Approval Poll Among U.S. Socialist Parties

[Unumundisto]

This is an Approval poll. Approve as many or as few U.S socialist parties as you want to.

I'll try to use this website's automated polling facility.

If I succeed, and the automated polling facility operates, and if that facility allows you to vote for as many options as you want to, then vote for as many parties as you want to

If the automated polling facility operates, but only lets you vote for one option, then vote for your favorite party via that facility. ...But also cast an Approval vote, by postinig a message to this thread in which you list all of the parties that you approve.

If the automated voting facility doesn't work, then cast an Approval vote, by posting a message to this thread in which you list all of the parties that you approve.

Here are the socialist parties among which you're invited to vote:

Party of Socialism & Liberation (PSL)
Workers' World Party (WWP)
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO)
Socialist Equality Party (SEP)
Freedom Socialist Party (FSP)
Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)
Socialist Labor Party (SLP)
Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA)

[Le Socialiste]

No International Socialist Organization (:crying:), or Socialist Alternative?

I can think of several that are missing from here, or was that intentional?

[Hrafn]

No Revolutionary Communist Party? C'mon, we all need a little Bob in our lives. ;)

[Le Socialiste]

No Revolutionary Communist Party? C'mon, we all need a little Bob in our lives. ;)

Ran into a RCPer today on campus. Just running into these guys ruins my day. And will they ever do anything new? Around this time of year they're always promoting that "BA Speaks!" doc. Ugh...

[Red Banana]

I voted for Workers World Party, not because I'm ideologically aligned with them, but only because I've had good experiences with members of that party on the ground.

I also voted for the Socialist Labor Party because out of that list I think my thoughts would most closely fit with what they stood for. I don't really think they exist as an active organization anymore, though I could be wrong about that.

The list is pretty narrow though, and a few of the parties on there aren't even socialist (e.g. Greens, CPUSA)

P.s. my touch screen accidentally cast a vote in for the spusa when I touched the slp. I didn't notice until after I touched vote and saw the results. I don't know if a mod or someone could remove that vote, but if they could it would be appreciated.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think the green party is cool with socialism at all actually. What's the point of this anyway?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I like how at least like four different sects of trotskyites are missing. Including the Socialist party which almost won in Seattle recently - Socialist Alternative.

[The Idler]

Wspus

[Unumundisto]

Ok, I made a big blunder by not calling for nomintions before posting the poll.

Let me return to that, after I comment on this:

Several people mentioned that the Greens aren't socialist, and that they're hostile to socialism. Indeed the GPUS engages in cowardly redbaiting, in an attempt to gain "mainstream" media respectability. But my poll doesn't include the GPUS.

It includes G/GPUSA. That's the socialist Green Party. G/GPUSA was the original U.S. Green Party. They're socialist. They lost nearly all their members to the meanstream-kiss-a** GPUS. I don't think G/GPUSA even ran any candidates in the 2012 Presidential election. But they won a poll on political parties at the Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS).

I've just now returned to the computer, and I'm first looking at these posts, and so I haven't gotten to the poll-results yet. ...so I don't know yet if the poll itself posted ok.

If it did, is there a way to add to the options-list (the list of parties in the poll)?

Sorry about messing this up by not doing nominations first.

I didn't intentionally leave parties out. I thought that I'd listed the main most popular ones.

If we can add options, then of course we should add ISO, Socialist Alternative, and WSPUS.

I wouldn't object to adding RCP, if anyone wants to, except that I got the impression that people who posted don't really like it much.

How about this:

Because my parties-list is so lacking, we could cancel the poll as it now stands, and then specify a week for nominations, and _then_ start a poll with all of the nominated parties.
I'd nominate the ones that I've already included.

Someone said that CPUSA isn't socialist. Ok, if we cancel this poll, and do nominations for a subsequent poll, to be started after a week of nomiminations, then I won't nominate CPUSA.

But their platform says they're socialist.

Yes, CPUSA _did_ formerly tell people to vote Democrat. That's disgusting. But I didn't think that they were still doing that. I looked at their platform fairly recently, and it sounded like genuine, bona fide communist party.

Anyway, shall we cancel this poll, and start nominations for a subsequent poll--allowing a week (or whatever other nomination-period is preferred) for nominations?

Unumundisto

[waqob]

What's the difference between Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA

[Unumundisto]

What's the difference between Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA

SPUSA is what is referred to as a "democratic socialist party".

CPUSA is, nominally, at least, a communist party.

I've got to be brief, or my online-time will time-out again. Communist parties differ from dem-soc parties in that:

1. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that we have to constantly hear, on the radio and other media, people and positions that are repugnant to the majority who elected the communist party that is in office.

2. "Democracy" doesn't mean that Hitler or some Republocrat can get campaign airtime,and run in the election, and maybe win. In other word, in a communist democracy, each election isn't "Anything Can Happen Day". It's a question of how far we think we need to take democracy. Does everything need to be up for grabs in each election?

Unumundisto

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Not affiliated with anything in the poll; this thread is a nonsense.

[Remus Bleys]

the poll says socialist parties
i dont see any socialist parties

[Tim Cornelis]

I voted for Workers World Party, not because I'm ideologically aligned with them, but only because I've had good experiences with members of that party on the ground.

I also voted for the Socialist Labor Party because out of that list I think my thoughts would most closely fit with what they stood for. I don't really think they exist as an active organization anymore, though I could be wrong about that.

The list is pretty narrow though, and a few of the parties on there aren't even socialist (e.g. Greens, CPUSA)

P.s. my touch screen accidentally cast a vote in for the spusa when I touched the slp. I didn't notice until after I touched vote and saw the results. I don't know if a mod or someone could remove that vote, but if they could it would be appreciated.

>IWW, IOPS
>WWP

Worlds apart. WWP supported Saddam Hussein (note: not from original source, from wikipedia), carries around pictures of Mugabe and such, and is sympathetic to North Korea. They also had a hysterical shouting match how red dawn was "propaganda!!!". They are bat shit insane.

[Tolstoy]

You done fucked up

how did you forget Socialist Alternative, a party that is out there getting people elected, yet remembered to include the Gren Party, a part that is not the last bit socialist?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Socialist Labor Party (SLP)
They closed their national office in 2008, and haven't updated the online version of their paper in two-and-a-half years.

[Unumundisto]

I'd prefer write down the various comments, and then reply to them in one post, but, if I did, my session here would time-out. So I'm replying separately to each post.


Not affiliated with anything in the poll; this thread is a nonsense.

I already apologized for not, first, calling for nominations. The U.S. has _lots_ of communists parties. I listed a few that I'd seen listed in another Internet poll, and had heard about in the few conversations that I've had with other communists.

What I know about the communist parties comes mostly from reading platforms, and just a few conversations.

Communists have too much divisiveness, fractiousness, and mutual intolerance. I like all of the communist parties (but some more than others) based on the platforms I've read, and my few conversations. I even like the democratic socialist parties, and would approve them if we held a public election by Approval today, and would rank them, if we held an Instant Runoff rank-balloting election--even though i don't like them as much as the communist parties.

We often hear the exhortation "Unite!". Excuse me, but doesn't that imply "Stop fighting!"?

I repeat my suggestion: Shall we cancel the poll, and start taking nominations for a new poll, to start after the nominations? Or should we take the parties mentioned so far to be nominated,and start a new poll now?

Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

the poll says socialist parties
i dont see any socialist parties

Come again?

Never mind the fact that all of the parties listed designate themselves "socialist" (Well, I'm not sure if G/GPUSA uses that word). Every one of them advocates public ownership of at least the "commanding heights" of the econmy. By what definition are they not socialist?

And, before you say that G/GPUSA isn't socialist...they are. The GPUS, the big Green Party is non-socialist, and outright anti-socialist. But I included G/GPUSA, not GPUS.

As I've said in my previous reply, communists are way too critical and dismissive of eachother's parties. I like all of the commnist parties, though some more than others.

I can't say that I approve of the Trotskyists' red-baiting, when they echo the media demonization of foreign communist governments, but I nevertheless approved SEP in this poll, because I don't think they'd really have harsh policies against Cuba and North Korea, if they were in office.

Unumundisto

[Blake's Baby]

.. By what definition are they not socialist?

...

I can't say that I approve of the Trotskyists' red-baiting, when they echo the media demonization of foreign communist governments...

Here's your problem in a nutshell - by no definition are these governments 'communist'. I think Remus was merely pointing out that the parties you listed were more accurately describable as 'social democratic'.

[Unumundisto]

>IWW, IOPS
>WWP

Worlds apart. WWP supported Saddam Hussein


Our corporate mass-media demonize and revile whatever country our rulers want to attack, invade or conquer next. Some communist parties, like WWP and PSL, don't echo that demonizaation, and don't support it.

The media-demonization typicslly includes horror-stories, which sometimes are proved fictitious--and which are probably all fictitious.

Did you know, Tim Cornelis, that, before we attacked them, Iraq and Libya had the hightest standard of living for ordinary people, in the Arab world? They also had the most secular societies, the best equality for women. People from all over the Arab countries were going to Iraq and LIbya, for the best medical care and education. ...etc.

But they committted the worst crime that a small nonEuropean country can commit. They used their resources to benefit their own people.

Maybe it would be good to listen to WWP on such matters.






...and is sympathetic to North Korea.


See above. North Korea has never attacked us, but we've attacked them.

North Korea didn't attack the South Koreans, in the Korean War. After WWII, we occupied the southern part of Korea. All over Korea, people were organizing their own government, but, in our southern sector that we controlled, that was a big no-no. We installed former Japanese-collaborators in government (similiar to what did in Greece). When the Koreans resisted our forced facist setup, we killed about 100,000 Koreans in our occupied South.

That's when the North Koreans came in. They didn't attack the South Koreans. They tried to protect them from us, when we we'd killed 100,000 there.

Then we massacred lots of people in the North, as well.

We hear the usual media horror-stories about N. Korea too. Of course there's no reason to believe those stories. U.S. communists who've visited N. Korea tell a different, and better, account of what it's like there.

The North Korean people aren't out to get us. They only want to mind their own business, life their own lives, and survive in peace. The militarization is because they haven't forgotten out massacres. If we accepted peace with N. Korea, there'd be peace with N. Korea.

Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

You done fucked up

how did you forget Socialist Alternative, a party that is out there getting people elected


Yes, and I've admitted that, and apologized for it.

Additionally, I've suggested that we could take nominations (or just take the parties already named so far as the nominations), add the nominated parties to the list, and start another poll.

The purpose of the poll: I was curious which communist parties are the most popular here. I didn't expect the "demcratic socialist" parties to win the poll. In fact, I didn't vote for them myself. In this poll, entirely among socialist parties, I only voted for a few communist parties that I know to have some sort of special merit.



, yet remembered to include the Gren Party, a part that is not the last bit socialist?

As I've clarified, the G/GPUSA is socialist. Read their platform.

You're thinking of GPUS, which is angrily anti-socialist. I didn't include GPUS.

Admittedly G/GPUSA didn't run a president canddate in 2012, but they won an Internet rank-balloting poll.

Unumundisto

[Blake's Baby]

Our corporate mass-media demonize and revile whatever country our rulers want to attack, invade or conquer next. Some communist parties, like WWP and PSL, don't echo that demonizaation, and don't support it...

No, they don't just refuse to go along with whatever the government says, they actually support those governments.

[Red Banana]

>IWW, IOPS
>WWP

Worlds apart. WWP supported Saddam Hussein (note: not from original source, from wikipedia), carries around pictures of Mugabe and such, and is sympathetic to North Korea. They also had a hysterical shouting match how red dawn was "propaganda!!!". They are bat shit insane.

I know, I know. Like I said, I'm not aligned ideologically with the party, I just gave them a click of approval because I've had positive encounters with the handful of members in my area. In that sense it was a click of approval only for the Baltimore WWP.

They've been one of the more active organizations around here and I've been fortunate enough to never find them (for example) carrying pictures of Mugabe and the like. Then again, they are still WWP, so if they did, I couldn't be surprized.

So while I generally don't approve of the wider party's stances or actions throughout its history, I do approve of the members in my area. That's a better way of putting it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I voted for the CPUSA in protest at this thread. How on earth is this politics? We should move all x-factor threads to Politics!

[Rusty Shackleford]

"C"PUSA all the way!

[Unumundisto]

No, they don't just refuse to go along with whatever the government says, they actually support those governments.

...whatever you mean by "support".

I support everyone's right to live in peace.

I support not hurting people without a good reason.

In fact, I don't believe in hurting people even if they're in small non-European countries that our media designate as the badguys.

Maybe you can learn to forgive WWP for having a humane foreign policy, and not barking at the "badguys".

Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

I voted for the CPUSA in protest at this thread. How on earth is this politics?


How on earth is _what_ politics??

...a poll about political parties is a political poll.

As for CPUSA, at one time they used to tell people to vote Democrat. Someone implied that they still do. Is that claim corrrect?

I'm not defending CPUSA, because I don't claim to know one way or the other whether or not all this badmouthing is justified. But would someone like to specify in what way CPUSA is so bad, or not socialist, or not communist?

When I looked at the CPUSA platform, I didn't find it to be other than socialist and communist.

Maybe you're referring to their non-Marxist claim that socialism can be achieved by electoral means. But, though that could arguably make them non-Marxist, it doesn't make them less socialist. It certainly makes them different from other communist parties. But, to me, the matter of what kind of economy, society and government we want is secondary to the matter of how we can get there. But I won't deny that some could arguably call CPUSA a non-communist socialist party because of that.

I don't think that our rulers will step down just because they lose an election. In fact, as the ones who count the votes, I don't think they'll even let themselves lose an election.

So I differ from CPUSA on that question, as you do. But, as I said, the more important part of what a communist party is, regards the country, and the world, that they advocate, rather than a detail of how we get there.

In my opinion, when it's obvious that we don't have democracy, and people withdraw their labor, things will get plenty ugly, and this place will quickly become unlivable, and dangerous to be in--hence my opinion that leaving will then be the best idea. But I won't belabor that, because I've already had my say about it.

By the way, even if electoral improvement won't happen, because our democracy will prove not-genuine, I feel that it's necessary to proceed as if democracy were genuine and could and would work.

In the unlikely event that it did work, that would be great. If it turns out to not work, that's the thing that would show people that labor-withdrawal (in one of the forms that we discussed) is necessary. When democracy proves phoney, that's when people will stop believing in, supporting, and participating in the system that was never intended for their benefit.

Therefore, I can't blame CPUSA for proceeding as if democracy were going to work. At this point, that's a perfectly reasonable way to proceed, regardless of how likely it really is.

Anyway, I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with CPUSA. I'm just asking what it is. Do they still tell people to vote Democrat? Sure, that would be disgusting, and it would disqualify CPUSA from a vote, or any other support.

Unumundisto




We should move all x-factor threads to Politics!

What's an x-factor thread? A poll thread?

Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

Fixing a typo:

I'd said:



But, to me, the matter of what kind of economy, society and government we want is secondary to the matter of how we can get there.


I meant the opposite. The government, economy, society, country and world we want is the important thing. We can disagree on how we can get there. That's a secondary question. It's doubtful that CPUSA even believes their expression of faith in elections. But it seems to me that people will have to try that electoral route before they get disillusioned with it and realize that they just have to stop supporting and participating in a system that is neither by them or for them.

So I wouldn't be so critical of party because of its public position on the efficacy of electoral efforts.

Unumundisto

[Remus Bleys]

Our corporate mass-media demonize and revile whatever country our rulers want to attack, invade or conquer next. Some communist parties, like WWP and PSL, don't echo that demonizaation, and don't support it.They do the opposite


The media-demonization typicslly includes horror-stories, which sometimes are proved fictitious--and which are probably all fictitious. This does not mean these people are good.


Did you know, Tim Cornelis, that, before we attacked them, Iraq and Libya had the hightest standard of living for ordinary people, in the Arab world? They also had the most secular societies, the best equality for women. People from all over the Arab countries were going to Iraq and LIbya, for the best medical care and education. ...etc.lol.
distribution > production. Did you know that tim?


But they committted the worst crime that a small nonEuropean country can commit. They used their resources to benefit their own people.
OH NO! SOMEONE DID SOMETHING WORSE! THAT MAKES THIS OKAY!

Maybe it would be good to listen to WWP on such matters.
nah, the wwp does this.






See above. North Korea has never attacked us, but we've attacked them.

North Korea didn't attack the South Koreans, in the Korean War. After WWII, we occupied the southern part of Korea. All over Korea, people were organizing their own government, but, in our southern sector that we controlled, that was a big no-no. We installed former Japanese-collaborators in government (similiar to what did in Greece). When the Koreans resisted our forced facist setup, we killed about 100,000 Koreans in our occupied South.

That's when the North Koreans came in. They didn't attack the South Koreans. They tried to protect them from us, when we we'd killed 100,000 there.

Then we massacred lots of people in the North, as well.

We hear the usual media horror-stories about N. Korea too. Of course there's no reason to believe those stories. U.S. communists who've visited N. Korea tell a different, and better, account of what it's like there.

The North Korean people aren't out to get us. They only want to mind their own business, life their own lives, and survive in peace. The militarization is because they haven't forgotten out massacres. If we accepted peace with N. Korea, there'd be peace with N. Korea.

Unumundisto
Opposing America and South Korea =/= Supporting North Korea
and vice versa

[Decolonize The Left]

OP, if you go to the home page of this forum and scroll all the way to the bottom you will see the 'groups' section. You will then see, forth from the top, the "Organizations/Parties" section. That is a list of organizations and parties listed in order of popularity of members on this forum. I think the information there effectively answers your question.

Also, and x-factor thread is referring to the popular television show and a subsequent silly thread discussing the workings and/or outcomes of that show. The comment was a not-so-subtle dig at your OP post.

[Unumundisto]

OP, if you go to the home page of this forum and scroll all the way to the bottom you will see the 'groups' section. You will then see, forth from the top, the "Organizations/Parties" section. That is a list of organizations and parties listed in order of popularity of members on this forum. I think the information there effectively answers your question.


I'll check it out.



Also, and [sic] x-factor thread is referring to the popular television show


I've never heard of a tv show called "x-factor". But, then, I have to admit that I'm not a tv-watcher.

You couldn't mean "X-Files", could you :-)

You continued:



and a subsequent silly thread discussing the workings and/or outcomes of that show. The comment was a not-so-subtle dig at your OP post.

Yes, name-calling is a favorite tactic of the common loud and sloppy Internet abuser.

It's a popular substitute for saying what you mean and being able to justify it.

Unumundisto

[Blake's Baby]

...whatever you mean by "support".

I support everyone's right to live in peace.

I support not hurting people without a good reason.

In fact, I don't believe in hurting people even if they're in small non-European countries that our media designate as the badguys.

Maybe you can learn to forgive WWP for having a humane foreign policy, and not barking at the "badguys".

Unumundisto

Maybe you can learn to see the world not in terms of 'good guys and bad guys' and in terms of the working class and the capitalist class instead. I assume you're not 9, after all.

[Unumundisto]

(I couldn't decipher the previous part of this post, so I'll just comment on this:



Opposing America and South Korea =/= Supporting North Korea
and vice versa
[/quote]

So you don't think that I'm patriotic enough.

Do you know what "jingoism" is?

So you think that anyone who opposes unnecessarily harming others is opposing America?

Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

Maybe you can learn to see the world not in terms of 'good guys and bad guys' and in terms of the working class and the capitalist class instead. I assume you're not 9, after all.

Excuse me, but the "good guys and bad guys" are an artifact of the media. Don't attribute them to me.

The point is that you believe the media horror-stories about N. Korea. "It must be true, because my tv says so."

Could it be that your tv might lie to you?

Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

Here's your problem in a nutshell - by no definition are these [media-demonized] governments 'communist'.


You mean, "by no Trotskyist definition" :-)



I think Remus was merely pointing out that the parties you listed were more accurately describable as 'social democratic'.

I'll defer to your judgement about what he meant.

"Social democratic" doesn't mean "socialist".

But every one of the parties that I listed is socialist, by the pretty-much-universally accepted meaning of that word.

Furthermore, all of them except SPUSA and G/GPUSA are communist (unless you feel that CPUSA's non-Marxist public position of faith in electoral efficacy disqualifies it from being communist). ...by the widely accepted agreement on how communist parties differ from "democratic socialist" parties.

Unumundisto

[Tim Cornelis]

Our corporate mass-media demonize and revile whatever country our rulers want to attack, invade or conquer next.

There's no such straightforward relation between the mass media and government, firstly, that's an oversimplification. There is media manipulation, there is media sensationalism, but media outlets risk more outright fabricating stories than they stand to gain from them.


Some communist parties, like WWP and PSL, don't echo that demonizaation, and don't support it.

The WWP and PSL swallow government propaganda themselves.


The media-demonization typicslly includes horror-stories, which sometimes are proved fictitious--and which are probably all fictitious.

So, then, is North Korea a free workers' democracy of plentiful food? Independent organisations report and confirm many horror stories. For instance, research by Amnesty International -- which disproportionately focuses on Western and liberal democracies like the USA, Israel, as well as Turkey -- confirm many horror stories and abuses of human rights. Documentaries detail concentration camps, gas chambers, prisoners eating rats and worms, unimaginable hard labour based on the accounts of defected prison guards and an escaped prisoner.

Stating that North Korea has a high degree of malnourishment, chronic hunger, and a highly oppressive government squashing any dissent, is not "demonisation", it's the truth.


Did you know, Tim Cornelis, that, before we attacked them, Iraq and Libya had the hightest standard of living for ordinary people, in the Arab world? They also had the most secular societies, the best equality for women. People from all over the Arab countries were going to Iraq and LIbya, for the best medical care and education. ...etc.

That's not true, but it's also unimportant -- though I think it reveals the crux of your bourgeois politics.


But they committted the worst crime that a small nonEuropean country can commit. They used their resources to benefit their own people.

If you think that European countries go around attacking countries because they use resources to benefit their own people you are delusional. Evidently, you harbour sympathy for the most sickening Bonapartist strongmen because your politics do not align with communism.


Maybe it would be good to listen to WWP on such matters.

I don't think so.


See above. North Korea has never attacked us, but we've attacked them.

North Korea didn't attack the South Koreans, in the Korean War.

North Korea started the Korean War.


After WWII, we occupied the southern part of Korea. All over Korea, people were organizing their own government, but, in our southern sector that we controlled, that was a big no-no. We installed former Japanese-collaborators in government (similiar to what did in Greece). When the Koreans resisted our forced facist setup, we killed about 100,000 Koreans in our occupied South.

That's when the North Koreans came in. They didn't attack the South Koreans. They tried to protect them from us, when we we'd killed 100,000 there.

Then we massacred lots of people in the North, as well.

We hear the usual media horror-stories about N. Korea too. Of course there's no reason to believe those stories. U.S. communists who've visited N. Korea tell a different, and better, account of what it's like there.

The North Korean people aren't out to get us. They only want to mind their own business, life their own lives, and survive in peace. The militarization is because they haven't forgotten out massacres. If we accepted peace with N. Korea, there'd be peace with N. Korea.

Unumundisto

This post contains the crux of your actual politics: bourgeois anti-American leftism -- the equivalent of Anti-German politics. The anti-Germans are German leftists with the infantile logic that Germany is bad and therefore Israel and the USA are good, supporting them almost every way they go. Your politics are similar. The fact that you continually refer to "we" instead of the USA and then go on to list war crimes and authoritarian and corrupt conduct by the US government all the while supporting every strongman imaginable. You display sympathy for bourgeois governments like that of Gaddaffi, Saddam Hussein, the Castros, as well as North Korea (whatever mode of production they may have) and it wouldn't surprise if you supported Mugabe and Assad.

You also have a limited understanding of communism, believing, not only there to be such a thing as "communist government", but even believing Cuba is one -- while communism is a stateless society. It seems you feel substitutional quilt for the actions of the US government and you out this guilt by adopting, nominally, politics that are anti-establishment while (contradictorily) backing anti-communist dictators (even going as far as saying that proto-fascist Hussein, whom committed genocide and initiated a war against Iran, use the resources to benefit his own people, displaying sympathy for such a reactionary regime!).

You are not a communist, you are not a revolutionary, you are an obnoxious bourgeois anti-American leftist. You harbour sympathy for anti-American reactionary Bonapartist strongmen. Again, you are not a communist.


We hear the usual media horror-stories about N. Korea too. Of course there's no reason to believe those stories. U.S. communists who've visited N. Korea tell a different, and better, account of what it's like there.

There is every reason to believe the core of reports that come our way. Horror stories of torture, government abuse, and totalitarian practices are confirmed over and over again by an array of organisations. We still need to remain skeptical of conspicuous stories, but the fact of that matter is is that North Korea is beyond terrible. These supposed "communists" are fooled. North Korea tours visitors through very selective areas, but concentration camps, rural areas, and even urban decay are omitted from these tours, and there is very strict control of which areas one is allowed to visit (supposedly for the protection of the tourists), with good reason: North Korea is horrible. North Korea is one gigantic cult.

If you irrationally disregard anything the "corporate media" publishes maybe you can see VICE (this is the tours the self-proclaimed "communists" take when going to North Korea):

24R8JObNNQ4

[Remus Bleys]

(I couldn't decipher the previous part of this post, so I'll just comment on this:

K. Sorry for not being clear enough.



So you don't think that I'm patriotic enough. Fuck nationalism.


Do you know what "jingoism" is? Of course i do.


So you think that anyone who opposes unnecessarily harming others is opposing America?Not sure what you are trying to say here.

[Sam_b]

I'm really tempted to close this thread, it seems completely stupid and is nothing short of seeing political organisations in some sort of popularity over principle role. Perhaps OP could have read hundreds of other threads on this forum in which people talk of their political backgrounds, what party they are in or so on; looked at the membership of Revleft groups to give an indication of what factions carry support etc etc etc.

All these poll threads do is generate a discussion about how stupid poll threads are. OP is new and we'll maybe give benefit of the doubt, but I don't see how these threads help our community at all.

[Unumundisto]

Tim "Running-Dog":


There's no such straightforward relation between the mass media and government


Common ownership.




, firstly, that's an oversimplification. There is media manipulation, there is media sensationalism, but media outlets risk more outright fabricating stories than they stand to gain from them.


So you say. Govt press-releases are the safest kind of media stories. Media outlets aren't going out on a limb at all when they carry govt press releases. Parroting the statements and premises of the presidential administration is obviously the safest way to present the news.

There's a lot of interlock and overlap among corporate boards of directors. Media, Democrat and Republican parties, and their candidates and incumbent officeholders are largely owned by the same set of corporations, at least for the most part, overall.

You need to do some reading.

Read _Who Rules America?_.

Read some of Noam Chomsky's books. In particular, _Understanding Power_.



The WWP and PSL swallow government propaganda themselves.


(note that no example is given)



So, then, is North Korea a free workers' democracy


I don't claim to know about freedom or democracy in N. Korea. We have a media blackout regarding N. Korea. It isn't possible to determine, for example, to what degree N. Korea has the amount of democracy specified by Marx.

But remember, before you get too condemnatory, that N. Korea is a beseiged country. Let's let up on that beseigement, and open up communication between their and our governments, and between their and out populations, and allow free travel to their country.

Why does is travel to N. Korea forbidden? Why are sister-city relationships with N. Korean cities forbidden? It isn't my fault that I (and you) don't know what the state of affairs is in N. Korea.

Because we don't know, we shouldn't make assumptions, and we shouldn't demonize them.

The communists that I heard about, who'd visited N. Korea were WWP. So it could be fairly argued that they were influenced by a desire to find support for their already-held position.

But my point is that we don't know, and, when we don't know, we shouldn't be spouting off and making accusations. Is that clear?

I'm not saying that nothing in the news is true. Even the most dedicated liar can't avoid at least occasionally telling the truth. But the media have a poor reliability-record when they revile countries or small-country leaders that the owners here want to target. That doesn't prove that what they say isn't true. But it certainly doesn't prove that it is true.



of plentiful food?


As I said, N. Korea is a beseiged country. I'll begin abbreviating it NK.

Our leaders and media say that NK is, and has been, isolating itself from the world. But, in almost the same breath, they boast that they can and will isolate NK, economically. They've been doing that, and thereby creating a lot of hardship for the people there.

I wouldn't say that we should expect food to be plentiful in a besieged country.



Independent organisations report and confirm many horror stories.


Like Freedom-House, which gets the vast majority of its funding from the govt?

You speak of an account from one escaped prisoner. One. How overwhelmingly conclusive is that?

You speak of alleged defecting guards. Do you remember, when our leaders wanted to, and were about to attack Iraq (in one of the two Iraq wars), we heard that Iraqi soldiers went into a maternity ward in a hospital, and impaled newborn infants on bayonets.

But later it turned out that the "nurse" who reported it wasn't a nurse at all, but was just the daughter of some associate of the administration.

I'm not saying that some of the "defecting guards" couldn't be genuine, and I'm not saying that any of them are genuine. It just can't be known, given past history.

Amnesty International has to get its information somewhere, and its conclusions can only be as reliable as its information-sources. Information about a beseiged country tends to be scarce.

Who knows? Maybe it's as bad as you say, or maybe it's all administration and media BS, supported by some phoney defecting guards and a phoney escaped prisoner.

Remember the "nurse", and the impaled infants that never were.

Throughout history, false accusations, made up stories, false-flag attacks, nonexistent attrocities, etc. have been used to justify attacks, invasions and conquests.

...such as the war against Mexico, in which we conveniently acquired much of their territory. Such as the Vietnam war. Such as the Iraq wars.
Disinformation to justify targeting a country or its leader has been so consistently used, that it could be called "routine".

I'm not saying that it isn't true. I'm saying that it there isn't sufficient information for us to know if it's true.





Stating that North Korea has a high degree of malnourishment, chronic hunger


That couldn't have anything to do with our effort to hurt them economically as much as possible, could it?



, and a highly oppressive government squashing any dissent, is not "demonisation", it's the truth.


What could be more socially problematic than someone who's sure that he has the truth.

Anyway, why are you so gung-ho? (I know, because you got it from your tv).

Our conduct toward NK has forced them to militarize more they can afford to. We did that to the USSR, and this is the same principle applied again.

What do you have against peace? If we let up on the seige, prove that we've changed our policy toward them, they can start spending a greater percentage of their resources on life-quality improvements.

If NK is as undemocratic as you say, then yes they should allow more democracy, of the sort that the U.S. communist parties offer. But remember that our administrations and their various agencies have a history of subverting and buying democracies. Some countries fear that, in that way, democracy would be a handle by which for us to turn them upside-down.

So, let's just let up on NK. End the siege, the economic "sanctions", the military provocations such as war games that simulate an invasion,...etc.

You cry crocodile tears for the NK population, while supporting the oppressive and killing siege against them.

[regarding where spoke of Iraq and Libya before the invasions]



That's not true, but it's also unimportant --


...unimportant to you, perhaps, because you don't live there.

And, I note that you're an expert on the U.S., though you don't live here. Expert from a distance?

You're giving us unsupported assertions about what's true and what isn't true.

About the history regarding Libya and Iraq, I got the information from Chomsky, and from a state university history professor. Could they lie? Well, it costs money to buy lying, and around here the money isn't on their side of the issue.

It's always possible to make the cheap statement, "That isn't true", or "It's true". What it must come down to is: Anyone who wants to check the facts on their own can look them up.



If you think that European countries go around attacking countries because they use resources to benefit their own people you are delusional.


Angry name-calling, as a substitute for any better justification of your claims.

You need to read _Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA interventions since WWII_.

Actually, the only part of that title that I'm certain of the wording of is the "Killing Hope" part.

Search Google for "Killing Hope, Blum". The book was written by a Professor Blum.

Instead of resorting to name-calling, maybe you should do a little reading.



Evidently, you harbour sympathy for the most sickening Bonapartist strongmen


I have no affiliation with Mr. Napoleon.

But I do have sympathy for the people who are hurt by aggressive, hostile, perpetual-war, empire-building foreign policy.

I prefer peace.

You use communist jargon, while sounding just like the usual supporter of capitalism's empire-building policies.



because your politics do not align with communism.


Believing whatever your tv tells you has nothing to do with communism. Parroting imperialist propaganda has nothing to do with communism.

You're the funniest "communist" that I've ever heard.



North Korea started the Korean War.


Yes, that's what you were told in school, and it's what our media say or imply, if they mention the matter. Thank you for parroting the propaganda system that has taught you so well.

So you think that Chomsky just made up the history that he described in _Understanding Power_?

Remember that Chomsky lives in the U.S., and you don't. And he's done a bit more research than you have.

We we'd already killed 100,000 Koreans, in our southern occupied part of Korea, when they resisted our imposed fascist regime of former Japanese-collaborators--before North Korea came in, to oppose us, and the harm we were doing to the South Koreans, to protect the South Koreans from us.



This post contains the crux of your actual politics: bourgeois anti-American leftism


Contrary to what some want to claim, preferring peace, not hurting people, live-&-let-live, is not anti-American.

Not believing without evidence isn't un-American either.

You use "bourgeois" as a name-calling word, though you probably have no idea what it means, other than that you've heard communists use it when they criticize.



Your politics are similar. The fact that you continually refer to "we" instead of the USA


It's shorter to write.



and then go on to list war crimes and authoritarian and corrupt conduct by the US government all the while supporting every strongman imaginable.


...whatever you mean by support. As I said in another reply to that charge:

I support everyone's right to live in peace

I support not hurting people without a good reason.

I said that Iraq and Libya had the Arab world's highest standard of living, most secular society, best equality for women, and that Arabs from all over had been coming to Iraq and Libya for the Arab world's best medical care and education.

You can call that support for Iraq's leader if you want to, but my point was that life was better in precisely the Arab countries that our media and presidential administrations demonized the most. It's no coincidence, because resources that helped Iraq's and Libya's populations weren't available to our corporations.

Independence is the big no-no. Read Professor Blum's _Killing Hope_.

That policy, targeting and attacking independence where it occurs in vulnerable small non-European countries has been remarkably consistent, according to Blum, and Chomsky. ...and other authors, such as communist journalist Michael Parenti.

So we're supposed to believe you instead of them?



You display sympathy for bourgeois governments like that of Gaddaffi, Saddam Hussein, the Castros


I stated their accomplishments.



, as well as North Korea


I told you Chomsky's information about the facts of how the Korean war started.

I stated my disagreement with targeting and harming a population that want nothing other than to survive in peace.



(whatever mode of production they may have) and it wouldn't surprise if you supported Mugabe and Assad.


I don't know anything about Mugabe, but what I've read sounds like it's the same old story, in the case of empire vs Syria.

It turns out that Empire has been drooling over Syria for quite a while, and has been attempting takeover for some time.

We're supposed to believe that Assad, when things were going favorable to his defense fight, would choose that time to perpetrate a gas-attack on his capital city, knowing full well that that's the way to give the empire an excuse to invade or attack.

Ask yourself who benefits from that gas-attack.




You also have a limited understanding of communism, believing, not only there to be such a thing as "communist government


In Marxist terminology, "communism" refers to a time that is beyond government.

But "communist" has another meaning too, and it's widely-used and accepted. We hear of communist countries, communist parties, and communist platforms and governments.

I've posted about my take on what that means, when I discussed communist parties vs democratic socialist parties, in my 2nd posting to this website, at the Introductions forum, in a thread entitled: "New member, introducing myself". I refer you to that. I'm not going to repeat it all here.

All that I'll say here is that socialist parties can be divided into two categories: communist, and democratic socialist.

That isn't to say that the U.S. communist parties don't offer democracy. But the communist parties and the democratic socialist parties offer different kinds of democracy. For details, I refer you to the above-mentioned post.



but even believing Cuba is one


So you're down on Cuba too.

After the Cuban revolution that threw out our dictator, Castro's Cuba began winning all sorts of international awards for its elimination of starvation and illiteracy, and for its excellent medical care.

In fact, just as I was saying about Iraq and Libya, Cuba was a place where people from all around Latin America went for the best medical care around. In fact Americans sometimes went there too, for the best medical care of some particular needed type. (No, not just for banned drugs and procedures).

Cuba's revolutionary example, Cuba's example of successful independence, couldn't be tolerated, and so we immediately began a terrorism campaign. I mean a physical terrorism campaign. Not as bad as the one against Nicaragua, but still bad enough. We didn't hear anything about it till it had been going on for a long time. Read about it in _Killing Hope_.

When we offered terrorism instead of trade, that was when Cuba turned to the USSR.

With Nicaragua, of course, it was the same old story, pretty much exactly echoing the Cuban caper.



-- while communism is a stateless society.


Yes, that was how Marx used the term, and it's still used that way by Marxists. I don't disagree with that usage or call it incorrect. I merely point out that the word has an additional definition now.



It seems you feel substitutional quilt


:-) Perhaps you meant guilt.



for the actions of the US government


Certainly not. Why should I feel guilt for something that I've had no part in, and haven't supported. Even if I'd never spoken a word of opposition against it, I still wouldn't have any guilt or blame for something that I've had no part in.



and you out this guilt by adopting, nominally, politics that are anti-establishment


I don't support hurting people, unnecessary wars, invasions or attacks, or people who believe what they're told without evidence.



while (contradictorily) backing anti-communist dictators


I don't back anyone, but yes, I've told you about how the Iraq that we invaded was a lot better than Iraq after we invaded.

It doesn't matter what you think of Sadaam. His character is irrelevant. Life-quality is what matters, and life-quality was fine in Iraq. ...a whole lot better than in our puppet regimes in other Arab countries.

Why did we target, attack and invade the particular Arab countries where ordinary people were treated the best?

Sadaam wasn't communist, but that doesn't justify killing all those children.



(even going as far as saying that proto-fascist Hussein, whom committed genocide and initiated a war against Iran, use the resources to benefit his own people


Iraquis, before our wars, were (along with Libyans) incomparably better off than other Arabs.



You are not a communist, you are not a revolutionary


As for "communist", I prefer the communist parties. They get my vote.

I like all of what the communist parties' platforms offer.

I like some communist parties better than others, but, nevertheless I like them all.

Needless to say, I prefer the foreign policies of WWP and PSL to that of the communist parties that engage in red-baiting. But even in instances where I disagree with a Trotskyist party's foreign policy, I still like the party, and would vote it over every non-communist party.

You see, I don't share your intolerance.



, you are an obnoxious bourgeois anti-American leftist.


At least self-designated "Running-Dog" admits that I'm a leftist :-)

This person who's accusing me of being anti-American--is he American? Or is he an expert-at-a-distance about America? :-)

As I said, preferring peace, not supporting hurting people or unnecessary wars is not anti-American. Not believing everything that we hear in the media isn't anti-American.

Skepticism isn't anti-American.



There is every reason to believe the core of reports that come our way. Horror stories of torture, government abuse, and totalitarian practices are confirmed over and over again by an array of organisations. We still need to remain skeptical of conspicuous stories, but the fact of that matter is is that North Korea is beyond terrible.


...all of which you've already said, and I've already answered.




These supposed "communists" are fooled.


They were WWP, it seems to me. As I said, I can't guarantee that they were unbiased witnesses, because WWP already opposed the siege against NK.

I've already answered your claims about NK.



If you irrationally disregard anything the "corporate media" publishes...


Let's say that I don't count on it being true, given their known record for reliability on such matters.

I've already wasted too much time replying to this person. Replies to garbage posts such as this are only 1-to-a-customer. I won't waste time replying to this person again.

Unumundisto

(That's Esperanto for "Advocate for One World")

[Bardo]

The ISO is noticeably absent from the list.

I gave the PSL an approval vote because I'm affiliated and I approve of the work they do on the ground. Especially regarding their anti-war, anti-racism and LGBT rights campaigns.

[Unumundisto]

I'm really tempted to close this thread, it seems completely stupid


It isn't quite obvious why it's stupid to conduct a mock election among the communist parties, at a communist forum :-)

BTW, I have no use for people who rely on name-calling.

But do close the thread, by all means. It's reached that particularly ugly stage when the Internet abusers, found at any Internet forum, start acting-out.

Close the thread. It's mostly a dialog between me and various flamewarriors. As the OP, I request that the thread be closed.



and is nothing short of seeing political organisations in some sort of popularity over principle role.


Incorrect.

Conducting a mock election makes no statement or implication about popularity vs principle.

In fact, people could, and sometimes did, state principles that motivated their vote.



Perhaps OP could have read hundreds of other threads on this forum in which people talk of their political backgrounds, what party they are in or so on; looked at the membership of Revleft groups to give an indication of what factions carry support etc etc etc.


...none of which is a reason to not conduct a mock election.



All these poll threads do is generate a discussion about how stupid poll threads are.


Again, incorrect.

The poll showed which parties would win an election among those who voted.

Results:

PSL won, by a wide margin. WWP can in a close 2nd, well over the others.

Why does a mock election bother this person so much?

But yes, the thread did degenerate into the sloppy and angry flamewar that is so sadly typical on the Internet.

But don't attribute that behavior to me, just because I did a mock election.



OP is new and we'll maybe give benefit of the doubt


You're too generous :-)

OP has had enough of this.

I'll be unsubscribing immediately after I post this.



, but I don't see how these threads help our community at all.

Don't worry, Bob, I won't bother your community anymore.

Unumundisto

[Tim Cornelis]

Tim "Running-Dog":



Common ownership.

What?


So you say. Govt press-releases are the safest kind of media stories. Media outlets aren't going out on a limb at all when they carry govt press releases. Parroting the statements and premises of the presidential administration is obviously the safest way to present the news.

There's a lot of interlock and overlap among corporate boards of directors. Media, Democrat and Republican parties, and their candidates and incumbent officeholders are largely owned by the same set of corporations, at least for the most part, overall.

You need to do some reading.

Read _Who Rules America?_.

Read some of Noam Chomsky's books. In particular, _Understanding Power_.

I'll advise you to do the same, or at least re-read. The media is frequently critical of the government. The relationship is not as straightforward as you make it out to be.


(note that no example is given)

The believe that North Korea is a workers' state.


I don't claim to know about freedom or democracy in N. Korea. We have a media blackout regarding N. Korea. It isn't possible to determine, for example, to what degree N. Korea has the amount of democracy specified by Marx.

We cannot quantify it precisely, but it's between nothing and next to nothing. There is no evidence that indicates that workers in North Korea wield any power whatsoever, there is only evidence to the contrary. Anything from interviews with former camp guards detailing how prisoners were treated, how some prisoners were born in camps, and logically how such an environment of tight control on opinion does not allow for any democracy.


But remember, before you get too condemnatory, that N. Korea is a beseiged country. Let's let up on that beseigement, and open up communication between their and our governments, and between their and out populations, and allow free travel to their country.

Why does is travel to N. Korea forbidden? Why are sister-city relationships with N. Korean cities forbidden? It isn't my fault that I (and you) don't know what the state of affairs is in N. Korea.

Because we don't know, we shouldn't make assumptions, and we shouldn't demonize them.

I'm not demonising them, I'm stating the facts. I don't try to reiterate conspicuous and dubious stories.


The communists that I heard about, who'd visited N. Korea were WWP. So it could be fairly argued that they were influenced by a desire to find support for their already-held position.

But my point is that we don't know, and, when we don't know, we shouldn't be spouting off and making accusations. Is that clear?

Yes, and it's naive. I cannot accuse the North Korean government of gassing prisoners, entire families, when defected prison guards have given extensive testimony on this?


I'm not saying that nothing in the news is true. Even the most dedicated liar can't avoid at least occasionally telling the truth. But the media have a poor reliability-record when they revile countries or small-country leaders that the owners here want to target. That doesn't prove that what they say isn't true. But it certainly doesn't prove that it is true.


As I said, N. Korea is a beseiged country. I'll begin abbreviating it NK.

So are the Zapatista communes. Yet the media produce no reports of torture, abuse, etc. The only criticism of the Zapatistas was that only after the 'revolution' failed to spread they discovered indigenous rights.


Our leaders and media say that NK is, and has been, isolating itself from the world. But, in almost the same breath, they boast that they can and will isolate NK, economically. They've been doing that, and thereby creating a lot of hardship for the people there.

I wouldn't say that we should expect food to be plentiful in a besieged country.

Like Freedom-House, which gets the vast majority of its funding from the govt?

Amnesty International, as I mentioned.


You speak of an account from one escaped prisoner. One. How overwhelmingly conclusive is that?

I advice watching his story before dismissing it. He has underwent indescribable horrors. His testimony conforms with the scarce knowledge coming out of NK, making his testimony reliable.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147159n


You speak of alleged defecting guards. Do you remember, when our leaders wanted to, and were about to attack Iraq (in one of the two Iraq wars), we heard that Iraqi soldiers went into a maternity ward in a hospital, and impaled newborn infants on bayonets.

No I do not.


But later it turned out that the "nurse" who reported it wasn't a nurse at all, but was just the daughter of some associate of the administration.

And therefore we should dismiss anything we hear on the basis that maybe the person may have a second agenda?


I'm not saying that some of the "defecting guards" couldn't be genuine, and I'm not saying that any of them are genuine. It just can't be known, given past history.

NEtSi_heSBc

That degree of skepticism would be tantamount to denying virtually anything. "We can't know if Brunei actually exists, it may just be a fabricated tax haven given the track record of bourgeois lies."


Amnesty International has to get its information somewhere, and its conclusions can only be as reliable as its information-sources. Information about a beseiged country tends to be scarce.

Cuba is besieged, yet such horror stories never enter circulation. There is never story comparable to those coming out of North Korea. Your whole premise is inconsistent.


Who knows? Maybe it's as bad as you say, or maybe it's all administration and media BS, supported by some phoney defecting guards and a phoney escaped prisoner.

Remember the "nurse", and the impaled infants that never were.

Throughout history, false accusations, made up stories, false-flag attacks, nonexistent attrocities, etc. have been used to justify attacks, invasions and conquests.

But listen, it's the volume of stories. The volume of horrible despicable stories coming out of Cuba is 0 (human rights abuses, yes, horror stories, no). For North Korea, there is a consistent stream of internally consistent testimonies by defectors and escapees that make them credible. The same with Pol Pot's Cambodia or King Leopold II's Congo, versus


...such as the war against Mexico, in which we conveniently acquired much of their territory. Such as the Vietnam war. Such as the Iraq wars.
Disinformation to justify targeting a country or its leader has been so consistently used, that it could be called "routine".

Disinformation about one attack, say Tonkin incident, versus a consistent stream of internally consistent testimonies by defectors and escapees that make them credible is not the same.


I'm not saying that it isn't true. I'm saying that it there isn't sufficient information for us to know if it's true.

From the 1930s onward, Western historians tried to determine the amount of victims under Stalin's rule with incomplete information. We may then have dismissed it, but the Soviet archives revealed the number to have been in the millions. Lower than some historian's claims, but significant nonetheless. Similarly, we cannot know the exact number of prisoners of concentration camps in NK (estimations 150,000 - 200,000), but that they exist in considerable numbers is indisputable.


That couldn't have anything to do with our effort to hurt them economically as much as possible, could it?

More like making them dependant on US food aid, but whatever.


What could be more socially problematic than someone who's sure that he has the truth.

You're right, I cannot personally verify whether Brunei actually exists so it's socially problematic, nay, arrogant, to claim I know it exists and that it's the truth.


Anyway, why are you so gung-ho? (I know, because you got it from your tv).

What is gung-ho?


Our conduct toward NK has forced them to militarize more they can afford to. We did that to the USSR, and this is the same principle applied again.

What do you have against peace? If we let up on the seige, prove that we've changed our policy toward them, they can start spending a greater percentage of their resources on life-quality improvements.

If NK is as undemocratic as you say, then yes they should allow more democracy, of the sort that the U.S. communist parties offer. But remember that our administrations and their various agencies have a history of subverting and buying democracies. Some countries fear that, in that way, democracy would be a handle by which for us to turn them upside-down.

So, let's just let up on NK. End the siege, the economic "sanctions", the military provocations such as war games that simulate an invasion,...etc.

I'm not supporting the US so I'm not sure why you're trying to push this false dichotomy on me.


You cry crocodile tears for the NK population, while supporting the oppressive and killing siege against them.

[citation needed], don't be an idiot. I've never claimed so.


[regarding where spoke of Iraq and Libya before the invasions]

...unimportant to you, perhaps, because you don't live there.

Unimportant in regards to the discussion, reading comprehension. Those that live in Libya appear to be supportive of the new regime anyway. I'm not sure about Iraq.


And, I note that you're an expert on the U.S., though you don't live here. Expert from a distance?

This makes no sense. Of course you don't have to live somewhere to be an expert on it and living somewhere doesn't make you an expert.


You're giving us unsupported assertions about what's true and what isn't true.

About the history regarding Libya and Iraq, I got the information from Chomsky, and from a state university history professor. Could they lie? Well, it costs money to buy lying, and around here the money isn't on their side of the issue.

It's always possible to make the cheap statement, "That isn't true", or "It's true". What it must come down to is: Anyone who wants to check the facts on their own can look them up.

Right, for instance we see that Libya was ranked 64th in 2011, below Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE. In 2013, it's back in position 64, and still those same countries outrank them.


Angry name-calling, as a substitute for any better justification of your claims.

You need to read _Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA interventions since WWII_.

Actually, the only part of that title that I'm certain of the wording of is the "Killing Hope" part.

Search Google for "Killing Hope, Blum". The book was written by a Professor Blum.

Instead of resorting to name-calling, maybe you should do a little reading.

You oversimplify issues, that is your problem. Saying, "read this" and then that book not aligning with your oversimplified conclusion of it is ridiculous. They weren't attacked because they "use resources for their people", and neither have you provided sources to back this up yourself.


I have no affiliation with Mr. Napoleon.

But I do have sympathy for the people who are hurt by aggressive, hostile, perpetual-war, empire-building foreign policy.

I prefer peace.

Peace protects the status quo. And yes, this reinforces that you have a weak for Bonapartist strongmen.


You use communist jargon, while sounding just like the usual supporter of capitalism's empire-building policies.

That's because, (it's a recurring theme), you have an oversimplified view of the world based on a false dichotomy. That I do not support North Korea in any way, shape, or form, does not mean I support US empire building or imperialist endeavors.


Believing whatever your tv tells

Oh shut up.


you has nothing to do with communism. Parroting imperialist propaganda has nothing to do with communism.

It's not imperialist propaganda when it's true.


You're the funniest "communist" that I've ever heard.

Because you misinterpret my positions.


Yes, that's what you were told in school, and it's what our media say or imply, if they mention the matter. Thank you for parroting the propaganda system that has taught you so well.

Oh shut up.


So you think that Chomsky just made up the history that he described in _Understanding Power_?

Remember that Chomsky lives in the U.S., and you don't. And he's done a bit more research than you have.

My god. Are you being serious? You constantly hurling strawmen at me.


We we'd already killed 100,000 Koreans, in our southern occupied part of Korea, when they resisted our imposed fascist regime of former Japanese-collaborators--before North Korea came in, to oppose us, and the harm we were doing to the South Koreans, to protect the South Koreans from us.

What does this have to do with anything?


Contrary to what some want to claim, preferring peace, not hurting people, live-&-let-live, is not anti-American.

Not believing without evidence isn't un-American either.

That's your problem, your profess disbelief in the face of evidence. And for the record, the problem is not being against the USA, it's being sympathetic to Bonapartist strongmen.


You use "bourgeois" as a name-calling word, though you probably have no idea what it means, other than that you've heard communists use it when they criticize.

Oh shut up. I have no idea what it means? What an unsubstantiated bollocks. You are bourgeois because you have a bourgeois paradigm as evidenced by your support of anti-American Bonapartist strongmen


It's shorter to write.

...whatever you mean by support. As I said in another reply to that charge:

I support everyone's right to live in peace

I support not hurting people without a good reason.

I said that Iraq and Libya had the Arab world's highest standard of living, most secular society, best equality for women, and that Arabs from all over had been coming to Iraq and Libya for the Arab world's best medical care and education.

You can call that support for Iraq's leader if you want to, but my point was that life was better in precisely the Arab countries that our media and presidential administrations demonized the most. It's no coincidence, because resources that helped Iraq's and Libya's populations weren't available to our corporations.

In what way do you support "peace"? No justice, no peace surely. Independence? So you support national self-determination?


Independence is the big no-no. Read Professor Blum's _Killing Hope_.

Fuck independence indeed.


That policy, targeting and attacking independence where it occurs in vulnerable small non-European countries has been remarkably consistent, according to Blum, and Chomsky. ...and other authors, such as communist journalist Michael Parenti.

So we're supposed to believe you instead of them?

My god. You do not comprehend. Read carefully, I do not support imperialist endeavors, stop toying a strawman and false dichotomy.


I stated their accomplishments.

I told you Chomsky's information about the facts of how the Korean war started.

I stated my disagreement with targeting and harming a population that want nothing other than to survive in peace.



I don't know anything about Mugabe, but what I've read sounds like it's the same old story, in the case of empire vs Syria.

It turns out that Empire has been drooling over Syria for quite a while, and has been attempting takeover for some time.

We're supposed to believe that Assad, when things were going favorable to his defense fight, would choose that time to perpetrate a gas-attack on his capital city, knowing full well that that's the way to give the empire an excuse to invade or attack.

An independent investigation by UN specialists has revealed that the gas attacked was committed from a hill where elite troops and soldiers of Assad were stationed, so yes, the attack was perpetrated by Assad's troops.


Ask yourself who benefits from that gas-attack.

Ask yourself, are you going to dismiss all evidence if it does fit your binary view of the world?



In Marxist terminology, "communism" refers to a time that is beyond government.

But "communist" has another meaning too, and it's widely-used and accepted. We hear of communist countries, communist parties, and communist platforms and governments.

I've posted about my take on what that means, when I discussed communist parties vs democratic socialist parties, in my 2nd posting to this website, at the Introductions forum, in a thread entitled: "New member, introducing myself". I refer you to that. I'm not going to repeat it all here.

All that I'll say here is that socialist parties can be divided into two categories: communist, and democratic socialist.

That isn't to say that the U.S. communist parties don't offer democracy. But the communist parties and the democratic socialist parties offer different kinds of democracy. For details, I refer you to the above-mentioned post.

So you're down on Cuba too.

As any actual communist is, am of the belief that bourgeois governments are to be overthrown by the exploited and oppressed working classes.


After the Cuban revolution that threw out our dictator, Castro's Cuba began winning all sorts of international awards for its elimination of starvation and illiteracy, and for its excellent medical care.

In fact, just as I was saying about Iraq and Libya, Cuba was a place where people from all around Latin America went for the best medical care around. In fact Americans sometimes went there too, for the best medical care of some particular needed type. (No, not just for banned drugs and procedures).

Cuba's revolutionary example, Cuba's example of successful independence, couldn't be tolerated, and so we immediately began a terrorism campaign. I mean a physical terrorism campaign. Not as bad as the one against Nicaragua, but still bad enough. We didn't hear anything about it till it had been going on for a long time. Read about it in _Killing Hope_.

When we offered terrorism instead of trade, that was when Cuba turned to the USSR.

With Nicaragua, of course, it was the same old story, pretty much exactly echoing the Cuban caper.

The point being? I'm already well aware of Cuba's social welfare.


Yes, that was how Marx used the term, and it's still used that way by Marxists. I don't disagree with that usage or call it incorrect. I merely point out that the word has an additional definition now.



:-) Perhaps you meant guilt.



Certainly not. Why should I feel guilt for something that I've had no part in, and haven't supported. Even if I'd never spoken a word of opposition against it, I still wouldn't have any guilt or blame for something that I've had no part in.

Your obsessive defence of anti-American regimes would indicate exactly this.


I don't support hurting people, unnecessary wars, invasions or attacks, or people who believe what they're told without evidence.

Oh shot up.


I don't back anyone, but yes, I've told you about how the Iraq that we invaded was a lot better than Iraq after we invaded.

It doesn't matter what you think of Sadaam. His character is irrelevant. Life-quality is what matters, and life-quality was fine in Iraq. ...a whole lot better than in our puppet regimes in other Arab countries.

Why did we target, attack and invade the particular Arab countries where ordinary people were treated the best?

What do you mean "treated the best"? Hussein committed genocide.


Sadaam wasn't communist, but that doesn't justify killing all those children.

Oh right, I totally said that.


Iraquis, before our wars, were (along with Libyans) incomparably better off than other Arabs.

I checked the HDI, and while there is no record of the HDI in 1990, it doesn't appear to have done very well actually so I'm not sure what you're basing this on.


As for "communist", I prefer the communist parties. They get my vote.

I like all of what the communist parties' platforms offer.

I like some communist parties better than others, but, nevertheless I like them all.

Needless to say, I prefer the foreign policies of WWP and PSL to that of the communist parties that engage in red-baiting. But even in instances where I disagree with a Trotskyist party's foreign policy, I still like the party, and would vote it over every non-communist party.

You see, I don't share your intolerance.

I plentiful intolerance for bourgeois-socialists masquerading as Marxists and communists indeed.


At least self-designated "Running-Dog" admits that I'm a leftist :-)

This person who's accusing me of being anti-American--is he American? Or is he an expert-at-a-distance about America? :-)

Since when do you need to be from a place to be an expert on it? Get real. And for the record, the problem is not Anti-American per se.


As I said, preferring peace, not supporting hurting people or unnecessary wars is not anti-American. Not believing everything that we hear in the media isn't anti-American.

Skepticism isn't anti-American.

"Peace" is meaningless without class analysis.

And skepticism is not the same as irrational dismissal of information because of ideological reasons.


...all of which you've already said, and I've already answered.




They were WWP, it seems to me. As I said, I can't guarantee that they were unbiased witnesses, because WWP already opposed the siege against NK.

I've already answered your claims about NK.



Let's say that I don't count on it being true, given their known record for reliability on such matters.

I've already wasted too much time replying to this person. Replies to garbage posts such as this are only 1-to-a-customer. I won't waste time replying to this person again.

Unumundisto

(That's Esperanto for "Advocate for One World")

I'm glad you don't ever have to converse with your bourgeois arse again. Your unwarranted skepticism, your bourgeois paradigm are obnoxiously irrational.

[Sea]

Where are the Democrats? :confused: