom won 100 per cent of votes cast for the Supreme People's Assembly on Sunday.

The only black spot, the official Korean Central News Agency admitted, was the turnout. It stood at 99.9 per cent. The other 0.1 per cent were living abroad or were at sea, KCNA said.

The people gave their "absolute" support to Mr Kim, who has led the country since the death of his father, Kim Il-sung, in 1994. Mr Kim won a seat from constituency 649 in the capital.

"The voters registered at constituency No. 649 all went to the polls and 100 per cent of them voted for Kim Jong-il, " the news agency said.

"This is an expression of the absolute support and trust of all the servicemen and the people in him."

Explaining Mr Kim's electoral appeal, the agency said he was the man responsible for building up the nation's military power.

He faces the challenge of reviving an economy thought by outside experts to be near collapse and plagued by dire food and fuel shortages - troubles compounded by North Korea's political isolation over its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry said yesterday that it expected six-country talks on the crisis over the country's nuclear weapons program would open soon in Beijing, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

KCNA said the election result showed the communist state remained solid.

"This is an expression of all the voters' support and trust in the Government and a manifestation of our army and people's steadfast will to consolidate the people's power as firm as a rock and accomplish the revolutionary cause," KCNA said.

Voting took place in festive mood, with singing and dancing and decorated polling booths. Soldiers cast ballots and "loudly sang songs of revolution and danced with joy", KCNA said.

North Korean state TV showed footage of Mr Kim voting at the Kim Il-sung Military University in Pyongyang. Wearing his customary leisure suit, he shook hands and received flowers from officers before voting.

Agence France-Presse, Reuters

This story was found at: www.smh.com.au/articles/2...47363.html

[antieverything]

Wow, now we have our proof that he is a great leader!

You know, Benito Mussolini used to get 100% of the vote in Italian "elections".

[redstar2000]

That's the kind of result that will give Bush, Blair, and Howard ideas. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

:trotski: :hammer: :che: :engles: :marx: :castro: :cuba:

[Saint-Just]

'That's the kind of result that will give Bush, Blair, and Howard ideas.'

I know you are hardly pro-DPRK redstar (although at least you don't want to see the destroyed by the imperialists), but I don't understand what you mean by this. The only thing I can think is that it will give them ideas as to attempt to gain 100% of the vote in their own countries?

Thats a very nice news report elijahcraig, unfortunately theres prettier pictures e.g. Lenin, Stalin, Mao than Trotsky.

[antieverything]

First of all, these people have been constantly bombarded with propaganda since the day they were born...I'm not talking about Western-style propaganda, I'm talking about loudspeakers praising the glorious god-king that Kim is supposed to be revered as.

Second of all, you can bet that a negative vote will 1) not be reported in the state newspaper anyway 2) result in a crackdown on those who could have possibly cast such a vote...in such a state it wouldn't be too hard to find out who did it.

State news sources in "communist" countries hardly have a record for telling stories that resemble the truth.

[Just Joe]

Mao, I think redstar2000 may be trying to imply that this vote is nothing more than a sham. To say that 100% of the countries population want him there is pure stupidity.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Just [email protected] 5 2003, 05:45 PM
Mao, I think redstar2000 may be trying to imply that this vote is nothing more than a sham. To say that 100% of the countries population want him there is pure stupidity.
Pretty much, Comrade Just Joe...

Saddam Hussein got 99.9% or 100% in an "election" held a couple of months before the imperial invasion by the U.S. and the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced. Elections in police states really mean nothing.

[Vladimir]

Great election! Why can't they say he got 70% of the vote, it would seem far more realistic. Although Western Propaganda would only say 30% of the population are miserable under his rule. It's impossible isn't it?

[elijahcraig]

Thats a very nice news report elijahcraig, unfortunately theres prettier pictures e.g. Lenin, Stalin, Mao than Trotsky.

:cuba: :castro: :marx: :engles: :hammer:

Do we not have a Stalin smilie?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 06:28 PM
Great election! Why can't they say he got 70% of the vote, it would seem far more realistic. Although Western Propaganda would only say 30% of the population are miserable under his rule. It's impossible isn't it?
Haha yeah, I was thinking that. I mean, I don't know who was using the North Korean Goverment's brain cell on the day of the election but whoever it was surely they might have suggested a slightly less preposterous result.

North Korea - Vive Socialisme!

Defend North Korea's Right To Nuclear Arms!


Haha.

[antieverything]

I don't think that it is us they are trying to convince...the people of North Korea are conditioned to not question Kim's right to rule. If they learned that even a few dozen people in the country would like another leader, they would have reason to question as well.

[Moskitto]

I think the most important bit of this is

Mr Kim was one of 687 candidates handpicked by the ruling Workers Party who stood unopposed...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 01:59 PM
I think the most important bit of this is

Mr Kim was one of 687 candidates handpicked by the ruling Workers Party who stood unopposed...
so....687 were unopposed? :huh:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yes unopposed.

Unopposed by other parties bsides the communist party. The way it should be done.

[antieverything]

...exactly, the way it should be done...if you don't want to give the people any control at all!

I'm not sure if some of you are thinking this but I thought I would clear it up because it sort of seems like there is a misunderstanding. There were 687 candidates running for 687 different positions, not 687 for the same position.

I think someone should give RAF a quick primer in the concept of democracy (even of "workers democracy") so that he can understand why "democratic" centralism is a misnomer.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

hmm, sounds to me like a rather oppressive oligarchy. :angry:

[Rastafari]

Democracy doesn't work in all situations, I'm afraid. but who said Democracy was the ideal? Democracy elected Bush, didn't it? It elected Hitler, right?




oh, and this is my 1000 post. big news, eh?

[blackemma]

Democracy doesn't work in all situations, I'm afraid. but who said Democracy was the ideal? Democracy elected Bush, didn't it? It elected Hitler, right?

Democracy isn't perfect, no one ever said it was. Democracy with propaganda in place is especially flawed. That Hitler came to power was more to do with a crumbling, capitalist economy, the results of an imperialist war, and a thousand other factors. Let's not forget, though Hitler received the highest percentage of all the parties, he was not ruling by majority rule and was able to gain his power only after declaring a state of emergency following the Reichstag fire, which also conveniently allowed him to eliminate all social-democratic and socialist opposition.

As for Bush, let's not forget he didn't win the election! If the votes had been counted fairly, read Michael Moore's book for a more detailed *****ing (though I disagree with the man's politics, he did a good job with regards to covering the last federal election in the US), we would have had Gore for president. Now, I don't view this as a good thing - in fact, I think it would have been worse, at least in the long run. I'm merely pointing out that both examples aren't really great representations of Western democracy.

In my eyes, the problems with democracy run a lot deeper. First, democracy, by its very nature, is coercive: it forces the minority to follow the whims of the majority. Even with consitutional limits, there is an assumption made that the majority knows what's best. Emma Goldman did a good job shattering this illusion in her essay Minorities Versus Majorities. This is also why all real socialists should seek to abolish democracy in the long run. The problem is that, in the past, socialists have sought to replace bourgeois democracy (which comes with a whole set of problems) with a dictatorship of the proletariat (read as: dicatorship of the Party). What socialists fail to see was even if if the 'worker's democracies' established by Communist parties had operated democratically, which they didn't, it would neglect the point that democracy is inherently tyrannical. Certainly, one can make democracy better, but it does not solve the fundamental problems that it comes complete with.

Alas, I'm done ranting. The North Korean election was a joke so was the Bush election and so was Castro's election and on, and on, and on... Elections are a sham. Don't vote - it only encourages them.

[Rastafari]

good call

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:25 AM
...exactly, the way it should be done...if you don't want to give the people any control at all!

I'm not sure if some of you are thinking this but I thought I would clear it up because it sort of seems like there is a misunderstanding. There were 687 candidates running for 687 different positions, not 687 for the same position.

I think someone should give RAF a quick primer in the concept of democracy (even of "workers democracy") so that he can understand why "democratic" centralism is a misnomer.
You're too quick to judge son. Perhaps your dislike for me has clouded your capacity for rational thought. I know exactly what was meant here and yes, I should have used the words "outside and including" in place of "besides". You really got me here toughguy...I'm so ashamed of my huge error in semantics. Get a grip on reality sonny-boy.

You're just a ball breaker AI and nothing else. Come and break my balls when you have been educated enough to actually give me lessons in democracy.

If it were up to liberal neo-leftist like yourself we would all simply bend right over for the capitalists.


Black emma,

There is no doubt that the cows follow the bull in the case of "democracy" in the US. Let us first understand that the US has never been a "democracy" they are a democratic republic. The concept of the democratic republic was created to attempt to combat the masses voting out of environment rather than education.

However essentially it's logic is flawed due to the simple fact the same voters that vote in their representatives are the same that vote in presidential elections making it a mute point entirely. The key to social democracy is creating a new model of man that is actually poitically mature. Therefore understanding politics will be as normal for any member of the working class as lets say, eating when you are hungry.

Only after the new model of man is introduced (several generations after the onset of socialism) will democracy truly be relevant. To discount it due to it's current nature is a mistake.

These "elections" in the DPRK are that way as the proletariat is still being targeted by the west with anti-communist propaganda and cannot fully be trusted. Subversionism is still rampant in the DPRK, therefore completely open elections could indeed be devastating. (hence my comment on "that's the way it should be", Ball Breaker) Once the leaders of the DPRK show that they no longer have the proletariat's best intrest in mind would I then condone a coup of some sort. I have not seen ample evidence of this besides unprovable propaganda, so at this point I stand by their decision to "hand-pick" the administration.

I welcome any quips you may have AI. They give us a laugh.

[antieverything]

Gees, since every one of your "arguments" are addressed to other people, I'll have to respond to those. Oh, and I appologize for my confusing order of paragraphs, the second paragraph wasn't addressed to you at all.


Get a grip on reality sonny-boy....said the totalitarian stooge...I think you should take a few seconds to observe a bit of this reality you speak of...it may suprise you!


If it were up to liberal neo-leftist like yourself we would all simply bend right over for the capitalists....ouch...that would have hurt if it had any basis in reality and wasn't just something you thought sounded cool...wait, no it still would have been stupid.


There is no doubt that the cows follow the bull in the case of "democracy" in the US. Let us first understand that the US has never been a "democracy" they are a democratic republic. The concept of the democratic republic was created to attempt to combat the masses voting out of environment rather than education.So, what you are saying is that everyone should vote on absolutely everything? Also, I recommend looking up the definition of the word democracy. Who needs the education again? Every government you have defended has been designed on the republican model...in fact, most anarchists accept some level of republicanism as necessary. Your idea of how and why the republican model was created is moronic seeing as the masses couldn't even vote when it was designed and that wasn't supposed to change in the minds of the "designers".


However essentially it's logic is flawed due to the simple fact the same voters that vote in their representatives are the same that vote in presidential elections making it a mute point entirely. The key to social democracy is creating a new model of man that is actually poitically mature. Therefore understanding politics will be as normal for any member of the working class as lets say, eating when you are hungry.

Only after the new model of man is introduced (several generations after the onset of socialism) will democracy truly be relevant. To discount it due to it's current nature is a mistake. The idea that the snivelling, unfit masses will be made "fit" for democracy by being deprived of it for generations is certainly...interesting. It sounds suspiciously like saying that the people must only be released into the democratic world after they have been brainwashed to do exactly as their handlers would want them to. Is this democracy of yet another illusion of it? This isn't to say that pessimism is automatically wrong but in this case it runs contrary to what we know about human social structures and their development. You obviously don't have your mail-order PhD in sociology!

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 04:00 AM
Democracy doesn't work in all situations, I'm afraid. but who said Democracy was the ideal? Democracy elected Bush, didn't it? It elected Hitler, right?




oh, and this is my 1000 post. big news, eh?
My dad reckons democracy doesn't work in Africa and every region has a different government style suited to it, he thinks something like in Fiji would work better in Africa because it's the way it has been traditionally done in Africa.

[Rastafari]

wise call. but many people believe the same thing thinking the people of Africa are too primitive to choose a leader, which makes me want to kill them! :angry:

[antieverything]

I don't discount that idea but I would like to see an actual example of a stable African democracy juxtaposed against a well-functioning African dictatorship. There are perhaps no examples of the former and probably none of the latter as well. I doubt that the people of Africa would agree with you, however. What we see as the failure of African democracy is usually an example of a phantom democracy in the first place!

[il Commy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 04:00 AM
Democracy doesn't work in all situations, I'm afraid. but who said Democracy was the ideal? Democracy elected Bush, didn't it? It elected Hitler, right?
It wasn't democracy, it was the dictatorship of the bourgeois. The bourgeois democracy is only symbolic. A true democracy can only be found after the abolish of private property. The abolish of private property can only be achieved by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only true democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariat oppresses the minorty, the bourgeois, who it won in the revolution. But in the same time, in order for it to remain the dictatorship of the proletariat, it must be run democraticly by the workers through workers' councils and elections for all duties of the goverment. The socialist democracy doesn't need a multi party system, it gives the workers the option to choose the people they want to see in the goverment. It prevents corruption by giving every person in the goverment a payment equal to an average worker's payment.


This is not the case for North Korea. The people do not rule it, it is not a socialist democracy or the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has a bourgeois who has grown on the back of the deformed workers' state. Because of the need to protect the revolution from imperialism and the counter-revolution, they took away more and more democratic rights until there were none left, and the bureaucracy became the new bourgeois. This proves again that a socialist revolution can only come on an international base. The only way to save the countries which are still socialists, Cuba and Vietnam, from becoming state-capitalists like China and DPRK is to expand the socialist revolution to the world. As more and more countries will become socialists less and less will be the revolutions threatened by imperialism and they'll become true workers' states - the socialist democracy and the dictatorship of the proletriat.

[Ian]

Moskitto, your dad is an idiot, tell him to read up on Fiji, it's the most racist states in the Pacific, everytime an Indian is elected the Fijians stage a coup and kill Indians.

If you think coup's in Africa is a good idea, good for you, just don't go running for office or we'll all be in a spot of bother...

[antieverything]

I may be wrong but wasn't """""""""""Democratic"""""""""""" (one pair of quotes just doesn't seem to do the trick) Korea a Stalinist state from day one?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by il [email protected] 7 2003, 09:51 AM
This is not the case for North Korea. The people do not rule it, it is not a socialist democracy or the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has a bourgeois who has grown on the back of the deformed workers' state. Because of the need to protect the revolution from imperialism and the counter-revolution, they took away more and more democratic rights until there were none left, and the bureaucracy became the new bourgeois. This proves again that a socialist revolution can only come on an international base. The only way to save the countries which are still socialists, Cuba and Vietnam, from becoming state-capitalists like China and DPRK is to expand the socialist revolution to the world. As more and more countries will become socialists less and less will be the revolutions threatened by imperialism and they'll become true workers' states - the socialist democracy and the dictatorship of the proletriat.
You don't think the DPRK tries to spread the revolution? You don't think Cuba has either?

[antieverything]

I have little faith in any current "communist" country becoming a socialist democracy anytime soon. It doesn't seem to be the way things work with dictatorships.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Aug 7 2003, 09:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Aug 7 2003, 09:42 PM)
il [email protected] 7 2003, 09:51 AM
This is not the case for North Korea. The people do not rule it, it is not a socialist democracy or the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has a bourgeois who has grown on the back of the deformed workers&#39; state. Because of the need to protect the revolution from imperialism and the counter-revolution, they took away more and more democratic rights until there were none left, and the bureaucracy became the new bourgeois. This proves again that a socialist revolution can only come on an international base. The only way to save the countries which are still socialists, Cuba and Vietnam, from becoming state-capitalists like China and DPRK is to expand the socialist revolution to the world. As more and more countries will become socialists less and less will be the revolutions threatened by imperialism and they&#39;ll become true workers&#39; states - the socialist democracy and the dictatorship of the proletriat.
You don&#39;t think the DPRK tries to spread the revolution? You don&#39;t think Cuba has either? [/b]
I&#39;m sure Cuba is trying to spread the revolution, but it won&#39;t succeed without the revolutionary partie around the world ofcourse.

But I&#39;m not very sure about DPRK though. I haven&#39;t really investigated them yet, but a country with starving citizens who speands money on nuclear weapon and have fake elections, seems to me very state-capitalist. It might try spread the revolution to South Korea, but for further revolutions they&#39;ll be no use. The situation of the working class there is very similar to the situation of the working class in the USSR when Trotzky wrote the "Transitional Program", it must rebel against it&#39;s new oppressors and form a real workers&#39; state. But in order for the workers to come out of their reactionary state they must see a revolution in a &#39;democratic&#39; country which shall form a model of a real workers&#39; state. Korean workers might follow that model to fight against their ruling class and form a real dictatorship of the proletariat.

That&#39;s why Stalin killed the heads of the European communist parties and destroyed the Internationale, he was afraid that the workers of his country will see a true workers&#39; state and will try to imitate this model by kicking him out the door by a revolution.

[Saint-Just]

Il commy, looking at your reply you have not come across my personal political views before.

Anyway, would you consider Cuba a socialist democracy? likely not if you&#39;re a Trotskyist. I should imagine you consider it progressive but still suffering the influences of Stalinism.

&#39;It might try spread the revolution to South Korea, but for further revolutions they&#39;ll be no use.&#39;

It has tried to spread the revolution everywhere, although in reality there is little you can do besides send arms, propaganda and set up political organisations in other countries. It has only used propaganda and set up political organisations abroad. It has sold some arms at a reasonable price.

[blackemma]

most anarchists accept some level of republicanism as necessary.

I think democracy can be improved up until a point, but that ultimately it&#39;s still a form of statism and should be dismantled. I would favour a republic over a democracy, provided that capitalism was abolished and some sort of collectivist/communist system replaced it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I&#39;ll bite AI. Just because your post was so amusing rather than thought provoking;


So, what you are saying is that everyone should vote on absolutely everything? Also, I recommend looking up the definition of the word democracy. Who needs the education again? Every government you have defended has been designed on the republican model...in fact, most anarchists accept some level of republicanism as necessary. Your idea of how and why the republican model was created is moronic seeing as the masses couldn&#39;t even vote when it was designed and that wasn&#39;t supposed to change in the minds of the "designers".

Please show me the "list" of governments I have "defended". Good attempt at back peddling by telling me I need an education. One of my post graduate economics professors said the same thing when I had the "cheeck" to publicly critisise his support for the Tory party and yanqui republican party in 1989.
Please explain to me why in fact the "democratic republic" was created. I say again, it was created as a political effort to remove "stale" voters from election proceedings. Democracy was not "invented" by the masses. Democracy was invented by Rousseau.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about and simply are just a ball breaker.



The idea that the snivelling, unfit masses will be made "fit" for democracy by being deprived of it for generations is certainly...interesting. It sounds suspiciously like saying that the people must only be released into the democratic world after they have been brainwashed to do exactly as their handlers would want them to. Is this democracy of yet another illusion of it? This isn&#39;t to say that pessimism is automatically wrong but in this case it runs contrary to what we know about human social structures and their development. You obviously don&#39;t have your mail-order PhD in sociology&#33;

Well I suppose you then think Che Guevara&#39;s "Man and Socialism in Cuba" is then "snivelling" as this is his ideal. Don&#39;t read much do you?

By the way ball breaker, my "mail order" Ph.D is not in Sociology. Get with the programme mate. I&#39;m sorry that the majority of my posts fly over your head. (hence the bitterness the boy has for me) If there were someway I could become "dumber" so you will understand me please enlighten me. Perhaps if I ever have a lobotomy you and I will finally be able to communicate on the same intellectual level.

Good day ball breaker.


EDIT:

For everyone that does not know, AI is an avid Redstar2000 worshipper that does not like the fact I disagree with his "prophet" on many issues. I&#39;m sure my signature makes him right angry.

Knowing what I know of RS and his obviouse detestment for blind "idol worship" I can really image he is "thrilled" by AI&#39;s "kneel and pray" treatment of him.

I take AI&#39;s words about as seriously as I take Keanu Reeves&#39; acting. It&#39;s not my problem AI has about as much integrity as a wet paper bag. One day he may be "all growed up" and may even "go off to college".

I wouldn&#39;t hold my breath however.

I can literally smell AI&#39;s dramatic "How dare you attack my character" rant coming in the mail. This should be funny.

[lokigreeny]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:00 PM
Democracy doesn&#39;t work in all situations, I&#39;m afraid. but who said Democracy was the ideal? Democracy elected Bush, didn&#39;t it? It elected Hitler, right?




oh, and this is my 1000 post. big news, eh?
No it didnt elect Bush, and Hitler was only elected after his putsch and burning of the Reichstad. so, no, democracy did not elect these people.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 7 2003, 10:39 PM
Il commy, looking at your reply you have not come across my personal political views before.

Anyway, would you consider Cuba a socialist democracy? likely not if you&#39;re a Trotskyist. I should imagine you consider it progressive but still suffering the influences of Stalinism.

&#39;It might try spread the revolution to South Korea, but for further revolutions they&#39;ll be no use.&#39;

It has tried to spread the revolution everywhere, although in reality there is little you can do besides send arms, propaganda and set up political organisations in other countries. It has only used propaganda and set up political organisations abroad. It has sold some arms at a reasonable price.
No, I haven&#39;t come across your views, but I can understand you&#39;re Maoist from your nickname.

Do I think Cuba is socialist? Yes, though I believe it&#39;s abit deformed. The crisis in &#39;91 made them restore abit of private ownership, opening small buisnesses especially for tourism. The imperialist interferences made them to keep Castro as a dictator without elections, while all the other people in govermental positions are elections. These deformatives can only be fixed by a revolution in Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Venezuela and the rest of South America and the world.

The Cuban revolution had in my opinion a very wrong character, Che and Castro had a guerilla army along with a few peasants. They ceased control over the country with the help of the general strike of the poletarins, but the proletarians didn&#39;t win with their own tools so the revolution created a workers&#39; stae deformed from the begining. But I think they got over THOSE deformatives, since they now have free elections for every position in the state and the workers are involved in the planning of economy.

As for DPRK trying to spread the revolution, Stalin "tried" to spread the revolution to, by making the Internationale order to the revolutionary parties to take place in the "popular fronts", a thing which failed the Spanish and Chienese revolutions. I won&#39;t be suprised if DPRK "helps" in ways like that to other revolutions.

And as I said, they need to focus more on ther starving people than on other things.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 03:07 AM
No it didnt elect Bush, and Hitler was only elected after his putsch and burning of the Reichstad. so, no, democracy did not elect these people.
The puthsch failed. It was in &#39;23, he tried to win the leadership like Musolini. He hadn&#39;t had enough power yet.

The burning of the Reichstag was after he ceased the leadership. He blamed the Communists on that and used it as an excuse to put the Communist party out of the law.

Hitler won in free elections.

[Lefty]

Well, Chairman Mao, I don&#39;t think the DPRK is trying to spread the revolution, and I hope you were joking when you said that. Well, actually, I guess it depends on your definition of "revolution." If by "revolution" you mean "the proletariat have to eat grass to survive while the fucking lunatic of a leader languishes in one of his hundreds of gold-plated palaces and drinks Courvesier and watches movies" I guess you are right. Also, if you think he got 100 percent of the votes because 100 percent of the people in North Korea like him that much and chose him over another candidate, you are wrong, and stupid, at that.

[Saint-Just]

thing which failed the Spanish and Chienese revolutions.

In what way do you suggest the Chinese revolution &#39;failed&#39;.

Well, Chairman Mao, I don&#39;t think the DPRK is trying to spread the revolution, and I hope you were joking when you said that. Well, actually, I guess it depends on your definition of "revolution." If by "revolution" you mean "the proletariat have to eat grass to survive while the fucking lunatic of a leader languishes in one of his hundreds of gold-plated palaces and drinks Courvesier and watches movies" I guess you are right. Also, if you think he got 100 percent of the votes because 100 percent of the people in North Korea like him that much and chose him over another candidate, you are wrong, and stupid, at that.

Have you ever come across a thread where I have give details as to the economic situation in the DPRK? I was not aware he had hundreds of gold-plated palaces, nor did I know that drinking Courvesier or watching films had much to do in relation to spreading the revolution.

I believe he got 100 percent of the vote because 100 percent of the vote of constituency 649, since it is in Pyongyang and he did stand unopposed. It would be a different case if he was standing under judgement of the entirity of the DPRK. Thus, as of yet you have not labelled me as stupid and wrong, although I do agree, I would be stupid to suggest he obtained 100 percent of the vote of North Korea since there was no election that allowed the entire voting population to vote on his leadership. Of course, there never will be since the secretary of the WPK is chosen by the WPK, much like in western bourgeois democracies.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 8 2003, 12:13 PM
thing which failed the Spanish and Chienese revolutions.

In what way do you suggest the Chinese revolution &#39;failed&#39;.
I&#39;m not talking about the &#39;49 revolution with Mao Zedong as the leader.

I&#39;m talking about 1927, when a bourgeoise revolution occured. The Kuomintang dismissed the royal family and the workers of China were uprising and were in an agitation. The workers could have taken the rule and establish a workers&#39; councils dictatorship, but the Stalinist party decided to go along with the "progressive bourgeois" of the Kuomintang and oppress the proletarian revolution. So, without a leading party and with the workers&#39; aristocracy cooporating with the bourgeois the workers of China were defeated.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by il Commy+Aug 8 2003, 12:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (il Commy @ Aug 8 2003, 12:49 PM)
Chairman [email protected] 8 2003, 12:13 PM
thing which failed the Spanish and Chienese revolutions.

In what way do you suggest the Chinese revolution &#39;failed&#39;.
I&#39;m not talking about the &#39;49 revolution with Mao Zedong as the leader.

I&#39;m talking about 1927, when a bourgeoise revolution occured. The Kuomintang dismissed the royal family and the workers of China were uprising and were in an agitation. The workers could have taken the rule and establish a workers&#39; councils dictatorship, but the Stalinist party decided to go along with the "progressive bourgeois" of the Kuomintang and oppress the proletarian revolution. So, without a leading party and with the workers&#39; aristocracy cooporating with the bourgeois the workers of China were defeated. [/b]
[i]The opposition demands that the Chinese revolution should develop at approximately the same pace as the October Revolution did. The opposition is dissatisfied because the Shanghai workers did not give decisive battle to the imperialists and their underlings.

But it does not realise that the revolution in China cannot develop at a fast pace, one reason being that the international situation today is less favourable than it was in 1917 (the imperialists are not at war with one another).

It does not realise that decisive battle must not be given in unfavourable conditions, when the reserves have not yet been brought up -- just as the Bolsheviks, for example, did not give decisive battle either in April or in July 1917.

The opposition does not realise that not to avoid decisive battle in unfavourable conditions (when it can be avoided) means making things easier for the enemies of the revolution.

In the first place, they cannot be formed at any desired moment -- they are formed only when the tide of revolution is running particularly high...

But what would forming Soviets mean at the present moment in the area of action, say, of the Wuhan government? It would mean issuing the slogan of a struggle against the existing power in that area. It would mean issuing a slogan for the formation of new organs of power, a slogan of struggle against the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang, which includes Communists working in a bloc with the Kuomintang Lefts, for no other power exists now in that area except the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang.

It would mean, further, confusing the task of creating and strengthening mass organisations of the workers and peasants -- in the shape of strike committees, peasant associations and committees, trade-union councils, factory committees, etc. -- on which the revolutionary Kuomintang already relies, with the task of establishing a Soviet system, as a new type of state power, in place of the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang.

It would mean, lastly, a failure to understand what stage the revolution in China is now passing through. It would mean placing in the hands of the enemies of the Chinese people a new weapon against the revolution, enabling them to spread new legends to the effect that what is taking place in China is

not a national revolution, but artificially transplanted "Moscow Sovietisation."

Hence, in advancing the slogan of the formation of Soviets at the present moment, the opposition is playing into the hands of the enemies of the Chinese revolution.

The opposition considcrs inexpedient the participation of the Communist Party in the Kuomintang. The opposition, consequently, considers expedient a withdrawal of the Communist Party from the Kuomintang

Stalin and the CPSU, which this statement comes from, wanted nothing more than a worker&#39;s revolution in China. This is why they advised the Bolsheviks in China to be an ally of the Kuomintang. Then again in the 30&#39;s they aided the Long March but then advised the Red Army to once again aid the Kuomintang in fighting against the Japanese imperialists. Maybe, the Bolsheviks would have been successful in 1927, but the CPSU and evidently the Chinese themselves thought it better to wait.

Their plans came to fruition in the 1949 revolution.

[TXsocialist]

Oh bloody hillarious&#33; You would think Lil Kim, for propaganda purposes, would maybe tone it down a notch, LOL, 100%

NORTH KOREAN VOTING PROCEDURES:

1. write whether or not you approve of Lil Kimmie&#39;s rule

2. Show it to the friendly Happy Camp officer to make sure you spelled everything right

3. Cast ballot.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 8 2003, 01:10 PM
[i]The opposition demands that the Chinese revolution should develop at approximately the same pace as the October Revolution did. The opposition is dissatisfied because the Shanghai workers did not give decisive battle to the imperialists and their underlings.

But it does not realise that the revolution in China cannot develop at a fast pace, one reason being that the international situation today is less favourable than it was in 1917 (the imperialists are not at war with one another).

It does not realise that decisive battle must not be given in unfavourable conditions, when the reserves have not yet been brought up -- just as the Bolsheviks, for example, did not give decisive battle either in April or in July 1917.

The opposition does not realise that not to avoid decisive battle in unfavourable conditions (when it can be avoided) means making things easier for the enemies of the revolution.

In the first place, they cannot be formed at any desired moment -- they are formed only when the tide of revolution is running particularly high...

But what would forming Soviets mean at the present moment in the area of action, say, of the Wuhan government? It would mean issuing the slogan of a struggle against the existing power in that area. It would mean issuing a slogan for the formation of new organs of power, a slogan of struggle against the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang, which includes Communists working in a bloc with the Kuomintang Lefts, for no other power exists now in that area except the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang.

It would mean, further, confusing the task of creating and strengthening mass organisations of the workers and peasants -- in the shape of strike committees, peasant associations and committees, trade-union councils, factory committees, etc. -- on which the revolutionary Kuomintang already relies, with the task of establishing a Soviet system, as a new type of state power, in place of the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang.

It would mean, lastly, a failure to understand what stage the revolution in China is now passing through. It would mean placing in the hands of the enemies of the Chinese people a new weapon against the revolution, enabling them to spread new legends to the effect that what is taking place in China is

not a national revolution, but artificially transplanted "Moscow Sovietisation."

Hence, in advancing the slogan of the formation of Soviets at the present moment, the opposition is playing into the hands of the enemies of the Chinese revolution.

The opposition considcrs inexpedient the participation of the Communist Party in the Kuomintang. The opposition, consequently, considers expedient a withdrawal of the Communist Party from the Kuomintang
It&#39;s a very good thing you brought this statment. It shows so many errors of the Stalinist strategy.

First of all, the Kuomintang was not "revolutionary" or "prgressive". The bourgeois isn&#39;t progressive, it only tries to exploit the workingmen. The Kuomintang wasn&#39;t fighting the imperialism generally, it was cooporating with one imperalism against the other according to the needs of the bourgeois.

The "two stages" theory of Stalin is bullshit. It&#39;s saying you must after a national liberation form Capitalism, and only in the "second stage" form Socialism. Ofcourse it never happend, China had a peasant revolution and not a proletarian revolution in &#39;49. The only class who can liberate a nation from imperialism is the proletariat, and it shouldn&#39;t put new oppressors upon his back.

The democratic revolution, the revolution for self-determination and other democratic rights, can only be lead by the working class and the peasants. The bourgeois is not revolutionary this days, since it doesn&#39;t fight feodalism but a different burgeois, the imperialist burgeois. Ofcourse there&#39;s a difference between oppressed and oppressing nation, but be sure that an oppressed burgeois is not a true progressive class and will opress other nations if given the chance. The working class must proceed from the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, making it a "permanent revolution", otherwise the bourgeois will only oppress and exploit him. The working class should fight with it&#39;s own tools (factories commities, trade unions, workers&#39; councils etc.) against both oppression from outside and inside the country.

The proletriat is the only class in society who can form a better society, it&#39;s leadership should not band it to the will of other exploiting classes. It must liberate it from both the national oppression and the class oppression.

[Saint-Just]

I agree the bourgeoisie is of course not revolutionary of progressive, where did Stalin say that?

Anyway, on one hand you say only the urban proletariat can fight imperialism yet you call for them to have a revolution in 1927. The only possible way for a proletarian revolution would be for China to have progressed to a stage where it had a much larger urban working-class, only if there had been a bourgeois revolution that had stayed in power for a century or so would it have got to that stage.

[antieverything]

Please show me the "list" of governments I have "defended". Good attempt at back peddling by telling me I need an education.Well, you actually defended North Korea&#39;s "electoral" system in this very thread. Perhaps I just put all of you authoritarians in one group who defend Fidel, Stalin, Kim etc. whenever...I appologize if I misrepresented you--it happens after all since this is an internet discussion group and not the United Nations. Oh, by the way--

de·moc·ra·cy

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

You used the old American Conservative straw man of saying that representative democracy isn&#39;t democracy.


Please explain to me why in fact the "democratic republic" was created. I say again, it was created as a political effort to remove "stale" voters from election proceedings.Well, seeing as the idea has been in existance in some form for thousands of years I don&#39;t see how you can say that it was created to get workers to vote against their interests. Remember that the vote was only given to white landowning males for the early decades of Western democracy so your portrayal of it is essentially wrong. It was a transfer of power from aristocracy to the new capitalist and middle classes. There was never a thought given to the fact that working people should be tricked into voting contrary to their interests by the structure of the system. That didn&#39;t happen until they could actually vote in the first place. I&#39;ve read Chomsky too, I understand the ideas behind the formation of American democracy ("the minority of the oppulent" must rule as Madison put it) but your interpretation is misleading.


Well I suppose you then think Che Guevara&#39;s "Man and Socialism in Cuba" is then "snivelling" as this is his ideal. Don&#39;t read much do you?Like I said, I disagree with the idea of a new man arising from totalitarianism. This is a board for Che admirers not Che worshipers&#33; Besides, your sentence makes little sense when compared to the sentence it is replying to.


By the way ball breaker, my "mail order" Ph.D is not in Sociology.Which is probably why I said it wasn&#39;t&#33;


I&#39;m sorry that the majority of my posts fly over your head.I haven&#39;t noticed this...I doubt if anyone else has either&#33;


For everyone that does not know, AI is an avid Redstar2000 worshipper that does not like the fact I disagree with his "prophet" on many issues. I&#39;m sure my signature makes him right angry.Okay, I don&#39;t know if they spell "everything" with an "i" where you come from but the name is ANTIEVERYTHING...abreviated to AE. Secondly, me and Redstar are actually not fans of each other. As a matter of fact I dislike the guy quite a bit--I respect him but I don&#39;t like him at all&#33; I&#39;m sure he can say the same about me...except that he doesn&#39;t respect anyone that doesn&#39;t agree with him. Sort of like Marx himself&#33;&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:


I take AI&#39;s [sic] words about as seriously as I take Keanu Reeves&#39; acting. It&#39;s not my problem AI has about as much integrity as a wet paper bag. One day he may be "all growed up" and may even "go off to college".Actually I&#39;m going to college next week...a famous liberal arts school in fact. My parents can&#39;t afford that sort thing but that&#39;s cool because I&#39;m going on a full scholarship ;) . Yep, &#036;98,000 us dollars plus travel expenses and some spending money&#33;&#33;&#33; Douche-wad.


I can literally smell AI&#39;s [sic] dramatic "How dare you attack my character" rant coming in the mail. This should be funny.Where do you arrive at this idea of my personality? Where before have a given you a clue that I would give a damn about what an authoritarian asshole who can&#39;t formulate a coherent argument and has to resort to cheap (and piss-poor) insults thinks of me? I have friends, man...real ones. In fact, I had a great time last night.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 8 2003, 03:02 PM
I agree the bourgeoisie is of course not revolutionary of progressive, where did Stalin say that?

Anyway, on one hand you say only the urban proletariat can fight imperialism yet you call for them to have a revolution in 1927. The only possible way for a proletarian revolution would be for China to have progressed to a stage where it had a much larger urban working-class, only if there had been a bourgeois revolution that had stayed in power for a century or so would it have got to that stage.
The statement clearly says "the power of the revolutionary Kuomintang". The Kuomintang was a bourgeois body. It was anti-imperialist at some points and pro-imperialist in other points, according to the need of the bourgeois-class. The workers shouldn&#39;t have attained it, they should have fought with it against imperialism with their own tools and fight against it against it&#39;s pro-imperialism and it&#39;s exploitation.


I&#39;m not saying only the urban proletariat can lead a revolution. The urban and viliage proletariat are the same, the viliage proleteriat are the workers of the land-lords who don&#39;t have land themselves. The peasants on the other hand are the ones with a small piece of land, who aren&#39;t land-lords or viliage proletarians. They are like the urban petty bourgeois, they should participate the revolution but be lead by the proletariat. In China in &#39;49 they led a Communist revolution all by themselves because the proletariat had failed, so the workers&#39; state they founded was very deformed and became state-capitalistic.

[redstar2000]

For everyone that does not know, AI is an avid Redstar2000 worshipper that does not like the fact I disagree with his "prophet" on many issues.

I beg your pardon, RAF, but neither AE nor anyone else is a "worshipper" of me...nor would I accept such a preposterous relationship if it were offered.

As far as I can tell, various people on the board have agreed with me about some things and disagreed with me about others. Even you have agreed with me on occasion...and you would greatly resent it if someone characterized you as a "worshipper" of me.

If you wish to defend the ceremonial political rituals of North Korea, such folly is your own concern...and responsibility.

But hey, try and leave me out of it, ok?

Thanks.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I beg your pardon, RAF, but neither AE nor anyone else is a "worshipper" of me...nor would I accept such a preposterous relationship if it were offered.

Don&#39;t lie...somebody wants a cult of personality.

:lol:

[antieverything]

It seems to me that Redstar is on his own little island with everyone else hating him. I haven&#39;t noticed any disciples at all.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 06:18 PM

Please show me the "list" of governments I have "defended". Good attempt at back peddling by telling me I need an education.Well, you actually defended North Korea&#39;s "electoral" system in this very thread. Perhaps I just put all of you authoritarians in one group who defend Fidel, Stalin, Kim etc. whenever...I appologize if I misrepresented you--it happens after all since this is an internet discussion group and not the United Nations. Oh, by the way--

de·moc·ra·cy

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

You used the old American Conservative straw man of saying that representative democracy isn&#39;t democracy.


Please explain to me why in fact the "democratic republic" was created. I say again, it was created as a political effort to remove "stale" voters from election proceedings.Well, seeing as the idea has been in existance in some form for thousands of years I don&#39;t see how you can say that it was created to get workers to vote against their interests. Remember that the vote was only given to white landowning males for the early decades of Western democracy so your portrayal of it is essentially wrong. It was a transfer of power from aristocracy to the new capitalist and middle classes. There was never a thought given to the fact that working people should be tricked into voting contrary to their interests by the structure of the system. That didn&#39;t happen until they could actually vote in the first place. I&#39;ve read Chomsky too, I understand the ideas behind the formation of American democracy ("the minority of the oppulent" must rule as Madison put it) but your interpretation is misleading.


Well I suppose you then think Che Guevara&#39;s "Man and Socialism in Cuba" is then "snivelling" as this is his ideal. Don&#39;t read much do you?Like I said, I disagree with the idea of a new man arising from totalitarianism. This is a board for Che admirers not Che worshipers&#33; Besides, your sentence makes little sense when compared to the sentence it is replying to.


By the way ball breaker, my "mail order" Ph.D is not in Sociology.Which is probably why I said it wasn&#39;t&#33;


I&#39;m sorry that the majority of my posts fly over your head.I haven&#39;t noticed this...I doubt if anyone else has either&#33;


For everyone that does not know, AI is an avid Redstar2000 worshipper that does not like the fact I disagree with his "prophet" on many issues. I&#39;m sure my signature makes him right angry.Okay, I don&#39;t know if they spell "everything" with an "i" where you come from but the name is ANTIEVERYTHING...abreviated to AE. Secondly, me and Redstar are actually not fans of each other. As a matter of fact I dislike the guy quite a bit--I respect him but I don&#39;t like him at all&#33; I&#39;m sure he can say the same about me...except that he doesn&#39;t respect anyone that doesn&#39;t agree with him. Sort of like Marx himself&#33;&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:


I take AI&#39;s [sic] words about as seriously as I take Keanu Reeves&#39; acting. It&#39;s not my problem AI has about as much integrity as a wet paper bag. One day he may be "all growed up" and may even "go off to college".Actually I&#39;m going to college next week...a famous liberal arts school in fact. My parents can&#39;t afford that sort thing but that&#39;s cool because I&#39;m going on a full scholarship ;) . Yep, &#036;98,000 us dollars plus travel expenses and some spending money&#33;&#33;&#33; Douche-wad.


I can literally smell AI&#39;s [sic] dramatic "How dare you attack my character" rant coming in the mail. This should be funny.Where do you arrive at this idea of my personality? Where before have a given you a clue that I would give a damn about what an authoritarian asshole who can&#39;t formulate a coherent argument and has to resort to cheap (and piss-poor) insults thinks of me? I have friends, man...real ones. In fact, I had a great time last night.
Wow look at this load of bollocks. I will try to keep my responses small this time so the lad here will understand.


Again little one, the USA is a democratic republic where the majaroty DO NOT necessarily rule. Your elecotal representative does not necessarily have to vote the majority. Perhaps you need a small lesson in government. When you get back from your fancy little "liberal arts" college, I&#39;m sure your degree in"bong carbing" will come in nice and handy in a debate with me.
It&#39;s not my fault you lack the necessary insight to understand what I&#39;m saying. It&#39;s fairly common for the lesser intellegent of the species to act as you do. I&#39;m not insulted AI. Not everyone can be a genuis. The world needs "cattle" like you.
It is also odd to me you could not catch my little joke in regards to your name AI. Think about it for a while son.
Please don&#39;t be angry that someone has finally spotted you and made your views (and perhaps even fetishes) of Redstar public. I suppose nothing hurts more than the truth eh sonny? I also enjoyed your use of [sic]. Do you even know what that means?



In closing, I was wondering to myself who you remind me of and with your brilliant closing on your last post to me it became clear. You insults are similar to AK47&#39;s. A bit too similar. Good grief. Perhaps you will be able to form your own opinions after your time in your fancy-pants little liberal arts college. Doubtful though. I don&#39;t see much intellectual potential in you. Whoops, I better start a new paragraph as I can imagine all these words together are confusing you at this point.

You stated I had a degree in Sociology. I don&#39;t. I have degrees in English, Western Philosophy and Political Science. Maybe one day you too can possess a graduate degree. If you can get out of undergrad that is.

(I sure enjoyed your BIG LIST of ONE. I got quite a laugh out of it.)

Something to remember me by ,

Giusto per lei il ragazzo, (la mia piccola Caramella Gommosa di AI)

Mentre lei sono a lei grande liberale arti , forse lei dovrebbe portare su italiano. Poi lei può tradurre quest&#39;e scopre io pensa lei sono semplicemente un insignificante peudo intellettuale "socialista" con nessuna speranza per mai essere a me o nessuno nel comunista festa. Per il sua meschinità io certaily spera lei prende successo da un randagio bullett sul suo sciocco "liberale" "arti" . Io per un non lo mancherà la femmina.


Redstar,

Relax pops. Would not want to have a heart attack now would we (mange, mange&#33; Ricordare il nonno?) Did you read my post? I said you would not be thrilled when this news broke. How are you angry with me for merely pointing out that young AI here came out of the gates wearing a thong and cape with your picture on the back? Every Super-hero needs a sidekick yes?

You and little Tonto here can slag the remaining communist countries all you want. It will only prove to be useless to you when you are included with the ranks of the bourgois during the revolution. This is fact as I can attest as we will never stop fighting until we have won.

[antieverything]

Most of that post doesn&#39;t deserve an answer. Not only do your arguments not really say anything but you also appear to be drunk...but hey, I understand that so I won&#39;t hold it against you ;) . Still, it only adds to my suspicion that you are a 16 year old kid. Didn&#39;t you previously only claim to have two degrees?


You stated I had a degree in Sociology.And you say I don&#39;t understand you? I said that your "degree" obviously wasn&#39;t in sociology (you had never told me what it was in exactly) because your view of social development is rather 19th century.


It is also odd to me you could not catch my little joke in regards to your name AI. Think about it for a while son.I thought about that possibility at first but it seemed too silly. I assumed that you at least want to be taken seriously&#33;


I have degrees in English, Western Philosophy and Political Science. Maybe one day you too can possess a graduate degree. If you can get out of undergrad that is.How can you get a fucking degree in English and still not be able to spell "majority"?


Please don&#39;t be angry that someone has finally spotted you and made your views (and perhaps even fetishes) of Redstar public. I suppose nothing hurts more than the truth eh sonny? I also enjoyed your use of [sic]. Do you even know what that means?Again, I just hope that you are drunk...I will be totally cool with that. Otherwise I am begining to come to the conclusion that you are either A) the aformentioned 16 year old kid who hates everyone or B) mentally ill...I&#39;ve heard some sociopaths flip out when they are unable to manipulate people. You do, after all, seem to have the superiority complex of a sociopath (and the writing skills of a 3rd grader--not a degree-holder in English--if I dare say so). As to the usage of [sic], I have no idea what it means...I simply plugged it in at random points and got lucky, I guess. Note the sarcasm...you don&#39;t seem to be very good at reading comprehension.


In closing, I was wondering to myself who you remind me of and with your brilliant closing on your last post to me it became clear. You insults are similar to AK47&#39;s.Oh shit...the gloves have come off, haven&#39;t they now? :lol: Nice one, seriously&#33;&#33;&#33; To be fair, I am not the one leading in the insult-throwing points department here. I&#39;ve been saying some rude things but not without a good bit of provacation...and certainly not without a good deal of friendliness. I&#39;m not too keen on having a shouting match over the internet. Surely, you have too much maturity for such a juvenile activity&#33;

If you wanted to choose someone to designate as a servile lackey of Redstar2000, you could have at least chosen someone who was actually a Marxist&#33; You certainly share more common ground with him than I&#33;

In closing, sober up...or if already sober, hang your head in shame for being a fucking moron&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

Most of that post doesn&#39;t deserve an answer. Not only do your arguments not really saying anything but you also appear to be drunk...but hey, I understand that so I won&#39;t hold it against you . Still, it only adds to my suspicion that you are a 16 year old kid. Didn&#39;t you previously only claim to have two degrees?


Again, I just hope that you are drunk...I will be totally cool with that. Otherwise I am begining to come to the conclusion that you are either A) the aformentioned 16 year old kid who hates everyone or B) mentally ill...I&#39;ve heard some sociopaths flip out when they are unable to manipulate people. You do, after all, seem to have the superiority complex of a sociopath (and the writing skills of a 3rd grader--not a degree-holder in English--if I dare say so). As to the usage of [sic], I have no idea what it means...I simply plugged it in at random points and got lucky, I guess. Note the sarcasm...you don&#39;t seem to be very good at reading comprehension.


Of course most of my statements do not deserve an answer. I&#39;m sure they have even yet to sink in&#33; Again, I am truly sorry for you. Be suspicious of my age all you want. If you think I&#39;m going to give these rants a seconc thought youa re mistaken. I would love to be sixteen again. That was a great year. Please quote me anywhere claiming to have "only" two degrees. If you wan&#39;t a total starting with my undergrad degree and minor in philosophy, it would technically be four, Counting my masters and Ph.D. My masters and Ph.D are both in the same field however.

I&#39;m sorry you don&#39;t like my writing style. To be honest, I did not continue my graduate studies in English due to the fact I am not a good writer. However in this case here (message boards) I really don&#39;t care too much at all about writing with perfect grammar. The grammar and structure of my posts may not be "perfect" in your eyes, however it&#39;s a far cry above the "norm" here. Thanks for your interest though mate, I will keep your opinion noted.

On your accusation of me being sociopathic. Well I will have to say that I do suffer from sociopathology. (I really would not call it suffering though he he) If I didn&#39;t there would be no way I can do what I do as I obviously would have chosen an "alternate path" in life. Most people of incredible intellect suffer from some sort of neurological disorder.

Cesser le fils lamentant. Et le début pour devenir instruit. Vos insultes bêtes font me sourit bien que. Je souhaite que je pourrais être tout comme vous, le CAP ROUGE et toute ma petite boule de gomme. Mes français sont un il rouillé mais il doit tenir en haut. Pas qu&#39;il importe comme vous ne saurez pas le garçon de différence.


I thought about that possibility at first but it seemed too silly. I assumed that you at least want to be taken seriously&#33;

Of course you thought about it first dear. Uh-huh, whatever you say.


How can you get a fucking degree in English and still not be able to spell "majority"?


Look at this boys and girls&#33; Another one of AK47&#39;s tactics&#33; (agash&#33;&#33; those NEVER happen on a message board&#33;) Let&#39;s not play this game ma petite boule de gomme. I&#39;m not gonna take the bait on this one son.


you don&#39;t seem to be very good at reading comprehension.

Another one of AK47&#39;s Does he know you have nicked all his material?



Oh shit...the gloves have come off, haven&#39;t they now? Nice one, seriously&#33;&#33;&#33; To be fair, I am not the one leading in the insult-throwing points department here. I&#39;ve been saying some rude things but not without a good bit of provacation...and certainly not without a good deal of friendliness. I&#39;m not too keen on having a shouting match over the internet. Surely, you have too much maturity for such a juvenile activity&#33;

If you wanted to choose someone to designate as a servile lackey of Redstar2000, you could have at least chosen someone who was actually a Marxist&#33; You certainly share more common ground with him than I&#33;

In closing, sober up...or if already sober, hang your head in shame for being a fucking moron&#33;



It was good.

What does his idealology have to do with you being his sidekick? You know no one really gives a fuck all about the sidekick anyhow. They are just there to take the first punch to the nose when the ole&#39; fists start flying.

Comment s&#39;il sent pour être une protection humaine ma boule de gomme de lille? Peut-être je pendrai ma tête dans l&#39;honte plus tard comme vous arrivez le faire pour moi maintenant.

Suckin&#39; the swine right outta&#39; the vine a spittin&#39; it back again. -J. Strummer



Vous pouvez concourir?

[redstar2000]

How are you angry with me for merely pointing out that young AI here came out of the gates wearing a thong and cape with your picture on the back? Every Super-hero needs a sidekick yes?

You and little Tonto here can slag the remaining communist countries all you want. It will only prove to be useless to you when you are included with the ranks of the bourgois during the revolution. This is fact as I can attest as we will never stop fighting until we have won.

Comrade RAF, have you considered seeking professional help for your problem(s)?

You know: delusions of revolutionary grandeur, delusions of superiority to the masses, delusions of superior education, sporadic inability to write in English on a predominately English-speaking board...etc.

If everyone who is critical of your "remaining communist countries" (which, of course, do not even claim to be "communist" but rather label themselves "socialist" as a diplomatic way of admitting that they are still class societies)...if everyone on the board who is critical of that crap is a "disciple of redstar", it will certainly come as a great shock to them and to me.

And what do you hope to achieve by such ridiculous assertions? Yes, you will have successfully insulted people&#39;s integrity. Yes, you will have caused me a small amount of "wasted" time in rejecting your "superhero" nonsense. What else???

As I recall, the last time I noticed extensive posting from you in a thread, it had to do with you waging a flame-war with some young women that you thought insufficiently "dedicated" (in Opposing Ideologies).

Maybe you just like being an active participant in flame threads. Some people do. It enlivens, perhaps, an otherwise dreary existence.

But really, comrade RAF, don&#39;t you think you&#39;re getting a little old for this foolishness? There&#39;s nothing stopping you from making political arguments against views that you disagree with (once in a while you actually do that...so I know you can).

The ultimate outcome of turning every thread into a exchange of insults can only serve to discredit everything that you say. At that point, you may as well post in Italian or French...or ancient Sumarian; because no one will care to read it anyway.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well I will keep everything you said in mind Redstar. What you need to understand is that other people unfortunately cannot be just like you as you would have them be. How can you say I have delusions of "revolutionary grandeur" when you have no idea who I am? This is merely your opinion.

It is also your opinion that I assume to have a "superior education" over most individuals here. Well sorry pops but this just happens to be fact. Yes RS, I have a superior education then the majority of this board. I&#39;m thinking you are picking on that because you failed to strive for higher education.Don&#39;t break my balls on this RS. Your legs are weak.

I&#39;m not calling this kid a RS disciple because of his statements here. They stem from his statements to me and other comrades elsewhere. I would have thought you would have loved the idea of "Redstar, the great red hope for humanity" Flying into a theatre near you Christmas 2003.

Redstar you and I both know that These countries are "socialist" attempting to evolve into a "communist" country. Quit being argumentative for the sake of "catching old RAF committing an error".

You know as well as I that I don&#39;t incite and participate in only "flame wars" in this forum. The majority of my posts are excellent political observations. Good try pops but I ain&#39;t gonna bite.

You willl notice that usually I am not the one that "incites" the insult wars. Take this thread for instance. Young AI here took it upon himself to say I lacked the education needed to understand the theory of "demacracy" because he lacked the necessary intellect to understand my post. I had not spoken to the little gumdrop prior to that.

Lets leave it at this;

I&#39;m not you. Nor do I ever care to be you. If you don&#39;t like my posts, to fucking bad. Life is tough.

Ciao Il nonno.

[antieverything]

You are a sad little man.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 10:54 PM
You are a sad little man.
I have not been little since I was 12. I also don&#39;t remember ever being "sad" for any extended period of time.

You logic is flawed ma petite boule de gomme.

[antieverything]

I meant little as in pitiful and insignificant. By sad I meant that your existance is tragic...for the world but perhaps your mental illness is tough to cope with as well.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I know what you meant. I&#39;m just breaking your balls &#39;cos it&#39;s funny to me. Keep posting AI, you give me a laugh.

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 7 2003, 11:11 AM
Moskitto, your dad is an idiot, tell him to read up on Fiji, it&#39;s the most racist states in the Pacific, everytime an Indian is elected the Fijians stage a coup and kill Indians.

If you think coup&#39;s in Africa is a good idea, good for you, just don&#39;t go running for office or we&#39;ll all be in a spot of bother...
He wasn&#39;t refering to coups, he was refering to tribal leaders choosing the leader, which was the way it was done in Africa prior to the Europeans. However when the Europeans left they didn&#39;t set up the right systems for democracy to be practiced effectively in Africa and when popular nationalist movements won elections, they refused to give up control when they discovered you could loose elections (eg. Mugabe.) If people just let Africa find their own solutions to their problems (eg. Ethiopian Peacekeepers in Rwanda), with help from the outside if and when they want it, instead of imposing the "ideal" model of a modern western democracy onto a completely different culture.

And no, I don&#39;t agree with it entirely so your comments on me running for office are irrelevant.