Please, explain something to a conservative

[yeahjim]

1. do you support the form of the government known as "communism"?
2. are there any examples of a truly *communist* government you can cite that has not failed due to either economic instability, civilian uprising, or the corruption of communist ideals?
3. if you cannot cite such an example, can you explain why you continue to support the idea of a communist government when the philosophy has proven itself to be highly impractical in the real world. If you can cite such an example, can you please provide me a link to information regarding that country so i can educate myself on it.

many thanks.

[Hate Is Art]

1. do you support the form of the government known as "communism"?

I'm an anarchist


2. are there any examples of a truly *communist* government you can cite that has not failed due to either economic instability, civilian uprising, or the corruption of communist ideals?


No


3. if you cannot cite such an example, can you explain why you continue to support the idea of a communist government when the philosophy has proven itself to be highly impractical in the real world. If you can cite such an example, can you please provide me a link to information regarding that country so i can educate myself on it.


Because I'm not a quitter, why should I give up because someone else failed? I'm not Stalin or Pol Pot or Ho Chi Minh, I can learn from their mistakes and if by some freak miracle chance I was leading a guerrila warfare movement to bring anarchy to the UK I would people after don't give up and carry on and learn from my mistakes. The Revolution is Inevitable.

[kylie]

1. I'm not sure what you mean. Communism is a stateless economic situation, with no centralized structure that could be really recognised as 'government'. As for states that follow the Marxist ideology, it would depend upon what varient of marxism they use. As this site shows, there is many different strands, I personally would support it if it was neither leninist nor anarchist, ie middle of the road.
2. yes, Cuba while not subscribing totally to marxism, does at least in part, and has proved itself to be successful.
3. i guess this is applicable, as cuba is only partly marxist. Not all possibilities related to applying marxism have been tried. There has been some Anarchist approaches, which have been while successful while left alone, have shown themselves to be weak to outside interference.
And then there has been the Leninist approach, which I feel fails to recognise one of the aims of marxism, to give freedom to the individual, and has little way of evaluating its own actions, with criticism being limited. And well there has been many states which have followed this approach, the results being obvious.
I continue to think that the marxist goal is possible due to the moderate route, not extremely anti-authoritarian, and also not Leninist, has not for a prolonged period of time been tested. It could be argued that some places have gone down this route, but either it has not lasted long or is only now developing.

[yeahjim]

define what you mean by "anarchist".

the total lack of government? total freedom for all?

isnt that EXACTLY what you condemn about the capitalist system- the big fish keep the little fish down?

in an anarchy, the most physically powerful and charismatic people with the biggest weapons would simple dominate the physically weak, and keep them in line under penalty of death, becuase there is no consequence to killing them anyway- there are no govt enforced rules.

how is that preferable to capitalism?

in an anarchy, jsut for example, steven hawking would probably be long dead- would that leave us better off or worse off as a world?

[ComradeRobertRiley]

1. Anarchist-communist

2. Yes - It was called the coconut revolution and i believe it is still coninueing despite pressure from Australia and papa new guinea

[yeahjim]

"2. yes, Cuba while not subscribing totally to marxism, does at least in part, and has proved itself to be successful."

well first of all, as you said, Cuba is something of a hybrid, not a true marxist state.

and second, you would say that Cuba is a success?

you would hail a country with less civil rights than the "U$ of A" a success?

the Cuban economy is no great shakes either.

Cuba has an excellent healthcare system, i will grant you that.

Unfortunately, it wont do you much good when the govt "silences" you for openly daring to oppose Castro.

Let me put it like this- you are openly disagreeing with the merits of capitalism. if this debate took place in america, your life is not in danger from this stance. if this debate was taking place in cuba, my life would be from my stance.

and you claim that as a "success" of a country?

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Cuba is 100% NOT communist

Cuba is socialist.

I would describe Cuba as being successfull yes.

[Y2A]

The Cuban economy went down the drain after the fall of the Soviet Union. The funny thing is that Che himself did not even want any form of Soviet influence, but after the embarrgo by the United States they were forced to trade with the Union. Just goes to prove how communism shuts a country out from the global economy. I do however understand what fueled the revolution. Batista needed to be oust but not in this way, in the end it will create more problems then it solved, unfortunately.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

the soviet union didnt fall last week!

Cuba has recovered alot since then, the economy has bounced back.

[Hate Is Art]

The Cuban economy went down the drain after the fall of the Soviet Union. The funny thing is that Che himself did not even want any form of Soviet influence, but after the embarrgo by the United States they were forced to trade with the Union. Just goes to prove how communism shuts a country out from the global economy. I do however understand what fueled the revolution. Batista needed to be oust but not in this way, in the end it will create more problems then it solved, unfortunately.

It just goes to prove how capitlists shut communists out from the global economy, don't worry you were probably typing very quickly and mis-typed that sentance, you might want to go back and edit it.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 3 2004, 06:57 PM
It just goes to prove how capitlists shut communists out from the global economy, don't worry you were probably typing very quickly and mis-typed that sentance, you might want to go back and edit it.
Why do you expect that after having U.S corporations taken out by force that the U.S is still obliged to trade with them? You can't have it both ways.

[Hate Is Art]

What gives the US the right to go in and stop people trading with Cuba just because they don't agree with the way it's run? Fuck the United Fruit Company.

I don't expect the US to trade with them I expect the US not to but is nose into another countrys business just because it's precious empire is being threathened by evil communists.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 3 2004, 07:06 PM
Fuck the United Fruit Company.
I actually agree. Fuck the United Fruit Company. But the only reason they became so large and politically powerful is because that is the perfect example of what happens when capitalism goes unregulated. For some reason communist seem to think that we stand up for corrupt corporations like the UFC, but although some do, many others do not. I am for regulations on capitalism but as I said before throwing away the system would lead to even more problems destroying already struggling economies, causing low employment rates, and even furthering poverty in these nations.

[Hate Is Art]

in the short term maybe but out of the ashes flyes a pheonix, sure the UFC provides jobs but why not swap the jobs the UFC is creating with natiolinsed where the money goes to Cuba and the workers instead of a multi-national corparation(sp?).

[kylie]

and second, you would say that Cuba is a success?

you would hail a country with less civil rights than the "U$ of A" a success?

No. But i don't agree with the insinuation that this is the case with Cuba. Some rights there are restricted, that would not be in the US, namely the freedom of business. but in other areas, such as economic, welfare, ethnic and gender rights, I see Cuba as providing more.
the Cuban economy is no great shakes either.
Its main problem is lack of markets to trade with, due to how it represents a threat to the status quo in other countries, and as such is treated hostily by them. Well not all countries, but those who are big players in the global market.


Unfortunately, it wont do you much good when the govt "silences" you for openly daring to oppose Castro
Can you give cases of this occuring? I've never read of anyone being murdered for questioning Castro, although it would be hard considering the little political power he has. From the accounts of Cuba that i've found, the majority of people complain about the lack of supplies at stores(i forget the proper name for them in cuba, but you know what i mean) and the state of disrepair some places are in. Not serious complaints, as I guess it isn't high on importance, or is just considered normal, but still slight discontent. If the Cuban government was to do as you claim, it would be impossible to cover up such oppression, for which there is currently no evidence of.


Let me put it like this- you are openly disagreeing with the merits of capitalism. if this debate took place in america, your life is not in danger from this stance. if this debate was taking place in cuba, my life would be from my stance.

Well, thats questionable. I'm not American, but I know of left wingers, not even marxists, who have been threatened by people for their views. It is certainly the case here too, socially it is unacceptable to be Marxist, and some people act on this.
Have you also noticed how many nazi sites there is? Now, the things advocated on these sites is of course completely illegal and disgusting, yet they, along with extreme right-wing views in general, are tolerated much more by both the government and society in general. If sites such as raisethefist.com can be removed for such content, then the same should apply to these sites. In fact, in a city close to where i live it has become common for people to wear badges saying 'fuck the asylum seekers'. This restricts the freedom of those of all ethnicities not white, as it is coupled with the assumption that all other ethnicities must be aslyum seekers. Socially it is tolerated far more than if i was to wear something calling for the complete abolition of the UK. So no i don't see it as being that there is the freedom you claim there is in the US and UK.

[yeahjim]

"It just goes to prove how capitlists shut communists out from the global economy, don't worry you were probably typing very quickly and mis-typed that sentance, you might want to go back and edit it. "

wait wait. so let me get this straight.

becuase the communist system cannot be competitive with the capitalist system, due to a number of reasons that you would have to be educated in economics to really understand (free market competition businesses can only ever make a normal profit and reach the break even point, meaning that allocative and economic efficiency is only ever reachable in this system...govt controlled {"the people" or "communal" controlled, call it what you will, essentially they are run by the govt} oligopolies or monopolies such as those seen in communism are by their very definition not allocatively and economically efficient. which means that the cost of normal goods produced under the capitalist system will almost always be lower in the long run than those produced by communist systems), somehow it is the fault of the capitalist system for having a superior economic capacity that communist nations find it hard to stay in the global market???

thats some logic...blame the better qualified man who worked hard for the failure of the less qualified man who slacked off in school to get the high paying job.

the fact is, a govt that ascribed to communist economic policies does so by CHOICE.

a govt that ascribed to capitalist economic policies does so by CHOICE.

if, as a result of their CHOICES, one govt is clearly economically more powerful than the other, that is not "unfair", and you should not blame that govt for keeping the other one down.

they both made choices, and one simply made the choice that proved to be more useful in the economic market.

thats the beauty of freedom- you make choices. and then, you have to live with the consequences.

dont blame capitalists becuase communism countries cannot compete with a scientifically demonstrably superior market strategy, you just sound whiny and bitter.

[yeahjim]

"but in other areas, such as economic, welfare, ethnic and gender rights, I see Cuba as providing more."

you can believe what you want to. however, if you wish to debate your beliefs and show why they are right, you will need to provide some examples and evidence as support.

btw, as far as i am aware, the current position of the US govt is that there is absolutely no discrimination against anyone by the govt or any private companies that accept public tax dollars based on either ethnicity or gender. thats pretty much as close as you can come to being totally civilly free in those two areas- how does cuba surpass us?

and economic civil rights? you think cuba surpasses the US in ECONOMIC civil rights?

really?

please, do go on.

(i wont address welfare, becuase that is an entirely different can of worms to me for a different debate)

[yeahjim]

well i didnt say murder per se, that would be much harder to prove.

but heres some links where effectively castros govt is silencing dissent in cuban citizens who speak out against him-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2915219.stm

http://www.anoasis.co.uk/archives/000198.html

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/04/08/45729.html

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Listen you fucking twats, CUBA IS NOT COMMUNIST



I dont think it is

Castro doesnt think it is

The CIA dont think it is

The UK doesnt think it is


Why the hell do you think Cuba is communist? do you know nothing of what actually is communism?

[The Feral Underclass]

1. do you support the form of the government known as "communism"?

Communism is a social theory based on no government, no state and no hierarchy. So your question is completely flawed. Communism negates government.


2. are there any examples of a truly *communist* government you can cite that has not failed due to either economic instability, civilian uprising, or the corruption of communist ideals?

No. Marxism has two theories, one of the dictatorship of the proletatriat and one of communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the means to achieve communism. Every country that you think is communist has only ever reached that stage. Unfortunatly there have been indeviduals who have created their own theories on how to achieve communism, or they had their own ideals about how to create a workers state. ie stalin and mao. Communism was never corrupted because it never got that far.


3. if you cannot cite such an example, can you explain why you continue to support the idea of a communist government when the philosophy has proven itself to be highly impractical in the real world. If you can cite such an example, can you please provide me a link to information regarding that country so i can educate myself on it.

The theory and practice of communism is a philosophy based on materialism and objectivity and therefore can not really be disproven using logic. However it is how you achieve it which is the big question. The biggest question on che-lives anyway. Leninists believe it can be achieved as it has always been attempted in the past. anarchists believe that the stateshould be destroyed straight away and communism should be implemented pre and post revolution withoutthe use of a central government or hierarchy.

States, governments etc are completely unnecessaru during and after a revolution because of the nature of the revolution. The revolution wouldnt have happened unless people were conscious and if they were conscious they would be able to work in a certain way which negates the use of a government etc.

I subscribe to anarcho-communism because it is right. Because the world can ont be a fair and just place without it. Having realised what I have realised I can not betray my principles because it is a difficult thing to fight for.

[yeahjim]

"Well, thats questionable. I'm not American, but I know of left wingers, not even marxists, who have been threatened by people for their views. It is certainly the case here too, socially it is unacceptable to be Marxist, and some people act on this.
Have you also noticed how many nazi sites there is? Now, the things advocated on these sites is of course completely illegal and disgusting, yet they, along with extreme right-wing views in general, are tolerated much more by both the government and society in general. If sites such as raisethefist.com can be removed for such content, then the same should apply to these sites. In fact, in a city close to where i live it has become common for people to wear badges saying 'fuck the asylum seekers'. This restricts the freedom of those of all ethnicities not white, as it is coupled with the assumption that all other ethnicities must be aslyum seekers. Socially it is tolerated far more than if i was to wear something calling for the complete abolition of the UK. So no i don't see it as being that there is the freedom you claim there is in the US and UK"

whoa whoa whoa hold on now. you cannot point to social persecution for your beliefs, im talking GOVT persecution. If you are a leftwing american and i hate you and beat you up for your political affiliation, that doesnt mean that the american govt or the capitalist system has oppressed and silenced your dissent. that means a person, or a group of persons, unaffiliated with the govt, and thus acting as private citizens, didnt like what you had to say and acted out. It can be totally socially unacceptable to be marxist as you say, but as long as the govt itself or individuals affiliated with it and acting on behalf of it do not silence you and oppress you for your beliefs, the social reality has no relation to the govt, and you cant hold the govt responsible. in that case, people who happen to live around you simply dont like your beliefs, end of story.

"Have you also noticed how many nazi sites there is?"

yes.

" Now, the things advocated on these sites is of course completely illegal and disgusting, yet they, along with extreme right-wing views in general, are tolerated much more by both the government and society in general"

since when is it illegal to be a nazi? its no more illegal in the US to say you are a nazi than it is to say you are a democrat or a republican. as long as you dont directly advocate violence against individuals, you are within the realm of law. its distasteful, i agree, but legal.

and as for whether the govt supports more rightwing or leftwing policies and sites, thats pure speculation. i know many rightwingers who would argure till theyre blue in the face that the media almost always has a leftwing bias. does taht mean they are right and you are wrong? possibly, possibly not. it just means that both of your views of the govt and the media are colored by your own political lens.

i know at least where i live, it would be much more socially acceptable to walk around with a che shirt on and a communist button than it would to wear a swastika and a picture of hitler. its very relative, and im sure it changes from region to region, although neither extreme is terribly popular in the country as a whole.

"In fact, in a city close to where i live it has become common for people to wear badges saying 'fuck the asylum seekers'. This restricts the freedom of those of all ethnicities not white, as it is coupled with the assumption that all other ethnicities must be aslyum seekers"

how does me wearing a button saying "Fuck Che and his supporters" restrict YOUR freedom? it doesnt. just like people wearing those buttons do not restrict the freedom of minority ethnicities. as long as they do not act out violently towards the people they hate, they are allowed to have their opinions and express them verbally and in writing on a button. the moment they act out violently, they have committed a crime and indeed restricted the freedom and protections of the minority they attacked. but as you describe the situation, they are doing nothing wrong, and to say that they cannot wear such a button in a public venue to express their opinion would in fact be restricting THEIR freedom of expression.

"Socially it is tolerated far more than if i was to wear something calling for the complete abolition of the UK. So no i don't see it as being that there is the freedom you claim there is in the US and UK"

again, that is socially. my point was totally regarding govt oppression. you could have the most anarchistic govt in the world with total civil freedom, and still have social pressure to conform that effectively limits those freedoms. you need to understand the difference between the holding the govt reponsible for its own actions (which is appropriate), and holding it responsible for the actions of private citizens (which is inappropriate).

in essence, social pressure to conform or social distaste for an opinion != govt oppression or restriction of your rights to have that opinion.

[yeahjim]

"Communism is a social theory based on no government, no state and no hierarchy. So your question is completely flawed. Communism negates government."

you wanna nitpick? lets nitpick.

even lenin understood after the revolution that it would be impossible to go directly from an aristocracy to the complete dissolution of the state and govt. so what did he do? he began a process of slowly "weaning", as it were, the people off of govt, in the hopes that eventually he would be able to do away with this weakened govt model as well.

he never got beyond that weakened govt model to realize the true ideals of communism.

and neither did any other leader in any other country that has ever existed.

so while you are right *technically*, that is what i am referring to. if you really want to get anal, there has never been a purely comunist govt in the history of the world.

but while you might feel that shows that the concept might work becuase its never been demonstrated not to, i feel that the huge number of attempts that have been made and have failed to materialiae into true, pure communism demonstrates that it is a fundamentally flawed theory to begin with, and it is unachievable on a large scale (like the govt of a country).


"Communism was never corrupted because it never got that far."

yes. but you arent asking the right question- WHY did i never get that far, in spite of all the attempts that were made?

IMO, becuase the ideals of communism ignore basic fundamental attributes of the human condition- greed, the motivation to be successful (however you define that), etc etc. that is why communism has never been achieved, and never will be achieved.

so why support a govt model that cannot be realistically applied to the world in a large scale???

"I subscribe to anarcho-communism because it is right."

Would you laugh if i said that I believe in a giant, omnipotent fluffy pink dog as Almighty God, becuase it is right?

saying something is right doesnt make it so, and often such absolute conviction blinds you to the possibility that other philosophies have their own merits worth considering. it also makes you look arrogant as hell.

"Because the world can ont be a fair and just place without it."

Who says the world is a fair and just place? Life is not fair, never has been, and never will be. Human nature is corruptable, and no govt model will ever succeed in changing the tenets of human nature itself. that is why all govt models, including your beloved anarcho-communism, will be corrupted eventually to some extent. All people are imperfect, and as a result all human institutions are also imperfect.