Are you a Stalinist/Maoist/authoritarian?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Thank you for taking part.

--- G.

[Saint-Just]

We will only find out if that recent assertion is correct or incorrect if enough of the 'Stalinists' notice this thread. Also, a lot of 'Stalinists' have left previously. e.g. Nateddi, Mazdak, Che Guevara etc.

There are a number of Leninists here who don't consider themselves Stalinists.

I provided a list of as many I could think of before:

nateddi
che guevara
ernesto lynch
joseph stalin
ymir
elijahcraig
chairman mao
cassius clay
comrade junichi
comrade raf
thursday night
el brujo
mazdak
soviet (only Leninist really)
Commie KG (possibly not quite Stalinist)
el brujo (also not Stalinist precisely)
hs the whap
comrade marcel
Koba

[Dhul Fiqar]

I don't really see the relevance of members having left, I am polling the current members, not conducting a historical survey :)

And the question is more or less designed for one person to answer for himself, not to list people, because that would cause obvious problems with people objecting to being labeled by others and etc.

I think it is better if this be done somewhat in private and individually, and I would hope that there would be no concerted effort to get people back just to vote and then leave again because that would skew the results,

--- G.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

It would help alot If you were a bit more specific. Since It all really depends on the circumstances(sp).

Here's an example:

Try to imagine the start of the cuban revolution without any "authoritarian" conduct lets see how far would they have gone. :)

[ComradeJunichi]

Chairman Mao may speak for me, I am an authoritarian. Well, depends: If I will be banned or caged because of that, no I'm not an authoritarian :P. Just kidding.


Oh...I just read the other thread "Banned". I suppose this is created to weed out members from Commie Club.

Chairman Mao has 666 posts, he is definitely son of Satan Stalin. Ban him!!! :lol:

[Danton]

All commie club members are by definition authoritarian...

[canikickit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 03:58 PM
All commie club members are by definition authoritarian...
....unless you are a person who chooses to differentiate between political idealogy and using an administrative function/private forum on an internet message board.

[Danton]

The authoritarians in reality are being banned by their virtual nemesi...
The delicious irony. If this is a microcosm of a community then the power weilders ; mod squad are the only authority and in that they are being authoritarian when they demand total obedience of their rules...

[Xvall]

By Stalinist I think Dhul means pretty much authoritarian. He may as well have just put authoritarian. And he never said it was specifically a bad thing. He was just asking who was and who was not.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 26 2003, 05:28 AM
Commie KG (possibly not quite Stalinist)

:o

Well, I used to be, awhile ago. When you are first introduced to communism, the first thing you run accross is stuff about Stalin, so I think there is alot of people who have had a "Stalinist experience." :lol:

[Xvall]

Yep. Actually the first time I ran across communism, I thought it was evil, and I also thought it was good to be evil. So yeah. That only lasted for about a week anyways.

[ComradeJunichi]

I first ran across communism on this site. I learned a lot and bothered a lot of people by asking a lot of questions. I thought Stalin was the worst person ever to live. So I think the contrary of what KG said, Stalinism is usually the first evil you run into. I've never seen stalinism said in light.

[Saint-Just]

Comrade Junichi is very much open-minded, Cassius Clay once said he is the most a-political person he has ever met.

I don't really see the relevance of members having left, I am polling the current members, not conducting a historical survey

I wasn't suggesting those people should be included in the poll, I was just issuing that list because it may be interesting. Its a good poll nonetheless.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I curse you figar.




Oh wait, I have already been given the boot from that club.

Well then, I'm authoritarian.

[elijahcraig]

Authoritarian? No revolution has been carried out by softies. I agree with ak47 in that it would have to be according to the situation. I am a Stalinist, but authoritarianism is not always the right approach.

[Cassius Clay]

That's a very misleading poll and as such I'm not going to take part in it. Really where does this 'Authoritarian' stuff come from? I could hazzard a guess but please go ahead and explain.

[Saint-Just]

You must vote Cassius. You will be defending assertions made by your comrades. Forget the use of 'authoritarian', it does mention Stalin. Ymir will vote if he sees this.

[Cassius Clay]

Ah sorry comrade but I'm not going to. Some may want to take part in this as a show of numbers, or they may feel they are 'authoritarian'. If the title/question is not changed then I will not be registering my vote. Can you not see this is a example of bourgesie democracy, or even worse it has about as much democracy to it as polling stations in Basra.

Sorry and all. But look at it this way, (insert brilliant example here).

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 26 2003, 08:19 PM
Can you not see this is a example of bourgesie democracy, or even worse it has about as much democracy to it as polling stations in Basra.

Thats the line I will be taking if it all goes wrong.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i'm borderline, seriously. I am absolutely not a Stalinist though.

I advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat, but not a centralized oligarchy led by the communist party. I think that the masses should have a direct influence upon the leadership.

As a member of the masses, I would support the most strict and oppressive actions against the bourgeoisie, as they must be suppressed before the working class can truly wield power.

[elijahcraig]

Guess, you majority have never seen this quote on authoritarianism?

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon - authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries" (On Authority, in Lewis S. Feuer, ed., Marx & Engels: Basic Writings on Politics & Philosophy, 1959, p. 485).


Well?

[elijahcraig]

Some other "authoritative" quotes:

"An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army-command has the death-penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements - the animals that we call men - will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear. "

{Trotsky positioned special troops in the rear, behind his front-line troops, to shoot deserters and stop the front line retreating from battle; that's how the Civil War was won.}

"During war all constitutions and organs of the State and of public opinion become, directly or indirectly, weapons of warfare. This is particularly true of the Press. No government carrying on a serious war will allow publications to exist on its territory which, openly or indirectly, support the enemy. Still more so in a civil war. The nature of the latter is such that each of its struggling sides has in the rear of its armies considerable circles of the population on the side of the enemy. In war, where both success and failure are repaid by death, hostile agents who penetrate into the rear are subject to execution. "

More from Trotsky, the beacon of hte Ultra-Left ha

"But Kautsky goes further to develop his theme. He complains that we suppress the newspapers of the S.R.s {Socialist Revolutionaries} and the Mensheviks, and even - such things have been known - arrest their leaders. Are we not dealing here with "shades of opinion" in the proletariat or the Socialist movement? The scholastic pedant does not see facts beyond his accustomed words. The Mensheviks and S.R.s for him are simply tendencies in Socialism, whereas, in the course of the revolution, they have been transformed into an organization which works in active co-operation with the counter-revolution and carries on against us an open war. "

Once again, Trot

"The man who recognizes the revolutionary historic importance of the very fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the Red Terror. "

Go Trot Go!

" 'Revolution is revolution only because it reduces all contradictions to the alternative of life or death. "

Trotsky goes for the basket, score!!!!!

[canikickit]

I'd be quite safe in saying the Dhul is talking about how you think the laws in a country should be set.

Freedom of drug use, association, artistic tastes, movement, expression, the press...and so forth.

Talk of revolution* isn't particularily relevant.

* - by revolution, I mean the actual coup, as i believe that is what has been meant in this thread.


But look at it this way, (insert brilliant example here).

Brilliant! :lol: :D

I really don't see what problem you guys have with this poll. It's not really a democratic function, it's just an opinion poll. It's not a matter of voting, it's just like someone asked you "do you like stuff?" It won't change things.
It's also anonymous, Cassius, people need not know what way you voted.

You guys (Mao and Cassius and co.) are giving me the impression that you think this is some sort of purge.

What is misleading about it Cassius?

[El Brujo]

Um, first of all"Authoritarian communism" is extremely inaccurate. Communism is a world-wide, classless and stateless society. I am an authoritarian socialist.

Second of all, there is no room for bleeding hearts in a socialist revolution. Most reactionaries are not interested in listening to reason and only understand violence. The bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy will never bend down and give up their privileges for the people, they are inherently anti-democratic so they must be defeated through anti-democratic means.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 26 2003, 03:28 PM
We will only find out if that recent assertion is correct or incorrect if enough of the 'Stalinists' notice this thread. Also, a lot of 'Stalinists' have left previously. e.g. Nateddi, Mazdak, Che Guevara etc.

There are a number of Leninists here who don't consider themselves Stalinists.

I provided a list of as many I could think of before:

nateddi
che guevara
ernesto lynch
joseph stalin
ymir
elijahcraig
chairman mao
cassius clay
comrade junichi
comrade raf
thursday night
el brujo
mazdak
soviet (only Leninist really)
Commie KG (possibly not quite Stalinist)
el brujo (also not Stalinist precisely)
hs the whap
comrade marcel
Koba
WTF is the point of that list??? What are you trying to proof?

[elijahcraig]

The revolution never ends until the whole world is socialist, and communism is implemented, until then, all of these quotes are entirely relevant.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 12:33 AM

WTF is the point of that list??? What are you trying to proof?
"Are you a Stalinist/Maoist/authoritarian?"

It was a question. He was answering It.

[elijahcraig]

Stormin' Norman on the issue:


Yeah, it really is. Devoting a certain section of a communist website to banning people, and then claiming you're anti-authoritarian is even funnier however. What a bunch of pussies.

[Palmares]

Seriously, WHO GIVES A FUCK about any so-called connotations in this poll.

IT IS JUST A POLL

If any of you guys don't like it, make another that better describes your view.

No offence, but some of you guys almost want to pick a fight with this rubbish :angry:

[canikickit]

I don't care what Norm has to say on the issue. I think the guy's an idiot.

[Kapitan Andrey]

I'm anti-stalinist, anti-trotskist...

I'm Guevaraist or Cheist... ;)

[Bolshevika]

I am a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. So I voted for the first option.

By the way Andrey, Che was an authoritarian Marxist-Leninist as well. His diaries certainly do not reveal much, but history does. When he supported Stalin or not is up in the air.

[Unrelenting Steve]

I dont actualy think a government should have any authoritarian nature where it comes to social stuff (ne1 know of a more eloquent way to put it?) Obviously where people interact I belive a third party should have some defined arbitrarial position- or we would have micro facism (or as anarchists believe a perfect sociaty) and no justice or at least not a higher level of justice that we would have had. Such is the function of the state; obviously what the states policies are; how you are alowed to intereact legaly has very real and apparent social ramifications. I see no negative ones through communism and only negative ones through capitalism- this however is irrelevant. What is relavent is that what is ilegal and most wrong eg. slavery: is legal through capitalism. It is through right and wrong that I derrive that communism is correct, it would be conceited and arrogant to dictate to people what they should think but ofcourse forcing them to do something in practice is authoritarian, so is any sociaty that carries out its laws- economic policy should be an extention of the judicary, to be altered as in accordance to whats just. Obviously in communism, if a country country practiced that it would collapse, as you need to close your border- this the judicary could not derive, this is where the social authoratarian action that I so despice must come into play, that is where my conceit lies and the conceit of all practicle communism (if you do not agree please let me know), we have to close the border- that I guess could be labeled Stalinism in its restriciveness and conceit............Am I a Stalinist. I want to close the border, what should my poll vote be?

[elijahcraig]

Anyone who doubts C he was a Stalinist, does not know much about Che.

"I have sworn before a portrait of old and mourned Comrade Stalin, that I would not rest until I see these Capitalists octupuses annihilated." -Che

[Hegemonicretribution]

elijahcraig Like I said in another thread I see Gandhi as a revolutionary. He was pretty good and not that authoritarian.

Che has criticised th Russian attempt. I would say he was headed towards anarchy in the end.

[Som]

More from Trotsky, the beacon of hte Ultra-Left ha

Because of course the liberals think trotsky is the greatest!

Because having Stalin call you an authoritarian really makes you look good in the eyes of the 'ultra-leftists'

Disbanding the soviets, calling democracy a formality, and basically calling for universal martial law, thats what they REALLY want.

The part where he turned around and shot all the anarchists and 'ultra-leftists' REALLY make them love him, those bullets to the head just makes them overyjoyed, lets all follow that beacon of the proletariat.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 10:40 PM

More from Trotsky, the beacon of hte Ultra-Left ha

Because of course the liberals think trotsky is the greatest!

Because having Stalin call you an authoritarian really makes you look good in the eyes of the 'ultra-leftists'

Disbanding the soviets, calling democracy a formality, and basically calling for universal martial law, thats what they REALLY want.

The part where he turned around and shot all the anarchists and 'ultra-leftists' REALLY make them love him, those bullets to the head just makes them overyjoyed, lets all follow that beacon of the proletariat.
That would be a reasonable assumption if the majority of Trotskyites knew much about Trotsky.

[elijahcraig]

Che hated counter-revolutionaries and anarchists are just that. He criticized Khruschev's revisionism, not Lenin or Stalin.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 08:57 PM
elijahcraig Like I said in another thread I see Gandhi as a revolutionary. He was pretty good and not that authoritarian.

Che has criticised th Russian attempt. I would say he was headed towards anarchy in the end.
By the time Che had become a Marxist-Leninist (after his infamous motorcycle trip around Latin America) Stalin was long dead. So he did not criticize Stalin, but, as Elijah says, Khruschev.

Gandhi was a good person and all, but he wasn't a revolutionary in the classical sense. A revolutionary is usually someone who brings about a coup d'etat via violence.

[the SovieT]

I voted i am not authoritarian..


if believing in the repression of hte bourgeoise and the enemys of hte people, the abolition of private property, the aplication of the marxist theorys in order to make a new, equal and fair society and to cleanse the world from man to man exploitation, hunger, warmongerism, etc etc ALL this by the poeoples will and actions LED by the vanguard of the working class, the communist party militants is being authoritarian then I am the biggest authoritarian you have ever seen..



fairwell..

NÓS, JUVENTUDE COMMUNISTAS DE TODO O MUNDO, AFIRMAMO-NOS COMO MARXISTAS-LENINISTAS, PORQUE TRANSFORMAR É POSSIVEL E NECESSÁRIO, ORGULHOSAMENTE LUTARE-MOS CONTRA AS FORÇAS REÁCCIONARIAS E VENCEREMOS TODOS OS ADVERSÁRIOS DO POVO E DA CLASSE OPERÁRIA!
LONGA VIDA Á CLASSE OPERÁRIA VANGUARDA DO POVO!

translation: We, communist youths of all the world, afirmate ourselfs as marxist-leninists, because change is possible and necessary, proudly we will fight against the reaccionary forces and shall beat all the working class and people´s enemys
long live the working class, vanguard of the people

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by Bolshevika+Aug 28 2003, 12:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bolshevika @ Aug 28 2003, 12:06 AM)
[email protected] 27 2003, 08:57 PM
elijahcraig Like I said in another thread I see Gandhi as a revolutionary. He was pretty good and not that authoritarian.

Che has criticised th Russian attempt. I would say he was headed towards anarchy in the end.
By the time Che had become a Marxist-Leninist (after his infamous motorcycle trip around Latin America) Stalin was long dead. So he did not criticize Stalin, but, as Elijah says, Khruschev.

Gandhi was a good person and all, but he wasn&#39;t a revolutionary in the classical sense. A revolutionary is usually someone who brings about a coup d&#39;etat via violence. [/b]
someone who brings a coup d&#39;etat via violence, is not a revolutionary but a opurtunist..
a farse..
a enemy of the people..

a revolution cannot be a coup d&#39;etat, nor a mere partidary rise to power..
but a emidiate and direct people´s action, that may or may not be led by the vanguard...


a coup d&#39;etat is nothing but a bourgeouse way to get into power..

a revolution in the other way is the people´s main weapon...

[Silent Eye]

Hmmm. I am not sure what i am to be quite honest. I guess i am like Zinoviev in that i change stances from authoritarian to democratic, depending on the issue. Authoritarian measures might be necessary early on in a revolution, but i think that they should be emphasized as only temporary measures to make sure the revolution is born "healthy."

[Kapitan Andrey]

I already told, that Che didn&#39;t knew - what stalin did to Russia -> millions innocents repressed&#33;&#33;&#33; Not counter-revolutioneers, just innocents&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

If only Che could knew that...he would hate stalin&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

[YKTMX]

Yes, in Che&#39;s defence, many Russians didn&#39;t know about the level of reperession and the horror or collectivisation yet, so I doubt we can expect Che to know.

[elijahcraig]

Let&#39;s see these so-called "innocents" you fool, you post these nonsense comments and then fail to provide any evidence. You&#39;ve been proved wrong time and time again by Cassius Clay and Chairman Mao and the rest, though you continue on your iditoc line of puking visions of idiocy.

Here&#39;s a link from the PLP on Stalin:

Stalin&#39;s Successes (http://www.plp.org/communist/stalinssuccesses.pdf)

[Xvall]

Ugh. The PLP are insane. You should give them a link to the MIM instead. The PLP are anarchists with a soft spot for Stalin. Anyways; red:


Gandhi was a good person and all, but he wasn&#39;t a revolutionary in the classical sense. A revolutionary is usually someone who brings about a coup d&#39;etat via violence.

A revolutionary is one who participates in instigating a revolution. Be it a non-violent revolution (Civil Rights Movement) or a violent revolution (Russian Revolution) it is a revolution nonetheless. At least to me.

[YKTMX]

Yes, in many way Thatcher was a revolutionary. Revolutionary just means someone who wants to profoundly change society, the nature of that change is where they differ.

[elijahcraig]

Jedihitch on ISF is in the PLP, he&#39;s who sent me this link through email, and they are not "insane".

We might as well call Richard Simmons a "revolutionary" with your definition. A revoltuioarny is a person who wishes to use any means necessary to change society, not a reformist who marches around in pacifism.

[Hampton]

When you say any means to change society wouldn&#39;t that cover nonviolence?

[canikickit]

Gandhi was a counterrevolutionary.

http://www.proxsa.org/inspiration/ambedkar.html

I&#39;ve posted it many times before, but just read about how Gandhi did his best to keep a system which propagates classes.

Ambedkar&#39;s programs were intended to integrate the Untouchable into Indian society in modern, not traditional ways, and on as high a level as possible. This goal stood in marked contrast to Gandhi&#39;s "Ideal Bhangi" (Harijan, 23 November 1936) who would continue to do sanitation work even though his status would equal that of a Brahmin. Ambedkar&#39;s ideal for the depressed [classes] was to "raise their educational standard so that they may know their own conditions, have aspiratiosn to rise to the level of the highest Hindu and be in a position to use political power as a means to that end." Both reformers had a vision of equality, but for Ambedkar equality meant not only equal status of the Varnas, but equal social, political, and economic opportunity for all. Ambedkar planned his porgrams to bring the Untouchable from a stat eof "dehumanization" and "slavery" into one of equality through the use of modern methods based on education and the exercize of legal and political rights. . . .

Ambedkar&#39;s adaptation of western concepts to the Indian scene is also reflected int he terms he used to justify Untouchable political rights: democracy, fraternity, and liberty. In his Marathi speeches, Ambedkar conveyed the implication of these concepts in a single word, manuski, that was readily understood by the most illiterate Mahar villager. Although manuski&#39;s literal meaning is "human-ness", it serves to evoke feelings of self-respect and human attitudes towards one&#39;s fellow [humans]
(From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkar Movement, Eleanor Zelliot, 1992, Manohar Publications: New Delhi)

[elijahcraig]

Fred Hampton would slap you in the face for saying that. Nonviolence is petty bourgeois ideology, not revolutionary thought.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 12:21 AM
Nonviolence is petty bourgeois ideology, not revolutionary thought.
That&#39;s absolute bullshit. Pure dogmatism, what a fantasy you live in.
There are a great many revolutionary actions one can take, not all are violent.

What you are saying, Elijah, is that if one wishes to change society, the only thing you can do is be violent.
The only thing you can do to change society is a violent thing?

Do you believe that when Che went out of his way to work with the "ordinary Joes" in hard manual labour, that this was not a revolutionary act?

[Hampton]

What the fuck was that? I didn&#39;t even come at you like you just came at me. I never said I was for nonviolence, I was just analyzing what you had wrote and asked a question, which you didn&#39;t even answer instead I get this shit about Fred Hampton slapping me in the face, *****, I am more Fred Hampton than you would ever be. All I did was ask a fucking question and I get this shit with the cliche response without answering my question, I&#39;m sorry if it was to easy to poke a hole in your bullshit argument saying that you can only be a revolutonary with violence to overturn a system because it&#39;s just not true. Ask Martin Luther King what nonviolence can do and see what it did in the South.

[elijahcraig]

That&#39;s absolute bullshit. Pure dogmatism, what a fantasy you live in.
There are a great many revolutionary actions one can take, not all are violent.

What you are saying, Elijah, is that if one wishes to change society, the only thing you can do is be violent.
The only thing you can do to change society is a violent thing?

Do you believe that when Che went out of his way to work with the "ordinary Joes" in hard manual labour, that this was not a revolutionary act?

Let me change “nonviolence” to “pacifism”, and make clear that I am not against nonviolence, only against it if you are absolutely against violence.


What the fuck was that? I didn&#39;t even come at you like you just came at me. I never said I was for nonviolence, I was just analyzing what you had wrote and asked a question, which you didn&#39;t even answer instead I get this shit about Fred Hampton slapping me in the face, *****, I am more Fred Hampton than you would ever be.

I’m not sure if it’s possible to determine if you are I are “more Fred Hampton “.

I was kidding.


All I did was ask a fucking question and I get this shit with the cliche response without answering my question, I&#39;m sorry if it was to easy to poke a hole in your bullshit argument saying that you can only be a revolutonary with violence to overturn a system because it&#39;s just not true. Ask Martin Luther King what nonviolence can do and see what it did in the South.

He’s dead. If he had embraced violence like Malcolm X, the whole white establishment would have been burned to the ground.

[Saint-Just]

So, Dhul Figar, I believe this is probably the end of the vote. Is the assertion made proved to be correct or uncorrect and to what extent?

[the SovieT]

bah..


all i know is we should all be friends..

and my first reply to this thread freaking rocks...


amazingly i wasnt drunk and/or high when i wrote it&#33; :o


peace&#33;


and remember:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Thanks to all for participating, interesting results and I apparently stand corrected - there is a far wider base of support for "totalitarianesque" approaches to socalist/communist thought than I had realized.

I did however not read a word that was said in the thread that sprouted from the poll, nor will I endevour to read the competing threads that have cropped up. This was just what it looked like on the face of it - an honest question I wanted answered - not an indictment of anyone or anything. Just information gathering :)

Thanks again,

--- G.

[ernestolynch]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 31 2003, 01:49 AM
I did however not read a word that was said in the thread that sprouted from the poll, nor will I endevour to read the competing threads that have cropped up. This was just what it looked like on the face of it - an honest question I wanted answered - not an indictment of anyone or anything. Just information gathering :)

Thanks again,

--- G.
If I was a moderator of a bulletin board, I would hope I was doing it because I cared for it, and had an interest in it.

I wouldn;t post up a statement like " I can&#39;t be bothered to read your opinions, nor will I attempt to read them"

Che would be spinning in his grave.

PLEASE STOP EDUMACATIONALISING ME - said the Che-lives moderator to the contributors....

No offence meant, dhul, but you set yourself up there. Do you pride yourself in the purely administrative/beaurocratic element then, rather than the philosophical/political/historical? I know some other dude who was like that....Lev....Lev....no its gone.

[Dhul Fiqar]

LOL, I spend WAY too much time here mate. I read hours a day on this board and spend god knows how much time doing repetitive administrative tasks like letting people manually into CC and etc. etc. So don&#39;t make yourself look foolish by implying I do not have the time to read up on the oppinions of the people here, sometimes I feel that&#39;s all I fucking do.

The point is, this is a debate I have had about 69570407 times since I joined the forum, and I know exactly where everyone stands on what in regard to the liberal vs. anti-liberal debate, I wanted a clear statistical layout of the demographic of the site - not ANOTHER repeat of the same arguments.

Furthermore I have no need to argue with anyone about their political stance, people stand where they stand and that is fine by me, there is no need for everyone to get defensive. I just wanted a headcount, not a headhunt ;)

--- G.

[Kapitan Andrey]

elijahcraig...redneck&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

the SovieT...wow&#33; What a strange mood&#33;&#33;&#33; What&#39;s wrong with you&#33;? :huh:

[elijahcraig]

Where the hell did you get "redneck" from?

[Xvall]

I suppose insane wouldn&#39;t be an appropriate word to use. Just odd then. They seem to support Stalin, and have a fairly anarchistic ideology; but from what I read on their website, they hate Fidel Castro, North Korea, and other such states. I find this unusual.

[Cassius Clay]

It&#39;s not odd or weird regarding the PLP.

I will defend Cuba against Imperialism and I will acknowledge the great social gains made by the people of Cuba under Castro. PLP also do this, but as Communists it is our duty to criticise (and yes they do criticise Stalin where he went wrong) the fact is in Cuba there is a Capitalist class which has power to hire and fire their workers, Cuba is very democratic but it could be more so. Castro should make a self-criticism on the mistakes he has made but more importantly he should make Cuba a even greater country that it is, for it&#39;s people and not for tourists.

[elijahcraig]

PLP has a very big problem over the "straight to communism" thing, which when described to me by one of their members, is basically not communism, but socialism.

[Bolshevika]

Cassius Clay: Do you realize that Cuba is in an economic depression?

I understand that the case with the tourists seems a bit capitalistic, but it is the only way Cuba survives. If he takes out the tourist laws, his whole nation will suffer consequences similar to North Korea&#39;s (mass starvation).

[Cassius Clay]

Should Cuba of then become depedent on Soviet-Social Imperialism so much that in the 1990&#39;s it faced this problem? No. Castro should concentrate on creating a stable and not a dependent economy on European bussiness. It was done in Albania for 40 odd years, I&#39;m sure Castro and the Cuban people can do it.

I&#39;m not anti-Castro just a realist on that I criticse where he&#39;s gone wrong. For example while Cuba&#39;s system is very democratic, I&#39;m not convinced that it couldn&#39;t be more so. Perhaps introducing a policy of letting the people and workers recall the officials and managers who are currently earning a good deal more than the average Cuban.