Just as Bad if not worse then Hitler and Stalin

[RGacky3]

King Leopold, estimates are 10 million killed, btw, THIS is what pure Capitalism looked like, King Leopold was an euntreprenoir, a venture capitalist, that set up a company that was totally free from that pesky democratic intervention, in Belgium he may have been part of the state, responsible to the people and to the Belgium parliment (Belgium was a constitutional monarchy), but in the Congo he was a pure Capitalist, he aquired the land legally (well, by european standards, which is kind of a laugh to call it legal), and he ran it as a for profit company, maximizing profits, no regulation, if you wanna see how that turned out watch a little documentary.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/congo-white-king-red-rubber-black-death/

He murdered millions of Africans, systemically, enslaved them, destroyed viliges, killed women and children, kept millions in conditions unfit for animals, mutilated them in policies ment to cut cost, and created horrors that would make Stalin look like a teddy bear, all for rubber profits, of which he made a killing. Its also important to point out that the number one resisters of this at the time were the christian missionaries from Europe, so Kudos to them.

Later on He sold off some of it to other companies, he sold "contracts" and those atrocities were just as bad if not worse than his.

BTW, how many statues are there of Stalin in Russia still? How many are there in Germany of Hitler?

Well, there are still Statues of this twat sitting around in Belgium, because I guess Africans don't count.

THIS is what real Capitalism looks like when you don't have to worry about democratic controls.

Whats interesting is that part of scientific racism was the idea that Africans did'nt want to work for money (they had no concept of Capitalism) and were thus lazy and needed civilizing (which I guess meant slavery and genocide), kind of reminds me of how rightwingers today talk about the unemployed.

Whats also interesting is the propeganda the idea that the Belgiums are there to "liberate the natives" to create a "congo free state" to bring them civilization (modern equivilent would be "democracy" or "freedom"). Remind you of anything?

[Dean]

I've mentioned this before. Doesn't seem to be as outrageous to the mainstream since black's deaths are less offensive.

[Dimentio]

Actually, president Kabila wants to raise a statue of him in Congo as well.

[Across The Street]

Holy Schnikes! Capitalism shows its' true face

[Kiev Communard]

Modern situation in "Democratic" Congo is almost just as worse as back then, only now it is multiple groups of imperialists vying for control through proxy militias. Second Congo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War), as it is known, is probably the worst armed conflict since the end of WW II - Korean War, Vietnam War and Iraq invasion pale in comparison with it (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2280201220080122)!

[Thirsty Crow]

Actually, president Kabila wants to raise a statue of him in Congo as well.What?
This sounds rather incredible (although anything can happen, I'm sure). have you got a source for this?

[Kiev Communard]

Some information on Congo conflict and multinationals' role in it:

http://www.thecongocause.org/mining.htm - The Web-page with links to various reports on their ignonimous "business" practices there .

http://www.globalissues.org/article/442/guns-money-and-cell-phones - Somewhat outdated (2001), but still relevant article on Congo's mineral resources and the TNK's interests in their exploitation.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080123_the_invisible_war/?rta (ttp://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080123_the_invisible_war/?rta) - Amy Goodman, The Invisible War.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/13/congo-trade-minerals - Parties earn vast sums from illegal trade in minerals. - The Guardian.

[Dimentio]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4235237.stm

http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=29854&no_cache=1

[RadioRaheem84]

What do right libertarians think of Leopold? How do they explain it away from "statist" framework?

[Nial Fossjet]

Ironic his regime was the "Congo Free State", and the subsequent one that was better was called "Belgian Congo."

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

As despicable as Leopold was, I have mad respect for his nephew. His stand against the Germans is truly an inspiration.

[Dimentio]

Ironic his regime was the "Congo Free State", and the subsequent one that was better was called "Belgian Congo."

It wasn't better. The slave system was still in place, until the 1920's when the rubber boom was slowing off.

[Dimentio]

What do right libertarians think of Leopold? How do they explain it away from "statist" framework?

Those of them who are smart would claim that the Congo Free-state was a totalitarian state where the people lacked the right to their property, while those who are stupid would parrot Leopold's old propaganda about "civilising Africans".

[RGacky3]

Congo free state was about the closest to Pure Capitalism as I could think, he had his property his industry, and could do as he wished with his property without that pesky public intervention.

[Loknar]

Congo free state was about the closest to Pure Capitalism as I could think, he had his property his industry, and could do as he wished with his property without that pesky public intervention.

Isnt it more fair to call it state capitalism?

[RGacky3]

Nope, because there was no state involved. King Leopold in Belgium was subject to the Belgium state, and the Congo Free State was just his personal property, property which he rented out, and so on.

[Lt. Ferret]

He violated their rights to self-ownership and their inability to move from their location made the whole thing immoral violent and evil, and thats me playing libertarian devil's advocate.

[Revolutionair]

He violated their rights to self-ownership and their inability to move from their location made the whole thing immoral violent and evil, and thats me playing libertarian devil's advocate.

They 'voluntarily' 'signed' a 'contract' with him not to leave the country. They 'agreed' to that by living on his land.

And yes capitalism is evil.

[Lt. Ferret]

no, they didn't. you dont know much bout how capitalism is supposed to work.

[RGacky3]

He violated their rights to self-ownership and their inability to move from their location made the whole thing immoral violent and evil, and thats me playing libertarian devil's advocate.

Well, they were on his territory, and as such he gets to make the rules, thats what happens when you have Capitalism without public controls.

Immoral or evil does'nt play into it, its Capitalism, profit motive, are you expecting the Capitalists to not do evil things just because they are evil? Why would they? They need to make that money honey.



no, they didn't. you dont know much bout how capitalism is supposed to work.


They don't need to sign any contract, they are on his property, his property his rules. How is this not Capitalism without public controls? Private property, markets, profit motive, no state (public) intervention, its got all the trappings of a libertarians wet dream.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

Stalin wasn´t bad at all.

[BrandonHerygers]

Why is it that people who try to do good in the world end up dead but assholes like this guy are aloud to live a life of luxury.:confused:

[RadioRaheem84]

Not much of a difference between Leopold's Free Congo and the rich Emeriates of today (as far as level of power).

[Lt. Ferret]

Well, they were on his territory, and as such he gets to make the rules, thats what happens when you have Capitalism without public controls.

Immoral or evil does'nt play into it, its Capitalism, profit motive, are you expecting the Capitalists to not do evil things just because they are evil? Why would they? They need to make that money honey.



They don't need to sign any contract, they are on his property, his property his rules. How is this not Capitalism without public controls? Private property, markets, profit motive, no state (public) intervention, its got all the trappings of a libertarians wet dream.


the inability for move off of his property made this kidnapping, slavery, and fraud.

[Robert]

Stalin wasn´t bad at all.


What was he really like?

[RGacky3]

the inability for move off of his property made this kidnapping, slavery, and fraud.

And how is all of that not the outcome of pure Capitalism? Without public controls why would'nt that happen?

[Lt. Ferret]

theres no such thing as "pure" capitalism unless youre arguing for anarcho-capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Thats what I'm refering too. I.e. Capitalism without state (public) controls.

[Lt. Ferret]

im already playing devils advocate as a libertarian here.


under anarcho-capitalism i dont think there are controls. your feet are still your control though, and you gotta fight for your right to party, the right to self defense still exists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Congo Free State was a lot like the United Arab Emirates. A place controlled by the interests of a few monarchs.

[Bud Struggle]

So let me get this straight.

Gack gets into his Norwegian Hot Tub Time Machine and goes back into the 19th century and finds some KING that just ain't right. Seems he's a nasty guy--as bad as Nazis and COMMUNISTS according to the marquee. Imagine THAT! That's pretty nasty.

For his next trip--maybe a visit to Atilla the Hun and discover if his health coverage plan covers dental.

Anyway--the horrors King Leopold II have been covered better in 1902 in one of the greatest books ever written in the English language--Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Conrad NAILED IT. Read the book.

Leopold was as much about Capitalism as Pol Pot or Kim Il Jong were about Communism. Evil is evil. If someone has the position and is that interested in money and power to that extent--the economic and political system really don't matter at all. It's about the heart of darkness--not the political theory.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ridiculous.

[Bud Struggle]

Ridiculous.

Did you ever read Heart of Darkness?

[RGacky3]

Leopold was as much about Capitalism as Pol Pot or Kim Il Jong were about Communism. Evil is evil. If someone has the position and is that interested in money and power to that extent--the economic and political system really don't matter at all. It's about the heart of darkness--not the political theory.

Pol Pot and Kim Il Jong did'nt have any of the fundementals of socialism in their system, the congo Free State had ALL of them.

It has nothing to do with good vrs evil, its the outcome of unchecked power, which is essencially what pure capitalism is.


Gack gets into his Norwegian Hot Tub Time Machine and goes back into the 19th century and finds some KING that just ain't right. Seems he's a nasty guy--as bad as Nazis and COMMUNISTS according to the marquee. Imagine THAT! That's pretty nasty.

For his next trip--maybe a visit to Atilla the Hun and discover if his health coverage plan covers dental.


THe Fundementals of Capitalism are the same now as they were back then.

ANy time there has been stateless socialism, anytime you have real democratic socialism, the crazy predictions capitalists make NEVER come true, they never have and they never will.

SOcialism prediction of stateless Capitalism has always been essencially this, and this is what happend.

[Robert]

The left cannot divorce capitalism from imperialism, and so Leopold to them is as much about "Capitalism" as North Korea is, to me and every other capitalist apologist, about communism.

They are stuck with North Korea no matter how hard they try to wriggle off the hook, and I guess I am stuck with Leopold. Fine. I take responsibility for Leopold. Anything you commies want to apologize for? :rolleyes:

The difference is that places like Britain and France managed to continue thriving, as liberal capitalist democracies with strong protection for individual liberties, even after they got chased out of India, Algeria, Indochina, etc. and all other places upon whose back their commerce was based. Germany is doing pretty well too, I hear.

[RGacky3]

The left cannot divorce capitalism from imperialism, and so Leopold to them is as much about "Capitalism"

Congo Free State was King leopolds personal property, it was not a Belgium Colony, so its not colonialism in the classical sense,

imperialism is and always has been a part of Capitalism, but this, was straight up Capitalism, it was'nt a nation taking a country, it was a private company.

About North Korea thats a straw man thats been blown down a million times and you should be embarrased that you still try and use that blown down strawmne.

Capitalism = Private property, markets, profit motive = Congo Free State
Socialism = Public owership, worker control of the means of production, democratic economy =/= North Korea,

the fact that you and Bud continue to bring that up is just embarasing.


The difference is that places like Britain and France managed to continue thriving, as liberal capitalist democracies with strong protection for individual liberties, even after they got chased out of India, Algeria, Indochina, etc. and all other places upon whose back their commerce was based. Germany is doing pretty well too, I hear.

The only reason they managed to thrive was mainly due to the labor parties, as well as continueing economic imperialism.

[ComradeMan]

The Congo was divided up by approximately 30 companies under the direct "feudal" governance of King Leopold. He had been given the Congo so as not to upset the balance of power for the other major players in Africa, Britain, France, Germany and Portugal. By around the time of the First World War it had got so bad that the other colonial powers complained and administration was handed to the Belgian government. This continued until about the 1950's/60's. The Red Rubber Regime was one of the most brutal and atrocious regimes in colonial history and did enormous environmental damage- they had shot most of the elephants in ten years and ironically in their greedy pursuit of rubber did not even realise they were sitting on vast mineral reserves.

There is no defence of the Belgian Congo. It was appalling.

[brigadista]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/congo-white-king-red-rubber-black-death/

with african historians...

[Bud Struggle]

Pol Pot and Kim Il Jong did'nt have any of the fundementals of socialism in their system, the congo Free State had ALL of them.

It has nothing to do with good vrs evil, its the outcome of unchecked power, which is essencially what pure capitalism is. That's what Stalin had, and certainly Kim has. And that IS want Communism looks like in the real world.


THe Fundementals of Capitalism are the same now as they were back then. No they aren't. Besides for a few nutcases no one is looking for a stateless Capitalsim.


ANy time there has been stateless socialism, anytime you have real democratic socialism, the crazy predictions capitalists make NEVER come true, they never have and they never will. Stateless Socialsim has never actually existed except for a few moments in situations of extreme flux. It's like elements at the high end of the Periodic Table--it exists in very controlled enviornments when all the conditions are just right and if anything challenges it--it falls to pieces immediately.


SOcialism prediction of stateless Capitalism has always been essencially this, and this is what happend. Who the hell wants stateless Capitalism?

[Red Future]

I've mentioned this before. Doesn't seem to be as outrageous to the mainstream since black's deaths are less offensive.

I try and spread knowledge of this to people in conversations on the topic

[RGacky3]

That's what Stalin had, and certainly Kim has. And that IS want Communism looks like in the real world.


Wanna go over this again?

"Capitalism = Private property, markets, profit motive = Congo Free State
Socialism = Public owership, worker control of the means of production, democratic economy =/= North Korea"

That strawmans been destroyed millions of times, enough already, if you can't come up with better arguments then your in trouble.


No they aren't. Besides for a few nutcases no one is looking for a stateless Capitalsim.


Yes they are, markets, monitary system as a basis of trade, private property, profit motive, shareholders, corporations, multinational corporations, and so on.

About stateless Capitalism, sure, but it also shoots down the premis that Capitalism leads to a just economic system, or that more Capitalism means more freedom, or that markets are just, or any of that. Lots of libertarians want basically stateless Capitalism, where at least the market is entirely free from public control.


Stateless Socialsim has never actually existed except for a few moments in situations of extreme flux. It's like elements at the high end of the Periodic Table--it exists in very controlled enviornments when all the conditions are just right and if anything challenges it--it falls to pieces immediately.


Actually the State, is a relatively new concept, and mostly european, anyway, what your mentioning is not an argument, nor does it have anything to do with what we are talking about, its just classic trolling.

But eitherway, anytime its happened, capitalist predicions were false.

[Bud Struggle]

Wanna go over this again?

"Capitalism = Private property, markets, profit motive = Congo Free State
Socialism = Public owership, worker control of the means of production, democratic economy =/= North Korea"

That strawmans been destroyed millions of times, enough already, if you can't come up with better arguments then your in trouble. Capitalism=USA, GB, large parts of Europe and increasingly China.

Communism=USSR, DPRK, Iron Curtain Eastern Europe, Cuba.

I'm talking REAL LIFE not cosplay. Political theory and economic theory is just that. It is just a fiction to spur on action in real life--it isn't real life itself.

Look at the Communist "world". Fifty different kinds of Trotskyists, Stalinists, Syndicatists, All kinds of Anarchists. All kinds of Maoists. Communism is a lot of different things. The only think it's not is serious.

Read their webpages--it will tell you all you have to know about the state of Communism in the world.



About stateless Capitalism, sure, but it also shoots down the premis that Capitalism leads to a just economic system, or that more Capitalism means more freedom, or that markets are just, or any of that. Lots of libertarians want basically stateless Capitalism, where at least the market is entirely free from public control. They still want a strong central government, just one out of markets. Social liberty is now part of the Capitalist set up--maybe in a way out of the way place like the Congo Free State 100 years ago it couldn't be watched closely and people like Leopold got away with it. But days for things like that are over--except of course in the DPRK.


Actually the State, is a relatively new concept, and mostly european, anyway, what your mentioning is not an argument, nor does it have anything to do with what we are talking about, its just classic trolling.

But eitherway, anytime its happened, capitalist predicions were false. New or not we are NOT going back to a statless society, either Capitalist or Communist at least in the way the world in now presently headed. As far as the Capitalists being wrong--fine. Marx was wrong, too. Nobody can predict the future.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism=USA, GB, large parts of Europe and increasingly China.

Communism=USSR, DPRK, Iron Curtain Eastern Europe, Cuba.

I'm talking REAL LIFE not cosplay. Political theory and economic theory is just that. It is just a fiction to spur on action in real life--it isn't real life itself.


THats not the way definitions work Bud, according to the definitions accepted by everyone, the USSR DPRK and so on were not Communism, ever.

So its a strawman, your not talking about real life.

You bring up that strawman because you don't have any arguments.


Look at the Communist "world". Fifty different kinds of Trotskyists, Stalinists, Syndicatists, All kinds of Anarchists. All kinds of Maoists. Communism is a lot of different things. The only think it's not is serious.

Read their webpages--it will tell you all you have to know about the state of Communism in the world.


You can't see past color, aparently, or the word "communist," But look at socialism all over, it may not worry you, but its worrying ruling classes all over.


They still want a strong central government, just one out of markets. Social liberty is now part of the Capitalist set up--maybe in a way out of the way place like the Congo Free State 100 years ago it couldn't be watched closely and people like Leopold got away with it. But days for things like that are over--except of course in the DPRK.


What does social liberty mean? Who enforces it? The state right?

Your right about the DPRK, but if your gonna argue that it is socialist by any definition, your climbing a steep hill, your only argument seams to be "LOOK AT THE COLORS, LOOK AT THEIR NAME!!!"


New or not we are NOT going back to a statless society, either Capitalist or Communist at least in the way the world in now presently headed. As far as the Capitalists being wrong--fine. Marx was wrong, too. Nobody can predict the future.

Marx was mostly right, and the things that he was wrong about most socialists now reject.

Capitalists STILL use the same argumetns that have been proved wrong since the paris commune. Nobody can predict the future, but you can learn from the past.

But I take it your admiting you were wrong that the fundementals of capitalism were different, and just replacing it with another moot point.

[Bud Struggle]

THats not the way definitions work Bud, according to the definitions accepted by everyone, the USSR DPRK and so on were not Communism, ever.

So its a strawman, your not talking about real life.

You bring up that strawman because you don't have any arguments.


It's not just me, have you ever read RevLeft beyond your own posts--this place is full of the USSR, DPRK, etc. and their exploits. Communism is firmly rooted in the past--THAT past. And as LSD pointed out (you could read his comment verbatim in Robert's sig line) those places were the great Communist experiment.

And that's it. You have a bunch of theories that have never happened, the Capitalist have a bunch of theories that never happened--who really cares? All that matter is the reality of the situation. When Communism is tried--over and over and over again--in any meaningful way, it looks like that.

Theories that have never turned into reality are meaningless. Now does that mean that there never be a Communism in the future that works better than those of the past? No. There can be a workable Communism that builds on the mistakes of the past and comes to some sort place where a fair and equitable system of economics and democracy take place but it will always have to contend with Capitalism of one sort of another.

Really, just picking definitions for economic theories out of the air without any corresponding data to prove that these societies can exist in real life for any sustained time at any large scale is just fantasy. It's no different than these guys that dress up and go to Star Trek conventions

[RGacky3]

It's not just me, have you ever read RevLeft beyond your own posts--this place is full of the USSR, DPRK, etc

Irrelivant, much socialism byong revleft as a whole gave up on leninism from the begining, and after stalin even more left, I could care less what a few leninist on revleft talk about, its irrelvant to the point.


Communism is firmly rooted in the past--THAT past. And as LSD pointed out

Apart from a few left over Leninists ... and glenn beck no it is'nt.

BTW, lets start using the word socialism from now on, because thats really what you are talking about, you like the word communist because you can try and use that debunked argument.


And as LSD pointed out (you could read his comment verbatim in Robert's sig line) those places were the great Communist experiment.



I might as well say Russia is the great Capitalist experiment, if I said that I'd be more correct, I could say Hitler was the great democracy experiment, I'd be just as correct.

The point is according to almost everyones definition of socialism, those places were not socialism. Just because propeganda says so does'nt make it true.


And that's it. You have a bunch of theories that have never happened, the Capitalist have a bunch of theories that never happened--who really cares? All that matter is the reality of the situation. When Communism is tried--over and over and over again--in any meaningful way, it looks like that.



Nope, when pure(er) Socialism is tried, i.e. lets say it again: Socialism = Public owership, worker control of the means of production, democratic economy: WHICH IS EVERYONES DEFINITION, it works out like anarchist spain, or the such.

THe Leninist states did'nt try that, so your arguing against a strawman.

WHen pure Capitalism is tried out King Leopold is what happens.


Theories that have never turned into reality are meaningless.

Democratic socialism has always worked out when implimented.

Your Leninist state argument is pointless because they were not democratic and thus not socialist.

King Leopold WAS capitalist according to the fundementals.


Really, just picking definitions for economic theories out of the air without any corresponding data to prove that these societies can exist in real life for any sustained time at any large scale is just fantasy.

The definitions arn't being picked, they are basic universal definitions that are accepted by everyone.

Also the corresponding datat does exist, it just does'nt include the Leninist states because they did'nt even impliment socialism.

[An archist]

Not everyone likes the Leopold statues

http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/10565/dyn007_original_375_500_pjpeg_3393_b88cbfc8bfd15d4 8460a2522dd375aca.2.jpg

There is a group called "De Stoete Ostendenoare" who make a habit of smearing red paint on Leopold statues, and in the city of Oostende, they chopped the hand of the statue of one of the slaves, depicted worhsupping Leopold, to make it more realistic. (bottom left)

http://www.archiefsolidair.org/images/solidair2006/32/p15_leopold_0516%20%28600%20x%20600%29.jpg

But there's no plans at all to remove any of his statues.

[Bud Struggle]

Irrelivant, much socialism byong revleft as a whole gave up on leninism from the begining, and after stalin even more left, I could care less what a few leninist on revleft talk about, its irrelvant to the point. I would say it is by far the majority of people on RevLeft.


BTW, lets start using the word socialism from now on, because thats really what you are talking about, you like the word communist because you can try and use that debunked argument. The Cpmmunist Part in the USSR thought itself Communist.


I might as well say Russia is the great Capitalist experiment, if I said that I'd be more correct, I could say Hitler was the great democracy experiment, I'd be just as correct. Russia is Capitalist and the USSR was Communist. And for what it's worth--a lot of Germans would have voted for Hitler in 1939 if given the chance--but they weren't given that opportunity.


The point is according to almost everyones definition of socialism, those places were not socialism. Just because propeganda says so does'nt make it true. Nope. The popular definition is what really counts. Some academics have "other" definitions--well that's fine but those things really don't exist. It's like silicone based life forms, interesting in theory--but do they actually exist? ;)


Nope, when pure(er) Socialism is tried, i.e. lets say it again: Socialism = Public owership, worker control of the means of production, democratic economty: WHICH IS EVERYONES DEFINITION, it works out like anarchist spain, or the such. Clue me in again on when that was tried for any duration to any large mass of people. Hey, I admire the EZLN and other groups like the Shakers and the Franciscan Friars that can duplicare a true Commmunist lifestyle (or almost true,) but such a thing isn't sustainable in a large population for any length of time (without SERIOUS) political enforcement.


THe Leninist states did'nt try that, so your arguing against a strawman.[//quote] See, I believe EVERY Communist Revolution was done in good faith in the start--they just inevitably decay. That just may be the nature of Communism.

[quote]WHen pure Capitalism is tried out King Leopold is what happens. Leopold is a good example of why a stateless society, of any sort won't do well. He's not about Communism he is about what happens without a state. And eventually it was the BELGAN STATE that ame in and put a stop to him. Things are bad in the Congo--but there really isn't a state there at all now either.


Democratic socialism has always worked out when implimented. And that very well may be the wave of the future.

Your Leninist state argument is pointless because they were not democratic and thus not socialist.


King Leopold WAS capitalist according to the fundementals. And Stalin was a Communist.




The definitions arn't being picked, they are basic universal definitions that are accepted by everyone.

Also the corresponding datat does exist, it just does'nt include the Leninist states because they did'nt even impliment socialism.The problems with you is that you are an idealist. And unfortunally Communism is a pure materialist concoction. For any real Communist Communism is only what has or does or can exist in real life. To postulate some sort of fairyland of pure Communist perfection really doesn't fit into the Communist framework. Besides, ideals can always be rewritten by reality. Reality can't be trumped by a wish.



http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/10565/dyn007_original_375_500_pjpeg_3393_b88cbfc8bfd15d4 8460a2522dd375aca.2.jpg



Cameltoe. :D

[Dimentio]

Actually, everyone have forgot that the situation didn't get much better in Congo after Leopold, and that the French and Germans actually copied his system in their colonies. Leopold was a grateful target for European hypocrisy, since he was unsympathetic and too overt.

[RGacky3]

I would say it is by far the majority of people on RevLeft.


Theres allready been polls and no its not.

Eitherway Socialism worldwide is much much larger than revleft.


The Cpmmunist Part in the USSR thought itself Communist.


Actually they did'nt, they never called the USSR communist, and they did call it socialist, but most other socialists that idd'nt have a vested interest in USSR propeganda said it correctly.

THat argument is like saying "well Philip morris says cigarretes are healthy." i.e. rediculous.


Russia is Capitalist and the USSR was Communist.

Just because you say something does'nt make it true, btw, you've not given ANY evidence, analysis or anything, you just spurt stuff out.


Nope. The popular definition is what really counts. Some academics have "other" definitions--well that's fine but those things really don't exist. It's like silicone based life forms, interesting in theory--but do they actually exist?

And the popular definition of SOcialism is what I said, and so its the popular definition of Capitalism.

What your trying argue is like arguing "HOMOSEXUAL MEANS RGACKY3" then I would say "No actually homosexual is defined as one who is attracted sexually to the same sex, and that does'nt include me," and then you'd say "Yeah but some one called you gay, so you must be."

YOu realize how stupid you sound?


Clue me in again on when that was tried for any duration to any large mass of people. Hey, I admire the EZLN and other groups like the Shakers and the Franciscan Friars that can duplicare a true Commmunist lifestyle (or almost true,) but such a thing isn't sustainable in a large population for any length of time (without SERIOUS) political enforcement.

Again, the predictions never happened, in anarchist spain, ukraine, and so on, your dodging.


See, I believe EVERY Communist Revolution was done in good faith in the start--they just inevitably decay. That just may be the nature of Communism.


Well you have no basis to believe any of that, but I have plently of basis to believe the opposite.


Leopold is a good example of why a stateless society, of any sort won't do well. He's not about Communism he is about what happens without a state. And eventually it was the BELGAN STATE that ame in and put a stop to him. Things are bad in the Congo--but there really isn't a state there at all now either.


There have been many stateless societies that did'nt turn into the congo free state, what its an example of is what Capitalism really looks like.


Your Leninist state argument is pointless because they were not democratic and thus not socialist.


Exactly, so stop pretending they were socialist.


And Stalin was a Communist.


I don't know what his personal political beliefs were, but i do know the society he governed over was'nt at all communist or socialist.


The problems with you is that you are an idealist. And unfortunally Communism is a pure materialist concoction. For any real Communist Communism is only what has or does or can exist in real life. To postulate some sort of fairyland of pure Communist perfection really doesn't fit into the Communist framework. Besides, ideals can always be rewritten by reality. Reality can't be trumped by a wish.


How am I an idealist?

I am always fighting against purist definitions, but words have basic basic connotations. If a genuine, or even mostly socialist society fails then I'll accept that and look at what went wrong, but the USSR was'nt any of that, by the basic fact that you did'nt have public control of the economy and worker control of industry, you did'nt have any of the absolute fundementals of socialism.

THATS the reality Bud, you gotta start looking at material conditions and not just what people say.

[RadioRaheem84]

The left cannot divorce capitalism from imperialism, and so Leopold to them is as much about "Capitalism" as North Korea is, to me and every other capitalist apologist, about communism.

They are stuck with North Korea no matter how hard they try to wriggle off the hook, and I guess I am stuck with Leopold. Fine. I take responsibility for Leopold. Anything you commies want to apologize for? :rolleyes:

The difference is that places like Britain and France managed to continue thriving, as liberal capitalist democracies with strong protection for individual liberties, even after they got chased out of India, Algeria, Indochina, etc. and all other places upon whose back their commerce was based. Germany is doing pretty well too, I hear.

You guys act like imperialism died off a long time ago and that today's liberal democracy has not connection to it anymore.

Much of the third world is at the behest of the developed world. Britain, France, the United States, etc. are all examples of "better" capitalism at the center of global capitalism because they exploit the third world country in the periphery.

Also, class struggle, i.e. the fight against capitalism, is what brought about major gains for working people. Not capitalism or the wonders of the market.

Nations like North Korea and Vietnam were bombarded, terrorized, invaded and economically strangled at their inception. The development of those countries was pure hell and they succumbed to autarky, bureaucracy, paranoia and inner corruption. And anything they had to offer was still much better than anything capitalism could offer in the periphery.

[Robert]

Also, class struggle, i.e. the fight against capitalism, is what brought about major gains for working people. Not capitalism or the wonders of the market.

You're arguing with Miseans. I think.

And pardon me for rejecting as outrageous any sympathetic depiction of the government of North Korea.

http://www.korea-dpr.com/users/jisge/

[danyboy27]

all this whole ethical bullshit about communism being more moral than capitalism or the other way around is just getting tiresome and old.

Leftist dosnt need to go there to prove a point, watch me.

King Leopold failed to bring progress to Congo beccause he was a fucking human, a monarch, someone who inherited his power from the bloodline of his family.

Dictatorship can work but the odd of failure of these system are too great, too much is at stake and on the shoulder of a man. Thing get a little better with an elite but even then the odd of failures are still great beccause the power isnt enough spread out.

Leopold failed at bring a humane, civil society to congo beccause of the utter imperfection of what a dictatorship is, and that the best lesson we can learn from all this.

Capitalism being a form of dictatorship, that is, the dictatorship of the wealth, those in control of it have a tremendous power and their action affect millions of people, and when they fail, million suffer.
And of course, like dictator if they care about their peoples, millions of people get a better life.

the real question is, do you feel lucky, punk?
Is it really wise to play the fate of our species like a game of dice when we could just get our shit together and safe us from potential oblivion and safeguard a legacy for those who are gonna be there in 10 000 year?

[danyboy27]

But there's no plans at all to remove any of his statues.

i dont think its a good idea to remove the statues. We should let them be there, to remember to the peoples the failures of the past, remember what gone so wrong.

the good thing to do would be making a monument of the victims of his wrong doing, a big plate of black marble with the graving of an african male in pain right next to one of his statues.

Peoples need to understand and witness the consequences of the error of the past.