Communism in America

[Jose Noe]

Communism has not had a lot of succes. I believe that it has not been successful because it was imposed on third world countries or underdeveloped countries. If you look at China, Communism has worked a little as opposed to other poorer countries. If Communism can work in China imagine if we could somehow impose Communism on the United States. I belive that Communism can work if imposed on a capitalist society such as the United States. Send me a message if you would like to hear more.

[vox]

Well, Jose, I gotta tell ya, I'm not sure I like the sound of what you're proposing.

See, I agree with the part about communism only being viable in industrialized countries. Fair enough. However, I don't like the part about communism being "imposed." Sounds like some sort of Leninist vanguard, to me.

The proletariat is the only revolutionary class, and if it happens, it will happen through the proletariat, not through a vanguard party imposing its will. I think that's not only philosophically unsound, but materially unsound as well.

vox

[CommieBastard]

i would quote some Gramsci, but i cant be bothered, so i am just going to suggest his Prison Notebooks as a good bit of reading material.

[Moskitto]

Actually I take the opposite view.

I think that revolution can only be achieved by educating people as to the benefits of our system in the developed world and in particullarly the third world.

With a communist third world there wouldn't be anywhere for the first world to buy coffee, pineapples, tea and chocolate at rediculously cheap prices and hyper inflation would flood the first world leading to resentment and extremist parties forming.

If they are communist we have a communist world

If they are fascist we have a bloodbath for control of the planet.

[CommieBastard]

yes moskitto, cheese is good, you're right.

[Anonymous]

we must impose nothing, thats the main thing that is wrong and was wrong with communist revolutions to this day. We must increase democracy not reduce it.

in my opinion what we need is activism and social consiencialisation efforts. We need to brake the propaganda, the manufactured truth and show the true and ugly truth. If society is informed, educated and alert things will change. And as for economic theorys such as colectivisation there has yet to be made a consistent, sustained effort in this direction. But if the choise is made to travel down that road, it must be a choise of the people and not vanguards. It may have to be done fighting (not necessarly with force) another kind of vanguard though.

[gooddoctor]

that's why i'm not interested in communism anymore - all anyone seems to talk about is "imposing" the dictatorship of the proleteriat. that's all well and good, but i think we should ask the proletariat first before any talk of imposing a system on people that they don't understand yet. the social conditions which facilite violent revolution have long since disappeared in the west. therefore, what we need is a concerted effort to educate the working class, give them hope and show them that the future can be brighter. parliamentary democracy is the system where working people can show their support of a certain idea (or personality, as in today's elections), and a democratically elected socialist government will not be open to accusations of illegitimacy to the fascists and capitalists. it's coming comrades, just be patient.

[CommieBastard]

nonsense, you can't have a democratically elected socialist government.
You cannot educate people in this current society, they are kept in ignorance by the media engine, and by a political system which sickens them to apathy, and results in their not even wanting to know things.

As for Communism, do not give up on it. Not all Communism is about an imposition of an elite's opinions.
For example, Gramsci spoke of Hegemony, an argument that real class control in capitalist societies is ideological and cultural rather than physical, and that only a working class educated by radical intellectuals could see through and overthrow such bourgeois propoganda.
He argued that the vanguard is no good, that having a few elite leaders from the bourgeois, though all well and good, needs to be accompanised by the creation of leaders from the proletariat, and the education of the proles.

[AgustoSandino]

I find it comical that the paradigm for disscussion that has been established on this board is one dominated by the incorrect assumption that all people are ignorant. I apologize, let me rephrase the assumption: that all people who disagree with you are ignorant. I hope you can substantiate the claim, not to me but to those who you call stupid with the hope that they follow you.

As far as Gramsci's ideas for igniting change and revolution through established political institutions go they seem quite self-serving. To think that a radical intellectual Italian communist party leader feels that communism can only be brought about by the education of the misguided "proles" by the highminded radical intellectual seems like the man is trying to find a purpose for himself. Ofcourse we could argue the intentions of gramsci or other revolutionary leaders in kantian, nietszchean or freudian terms forever.

[CommieBastard]

he was an italian communist party leader for anbout a year. He then spent the rest of his life in prison, where he rotted to death. And where he also wrote that.
His ideas were not self-serving, were not justifications, they were just pure ideas.

[CommieBastard]

and there is no assumption that all people who disagree with uis are ignorant, there is, however, the assumption that the poor, who are poorly educated, are ignorant.
Which is, in fact, the case.

[vox]

Well, Agusto, I find it rather comical to think that in a nation where the Left has been systematically demonized by the ruling elite anyone could think that, given the incredibly narrow range of debate that is permissable in mainstream media, people somehow magically become Leftists without the service of radical thinkers, present and past.

Indeed, I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is just simply ignorant. I believe that people who align themselves with the right know exactly what they are doing, which is why I call them filth. They knowingly embrace policies that hurt real people, and for this I'm to respect them? Of course not. See? I don't think that they're at all ignorant. I just think they're terrible people.

vox

[madmax]

Okay:
- The right are terrible filth
- The left are fair and just
Got it. I'm learning much here! :)

[reagan lives]

"in a nation where the Left has been systematically demonized by the ruling elite"
Justify.
"people who align themselves with the right...knowingly embrace policies that hurt real people"
This ought to be rich. Prove to me that all who fall into your idea of the "right" (which, in your mind, seems to be a fairly arbitrary classification) "KNOWINGLY" embrace harmful policies for the sake of harming "real people."

I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is just simply ignorant...I just think they're terrible people."
How nonjudgemental of you. I think, vox, that you might be one of the most prejudiced and egocentric people I've ever encountered.

The point is that whether you assume that those who do not share your beliefs are ignorant, stupid, terrible, filthy, evil, whatever, you're still not going to get anywhere. The fact is that it's easy to blame "the establishment" for keeping Leftist ideas down, but Marx is still at every fucking public library in this nation. You still read him in public high school. The information is there for those who want to educate themselves...and if they don't, if they are content feeding their families and growing as people within the society in which they live, that's their fucking prerogative.

You find yourself in the vast minority, so you assume that you're just smarter than the majority. Let me ask you this...have you ever once looked around you, at all the things that capitalist societies accomplish, and think "gee, maybe these people are doing something right?" Of course not...impossible situation. There's no way that the successes of those who hold different beliefs than you and the spectacular failures of those that have espoused your views could mean that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.


(Edited by reagan lives at 1:31 am on Oct. 19, 2001)

[pce]

"Marx is still at every fucking public library in this nation. You still read him in public high school. The information is there for those who want to educate themselves..."
-reagan lives

as i see it, there are two problems here.

first - the 'marx' we read in high school is terribly biased. i should know, i am in high school. and even if the actual text book has it right (which it rarely does) then the teacher skews it to show marx as either a nonsensical dreamer or a monster as portrayed by stalin and the like. never have i heard a teacher explain what marx really said.

second - you say that the books are everywhere for anyone who wants to read them. the reason for this is that 1)marx is so put down in society in general (as in the first point) that there is no fear that anyone would go through the trouble of reading him. and even if anyone does so, they are in the extreme minority. this brings me to 2) if there was ever the danger of a majority or a significant minority turning pro-marxist, then those books would magically disappear off the shelves of "every fucking public library in this nation." case and point the cold war and during mcarthyism. were there karl marx books in "every fucking public library in this nation?" i think not. why? because the 'danger' of the spread of marxism was so great. now when marxism is in the extreme minority, as you point out, no one really cares if marx is so accessible.

[Jurhael]

I don't there's any simplistic left-wing=good, right-wing=bad as there's goodies and baddies on both sides.

The reason why some people buy into Republican politics is because they honestly believe that it benefits people(I don't see how). Course, I understand this sentiment:

"The appeal for the rich is obvious. What baffles me is why they get support from so much of the middle class, the majority of which can only lose under Republican plutocracy. "

[very]

"in a nation where the Left has been systematically demonized by the ruling elite" justify
- reaganlives

the after effects of Senator McCarthy's "witch hunts" and "House of Un-American Activities" which has soured the image of the left and communism in the eyes of Americans forever. All the movies and propaganda pushed forth in that period of time between WW2 and the demise of communist governments in Eastern Europe, that portrayed communist countries as not even knowing what electricity was, or that they were all unintelligent machines, the image produced that communists were "evil" and a "threat to the American way" by the ruling parties in the United States has led to an improper view of communism.


I don't there's any simplistic left-wing=good, right-wing=bad as there's goodies and baddies on both sides.
- Jurhael

I believe that as much as anything else i've learned. It's not like everyone is good on one side or bad on the other.

Also in regards to Marx being taught in school. Marx, and communism is taught horribly in school. Most teachers even seem to have a bias against communism (when as a teacher you are supposed to be bias free aren't you?), disregarding it as a hypocritical system, and a being "evil." Then when facts are brought up about the Vietnam campaign or other American sponsored terrorism they tell me that this is not the time to be saying things like that. Such was the case with Ms. Thobani who was publicly disgraced when a fair share of hate mail was mailed to Canada's secretary of state because of Ms. Thobani's speech about America's evils.

(Edited by very at 3:22 am on Oct. 19, 2001)

[reagan lives]

"case and point the cold war and during mcarthyism. were there karl marx books in 'every fucking public library in this nation?' i think not."
Well, you're wrong about that. To the best of my knowledge, Marx's books were never banned here.

pce and very seem to be under the impression that their high school teachers, who are famously wealthy and right-leaning, are indoctrinating the poor kids with pro-capitalist anti-Marxist propaganda. Ah, is there any instrument of the American right wing more devious and reliable than the Teachers' Union?

Then again, most of you believe that I'm spreading the same propaganda here. And all I'm doing is presenting a fairly realistic view of reality. Since this thread has more or less become about the fundamental and incorrect assumptions that tend to impede your cause, I might as well mention that mindset that anyone who disagrees with The Cause has some sort of insidious agenda is quite destructive.

[Anonymous]

Reagan lives you express reality as you understand it, and in that understanding you take for granted various factors come into play. If something is repeated over and over it becomes true. A person is influenced by those around him: teatchers, media and society in general. Some of these institucions and people should by objective and bias free in the preformance of there jobs. Media must be objective and imparcial, teatchers must be objective and imparcial, and when they are not we must protest. The title CNN gives its coverage of the war in afanistan is "strike against terror". Who wouldnt agree with a strike against terror? no one likes to live in terror, terror is awfull. Yet in my humble opinion it is not a "strike against terror" but rather the execution of unjustifed terror. CNN doesnt not take my view into acount, in which case i must protest.


If you disagree with me i dont think that your this and that, this is a stupid discution, weather there are and where marx books in america is also a stupid question. What you must ask your self is why in a democratic society like yours only one view, one side of things is also presented by institutions, goverment and media alike. And the effect this on sided view of things in america has on manufacturing a false truth and false premises that then cloud judgements.


the moral of the story is that i dont want you to agree with me, what i want is for you to have all the information at your disposal presented in a truly objective way.Not propaganda in disquise.

[very]

pce and very seem to be under the impression that their high school teachers, who are famously wealthy and right-leaning, are indoctrinating the poor kids with pro-capitalist anti-Marxist propaganda. Ah, is there any instrument of the American right wing more devious and reliable than the Teachers' Union?
- reagan lives

first off, teachers at my school are non union. secondly, majority of teachers (i could run a poll on this if you want hard facts) who join the union are not communist or socialist at all; they just want to score some free benefits. If someone offered you free health and dental coverage, you'd probably take it. Also, I am not saying all, but most history teachers that I have experienced have acted in that manner. Also, here is some hard evidence on it; for the "Prescribed Learning Outcomes of History 12 in the Province of British Columbia" it states right on the second page: 3D1: The mistakes of the communist system.

[Jurhael]

In my high school, the teachers were also non-union and unless I'm wrong, unions were also illegal for schools. The students had to protest FOR the teachers when they were told that they had to take a pay cut.

There's Republicans in unions. That's true. So, either they take unions for granted, realize that a union doesn't have to be about politics or they think the Republicans would somehow help unions.

It's easy to just spit on unions now, but without them, people would have little or no way to fight getting shafted.

[reagan lives]

Look, I'm not trying to deride unions here. I'm just pointing out that American school teachers certainly cannot be counted as tools of the establishment...in fact, the Teachers' Union is one of the most painful perennial thorns in the side of all levels of government in America, from local to federal.

"Media must be objective and imparcial, teatchers must be objective and imparcial..."
To quote The Dude: "That's just, like, your *opinion*, man." Who says that media and teachers "must" be objective? I'm not suggesting that biased views from those who are entrusted with information dispensation (especially grade school teachers) is preferable, but it certainly isn't against the rules. Great teachers are great teachers in part *because* they have opinions on things. This is especially true in higher education.

"CNN doesnt not take my view into acount, in which case i must protest."
Wow. Arguing about biases in public education is one thing, but you're talking about a privately owned company. Your grounds for protest do not take into account my affinity for the First Amendment, but I'm not going to protest your protest, I'm just going to point out how hypocritical it is. You have the right to be as vocally wrong as you want.

"Also, here is some hard evidence on it; for the "Prescribed Learning Outcomes of History 12 in the Province of British Columbia" it states right on the second page: 3D1: The mistakes of the communist system."
If you're not too much mistaken, your assertion here is that since the history curriculum includes a section on "the mistakes of the communist system," the curriculum is therefore biased against the Left. Hmm. Did you ever stop to consider the fact that, on the most objective of levels, the mistakes of communist systems are a very real and tangible part of contemporary history? How long could one lecture about the glories of communist systems (historically, not theoretically)?

[gooddoctor]

ATTENTION COMRADES! stpo dreaming - communism is dead and buried. it's fairy tale. support social democracy if you're interested in seeing socialism as a system of government in the west. and if you don't think that a democratically elected government is realistic then check out the rise and rise of the scottish socialist party. socialism is coming to a parliament near you!

[Jurhael]

Hmmm...I like Social Democracy a hell of a lot better than than US Democracy myself. :D

[ViktorPravda]

Quote: from reagan lives on 1:30 am on Oct. 19, 2001
"How nonjudgemental of you. I think, vox, that you might be one of the most prejudiced and egocentric people I've ever encountered."


Gee, that's rich coming from you Reagan. Since you have been here, I cannot recall anyone ever having a valid point in your opinion. So, that leads me to believe that you feel that the left is always wrong. The right is always right. This makes you just as prejudiced as anyone who argues the opposite.




"The fact is that it's easy to blame "the establishment" for keeping Leftist ideas down, but Marx is still at every fucking public library in this nation. You still read him in public high school. The information is there for those who want to educate themselves...and if they don't, if they are content feeding their families and growing as people within the society in which they live, that's their fucking prerogative."


I went to six different High Schools in this Nation. You tell me where it is available to students. Also, Why would students read something that has been demonized by so many for so long. I spent an hour explaining communism to one of my co-workers the other night (Wednesday) because she had no idea what it was. She had heard of it but didn't know anything about it. She told me she was a republican. It was beautiful to see how fast she agreed with some of the things I was saying.

I have looked around. I have looked around in many parts of the country, and a couple of others to boot. How much of this world have you seen? Just a question. In my 'opinion' a large portion of the world seems to be better off than America. They may not have as much money, but they tend to be better off medically, and in education.

[vox]

Well, Reagan, I'll start with COINTELPRO. I think that's a good first step in justifying my statement, and it's pretty well-documented, as well. Someone else already brought up HUAC. There's two forl you right there.

Right-wing policies consistently benefit a very small segment of society while harming a much larger segment. Reagan's across the board tax cuts resulted in higher payroll taxes, so the poorest workers actually saw there taxes go up while the rich saved a bundle. Right-wing neoliberalism, especially as practiced in "free" trade agreements, results in a race to the bottom, with all players trying to undercut the competitiion, meaning that worker's wages stay depressed. It's interesting to note that in the Nineties, when we had very low unemployment, wages did not increase by very much, and there was a long period of wage stagnation, before the rise came. The right-wingers supported a new bankruptcy law that you may have read about. It penalizes human beings for being poor. There is not, however, similar legislation of corporations. The right-wing stance on the environment speaks for itself. It's not surprising that under Bush's right-wing leadership, Houston surpassed LA as the city with the worst air quality in the USA. This, of course, is an obvious quality-of-life issue, something from which the elite can insulate themselves. All told, the right-wing cuts social services and increases corporate welfare. These anti-human policies make the right terrible to me.

As for "proving" everyone on the right knows this, I operate on the assumption that people bother to find things out before forming and opinion. You say that I think I'm smarter, but I said just the opposite. I said that the right knows full well what it does. I claim no special knowledge, Reagan. It's because I believe that right-wingers are informed and side with barbarism anyway that I call them filth. I thought I'd made that clear.

So either they don't know why they believe what they do, which would indeed make them stupid, or they do, which makes them terrible. Either way, they're wrong. Indeed, I can't think of one right-wing policy with which I agree.

vox

[CimSaint]

Reagan, just a question. You asked how long a list of 'historical' accomplishments of communism would be. My question to you is: How many policies of the Right have truly benefited a society?

[Guest]

i dont think reagan is a right winger, compared to you guys he certainly is as am i i suppose. Reagan is basically saying that the american system, and the american dialectic, in which extremes meet and a synthesis is the result is superior to any right or left system. Is america a right wing nation, no, do you think so, obviously because you are on the peripherie of political thought. Is that bad, no, people like you are necessary to any democratic process. The problem most americans have with communism is not the ideal in and of itself, but that many of you propose replacing the system in whole. This system's founding principle is pragmatism. In times where the situation demands leftist thinking, the great depression, leftist politics win out, keynsian economics. In times when the situation demand classical thought, the early 90's recession, classical policies win out, clinto market stimuli. The system is not perfect, but it is constantly improving itself. Communism is not under assault here in the US, it has been before, not because people hated the ideals of communism, how could they hate the ideals of communism in the 50's at the time when we were calling ourselves a christian nation? Communist economics were similar to christian economis, they would both fail, but they were similar. People feared the overthrow of a system that they saw worked. I mean you VICTOR say it is unwanted in america, yet you went to school in america, and while in america you are a communist. Are you forced to wear a red star, do you have to reveal your political leanings when going for employemnt? no. Ask immigrants of the 1920's and 30's if the system worked. 30 years from now ask immigrants if the systemt works. SHit i've been here for 10 years and the system works for me.

Have any right wing policies done good for anyone, well define right wing? i dont mean to be a pisser, but you classified america as right wing. I dont think you would classify things like the new deal as right wing, is freedom of religion and of speech right wing? but weren't they american policies? I dont know, tell me? In my opinion right wing policies and left wing policies haven't helped anyone, no one benefits from raised fists to quote milan kundera in THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING. But i do believe strongly in my heart, and based on what my eyes have seen, that AMERICAN POLICIES have benefit many throughout history. Don't think so. Hey like I always say, here in america you're allowed not to think so.

[vox]

Hey there, guest.

Did US policies benefit Indonesians? Did they benefit Chileans? Did they benefit Nicaraguans?

You say that since you've been here you're better off, right? There's a very interesting idea in sociology that states people follow the money. Has the US taken much money from your original country, guest?

The "American" system has nothing to do with "pragmatism" except in the sense that the elite benefit.

FDR, who you mistakenly call a left-winger, SAVED capitalism. Of course, the monkey right has never forgiven him for it.

Fact is, FDR was a capitalist and he allowed capitalists to fund Germany while Hitler was in power. That's the kind of free market capitalism of which Agusto thinks so highly.

vox

[AgustoSandino]

I think guest asked wether you felt FDR was a leftist because of his policies or wether he was a rightist simply because he was american, which seems to be what your saying. If it is the case that FDR was a right-winger, even though he was admittedly leftist and remains an icon of the american left, then what you are implying is the america is a right wing nation. Well then vox, i think me reagan and "guest" are right wingers after all, and we're unapologetic. Because if america is inherently right wing so are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, right to due process and countless other American freedoms.

Then about US policies, yes chileans are better off today than in the 70's, economically and politically. So much so that they can put Gen. Pinochet on trial for his crimes. Indonesians were considerably better off, until they foolishly let religious and ethnic differences pull away at the fabric of the nation. And nicaraguans, well if Fidel is succeeded by raul and cuba remains communist for longer than anticipated then you'll see how much better off nicaragua is in contrast.

[reagan lives]

vox, your act is getting old. You bust out the same goddamned arguments on every single thread that you decide to hijack. But we'll dance the dance again, I suppose.
"Did US policies benefit Indonesians? Did they benefit Chileans? Did they benefit Nicaraguans?"
1) Did Indonesian policies benefit Indonesians? Did Chilean policies benefit Chileans? Did Nicaraguan policies benefit Nicaraguans? Did any of them benefit the United States (since, if you stipulate the US policies should "benefit" the peoples of these nations, surely you believe that the converse is true, lest you be accused of blatant and unforgivable cultural relativism)?
2) Have the people of the nations you mentioned ever benefited from "Leftist" policies? Has anyone?

[Anonymous]

reagan read what you just sayed. Did that make sense to you? exactly...

what you talking about "did indonesian policies benifit indonesia?" so what if they didnt, or the US thinks they didny, or the US thinks they will not. That gives them the right to intervine? because they are so fucking smart they know whats good for ppl? you paternalistic fool.

and what the fuck you talking bout did indonesia`s policies benifit US. Did indonesia intervine in US? i dont think so. The question is not did the US policies benifit indonesia but rather why doesnt the US fuck off and keep its greedy hands to its self. I fear US goverment and i fear US ignorance. Ignorance because when its people fail to recognise the harm there goverment causes this is very serious.

as for your question did leftist policies help anyone? well what can i say... I figure its retorical or something, that communism failed and so on. This to is ignorance because it is obivious the left is the camp that most does for people. I know you dont agree, but to ask if it has ever done people any good is a joke. Leftist parties more or less extreme have done a lot for people, look at europian social democracies, look at clinton adm. vs cowboy amd. ,look at Isac Rabin Vs ariel sharon criminal of war and right winger. But this is of course a discution that does not end, you have your opinion and i respect it, in democracy such must be the case but please respect ours and dont ask stupid questions. In almost every case, afair and event the left has the resonable arugument, it speaks for peace, for social justice, for intelecutal discution, for the questioning of everything even the tradictions and convensions of society in the true spirit of humanism and rational thought, for the humble, for brotherhood amongst man, for the fact that race means nothing, for the planet for the enviorment. The right concentrates on fictional things such the concept of nation, focusses on this and divides people, focusses on race and divides. such ilusions you have my friend. Why dont you question capitalism?, why dont you question everything around you? one should always do this with everything, u must think for your self, and nothing is above discution and everything can be put in question. You think left is communism but you are wrong, as you are wrong in your conception of what comunism is but that is beside the point. What is the point that the left is a general camp with many different conceptions with the common cause and general ideals of justice, equality, true freedom (extreme freedom what is the right but not the enfasis on state power in its extreme and the left but the lack of state in its extreme of extremes), non violence, distruction of divisions between men that are after all equal, and a lot of other things my friend. Maybe im not so skilled and orator as would be needed to speak to you about all the virtues and merrits of the left so for fear of doing it harm ill shut up. :)


But i invite you to do an exercise reagan my comrade, in every issue from now on see what the left defendes and what the right defends and with an open mind reflect on the importance, the true importance of what they each defends and see who you most agree with. This also aplys to all of us in the left, we must also not have preconceptions and analise matter with an open mind. Too often one believes what he wants to instead of what he truly does believe in.

[AgustoSandino]

reagan was trying to bring up the point which you so dutifully demonstrated, that the left is not stiffled in Western society. You see, you are right there are "left wing" policies that have benefited people, and there are "right wing" policies that have benefited people. El che has illustrated some of the left wing characteristics of the Western world: european social democracies, the clinton administration, the rabin administration in contrast to sharon.

So there you have it, El che with the guidance of reagan has refuted Vox's point that the:

"The "American" system has nothing to do with "pragmatism" except in the sense that the elite benefit. "

For if Vox was right then there would've been no left wing policies for El Che to describe. But he was wrong, the american system is based on pragmatism, sometimes the left wins out the battle for policy sometimes the right, but ultimately problems are solved.