Socialist party and Green party don't mix!

[TheButcher]

This is a response to the topic "Why I became a green". Red and green don't mix because they are the exact opposites. Reds want to create a better society on the basis of the conditions created by modern industrial capitalism while greens want to retreat from those conditions. For reds (socialist/communist), modern industrial society is creating the conditions for a future communist society, with bourgeois relations of production being the obstacle to its achievement. Greens on the other hand see modern industrial society as the problem and consider that the answer lies in retreating to some 'simpler' way of life.

According to the green party, modern industry is too large and produces far too much. They think we need to go back to a way of living that is simpler both in terms of scale and complexity of activity and in terms of the range and quantities of goods that we produce.

The green party consider that production is excessive both in terms of people consuming goods they do not really need and in terms of environmental sustainability. According to this view we would be happier living more simply and it would be more environmentally viable.

From the Socialist party perspective the problem with present day economy is not its bigness but rather the power relations between people that stems from the capitalist system of ownership. At the same time small scale production is associated with sweat shops and with slave and feudal societies of the past that were even more oppressive than the present system.

I could have wrote a lot more on this issue to show how many of you are so naive about the issues dealing with the green party versus the socialist party. They are in no way similiar in any way! Get this through your head! You are giving socialist and communist bad names with your liberal, hippie, pacifist bullshit!

(Edited by TheButcher at 9:37 pm on Nov. 14, 2002)

[Zippy]

I'd rather vote green than a red made out of blood.

Zippy.

[trebboR]

Nice said zippy.

[munkey soup]

Don't bother with this guy. It's obvious by his abusive tone that nothing is gonna get through his highly "enlightened" thick skull.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from Zippy on 9:43 pm on Nov. 14, 2002
I'd rather vote green than a red made out of blood.

Zippy.


What do you mean?

[Zippy]

I'm a liberal, hippy, and i don't agree with pacifism but i don't like violence. If the green party want to make this world a better place through these ideals i'd rather vote for them than a socialist party who wants a violent revolution.

Zippy.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from munkey soup on 9:49 pm on Nov. 14, 2002
Don't bother with this guy. It's obvious by his abusive tone that nothing is gonna get through his highly "enlightened" thick skull.


Why would you say that? Don't let my abusive tone frighten you.

[munkey soup]

Because usually those who use such abusive tones don't listen to others arguments. Hey, I could be wrong, maybe you're very open-minded, but your manner in that last paragraph says otherwise. I suggest removing it if you want people to come into this argument with respect. Or is respect towards others not part of the communist platform nowadays?

[antieverything]

Well, here is my opinion on this...

I think that by "the Socialist Party", our friend the Butcher is refering to the SP-USA which in no way advocates violent revolution. (their presidential nominee was David McReynolds, a somewhat famous anti-war activist) I may be wrong, however, as the Butcher seems to think that only Marxists are actually Socialists.

I think that The Butcher is unfairly pigeon-holing Greens as primitivists...while they may have gotten their start that way, the Greens now (at least in the US) are simply a leftist group that advoctes local economic control and sustainable development of the environment. There economics, while not openly anti-capitalist, are actually quite socialistic.

[munkey soup]

Yes, they promote co-ops instead of corporations, democracy in the workplace, and many other socialist ideals. It's just to the tune of localization instead of big government, which is where, I believe, ElButcher may be getting mixed up.

[Som]

you just dont understand the green party.

The green party is a progressive party, based on the ideas of decentralization, grassroots democracy, social justice, and convservation of the environment.

What you described was primitivism, the anarcho-greens. The green party are not primitivists, they hold quite socialist ideas.

"You are giving socialist and communist bad names with your liberal, hippie, pacifist bullshit! "

To who? social fascists, right-wingers, and republicans?
Not a problem there.


(Edited by Som at 10:37 pm on Nov. 14, 2002)

[Zippy]

Quote: from Som on 10:29 pm on Nov. 14, 2002
and conversation of the environment.
I love Mother Earth, but talking to her is damn hard work. :)

Zippy.

[Umoja]

The Socialist Party-USA infact has a very similar platform. It's just that the Greens care more about keeping the enviornment in good-shape because of corporate exploitation, but it's good to see I'm getting a few burns from my post.

[Iepilei]

I see no real differences. Other than stupid stuff, like the greens don't advocate the destruction of class and heirarchy - therefor not quite true democracy.

I agree that over-production is a bad thing, socialism is not all about mass production - capitalism is. mass/over-production is the only way capitalism can work, in the process it destroys our earth. we're nearing a new time - environmental issues are a major concern.

my suggestion is a hybrid. I fully advocate the destruction of the bourgeoise - by any means necissary - and the emphasis on the "expensive" environmentally sound technologies that modern companies haven't even put a finger on:

- Efficient Cars: Fuel Cell (hydrogen powered)
- Advanced Industry: More to equal production @ less pollution.
- Environmental de-contamination programs.
- Horticulture Programs: Re-forest areas used for lumber.
- Higher Clean Air Standards

Shoddy conditions breed viruses, disease, etc. We have to do what we can to make this earth a more livable place - but we shouldn't place the life of a squirrel over the life of a human. We're here to live and survive, and we must do what we can as knowledgeable individuals to maintain our living quarters.

[TheButcher]

The green party thinks large scale modern industry is seen as an obstacle to a better world, and one that we have to dismantle. How ever this is the exact opposite of the socialist party/communist party. According to the socialist view, by creating modern large scale industry, capitalism is laying the basis for a more advanced social system. And it is doing this in a number of ways. Firstly, the concentration of economic activity into largeindustries means that ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few capitalist while the vast majority are dispossessed of the means of production. As a result the vast majority of people have no material interest in the continuation of the present capitalist system because they do not possess capital. On the other hand if production is small scale (which the greens want) and ownership is dispersed there would be a lot more capitalist and small business operators and therefore a lot more people with a stake in the system.

[Kehoe]

After reading these posts and having exstinquished my cigar I will attempt to respond.The political system as it exists favors only the dominant parties which look after the corporate interests of their financial backers and in order to have a political voice at the ballot box you too must be a partisan of these puppeteers who determine exactly which candidates are suitable to officiate in the market house of which they themselves are the primary stock-holders,do you think that a major coporation will simply allow a man off the street to sit on the executive board? ... if so,think again.I dont care anything for the Green Party,perhaps because of that one green which has for so long been the decisive factor in politics.In the process of party politics too often concessions are made in an effort to gain votes and this is a practice socialists by nature cannot afford to fall prey to,for our integrity is and must remain the essence of our political ideology.How do we participate in petty bourgeois politics while at the same time drawing the perverbial line in the sand in order to assure the masses that we are not merely another cog in the monetary machinery?Were we to commit to a political party it must be one that promotes the socialist cause with unremitting determination and absolutely no compromise,to forge a party that refuses to step into the mire and muck of bi-partisan bullshit and establish itself as a true alternative for the common man.Still,such a party would serve mainly as a means to educate the masses and display an organized faction of resistance rather than being a hopeful contender at the ballot box.It must be a radical protest against the present system by means of that system,a little leaven makes a bowl of flour to rise.There is an old saying,"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer",remember the Trojan horse.Comrade Lenin advocated using bourgeois politics as a sounding board while never compromising our basic ideology,therefore,we should consider such a venture but always within the socialist context.

[antieverything]

You just go right ahead and do that.

[Fires of History]

Red. Green.

The classic battle in my psyche. Love 'em both. And both are correct.

It's not like this industrial complex is going to be even able to continue for much longer. Keep in mind we're running out of oil within a century. Sure, we'll dig deeper and find a little more, but in the end things are changing BIG TIME within a century. There might be some oil left, but by that time it will be 20 a gallon.

Things are changing. And both Reds and Greens have things to say. I'm both, for sure.

A non-Green future is a ridiculous idea. Period. I will have nothing to do with a Red future if it continues turning Earth into an industrial slime refuge.

Oh, and did I mention we are going to run out of oil?

Has that sunk in yet people?

[antieverything]

I think that the Greens are unfairly pegged as hardcore environmentalists like the AFL or EFL (crazy assholes...I hate em.) The main issue with them is local economic control.

[redstar2000]

There is, I must confess, an unfortunate (not to say STUPID) tradition in the communist left of "flaming" non-communist lefties for not dropping whatever they're doing and immediately becoming communists.

If some "hippie, pacificist liberal" does NOT become a communist, that does NOT retard a working class communist revolution one nano-second. Non-communist "left" groups are NOT "obstacles to the revolution" which must be "cleared away" in order for the revolution to take place.

That whole kind of attitude among communists is part of our Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist/Maoist baggage...it's long since time we THREW IT AWAY! (Recycling is NOT an option here!)

If Marxism MEANS anything, then working class revolution is INEVITABLE and whatever non-communist lefties do or don't do isn't going to make ANY perceptible difference in the timing or the intensity.

Once in a very long while there might arise a situation where some sharp attacks are really justified--I'm thinking of the German Social Democrats during and immediately after World War I--but when you stop and really think about it, the fact that the SPD supported the German ruling classes MEANT that they were no longer "leftist" in any meaningful sense. So, yes, I would have flamed the hell out of those bastards.

I don't think for a second that the Green Party will EVER be more than a MINOR petty-bourgeois party...and I don't lose any sleep over that fact either. I think we communists can criticize an idea or a political position WITHOUT implying that the people who hold it are "traitors to the revolution" or "counter-revolutionaries". They may be wrong; that doesn't mean they're enemies to be "smashed".

We communists have REAL enemies to attack--the capitalist ruling class. That's who our heavy artillery should be targeting, not non-communist lefties.

[Som]

Heres the bit thebutcher seems to be reffering to


5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.

Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.


It doesn't say it opposes large scale industry, merely it supports smaller industry. Things that are necesarily large scale, will of course remain so. The idea is not to primitivise, the idea is that the smaller something is, the more control people have over it, whether its a beurocrat central planner or an owner.
Its merely socialist ideas put on a more local level, the ideas are still quite socialist.

Both thebutchers and kehoes uncomprimising attitudes are just counter-productive. If you think that a communist revolution is the only way, there will never be any communist revolution. This isn't marx's world, There isnt a massive poor suffering working class here, The majority is the middle class, the masses have no desire to 'rise up' and overthrow the government, and i see no time that they will.
While the politics are what you call 'petty burguiose', the majority still consents to this plutocracy, a more united left involved in politics can help show people they don't have to. 3% did vote for Ralph Nader in the last election while he had no corporate support.

Left wing parties in the west can be elected and and make change for the better, though letting factionalism get in the way is a huge obstacle to any sort of leftist getting elected, and seeing any sort of change.

[Iepilei]

industry will slowly wind down over the years, as newer research leads to more efficient means of production. all that will be produced is what is needed, leaving the days of "mass consumption" behind.

[MJM]

I'm both red and green also.
The greens are doing a much better job of getting in touch with the workers and showing the destruction capitalism is doing to the world. The socialists are doing a good job of argueing with each other.

The greens are progressive in the fact they can awaken the working class, we marxists should be in a position to capitalise on this when the chance arises.

We should also incorporate green issues into our ideology, industry can function in and enviromentally friendly manner.

[nz revolution]

MJM is totally right over here there arent really much in the way of socialist orgs. The ones I know of are either dogmatists, all over the place crazies and theres even a corporation (related to the SWP in the States).

I think a reason why left groups dont have green issues on the immediate agenda is that people cant even look after themselves, let alone the responsibility of Gaia.

I dont think we should abandon the theories of past communist leaders, just develop them to suit todays world. Theres no point trying to make and alliance of the peasants and the working class, where the hell are peasants going to come from in quite a few places?

NZ-revo

(Edited by nz revolution at 11:52 pm on Nov. 15, 2002)

[TheButcher]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:11 am on Nov. 15, 2002


I don't think for a second that the Green Party will EVER be more than a MINOR petty-bourgeois party...and I don't lose any sleep over that fact either.


Well said redstar2000. In fact it is a petty-bourgeois party and I see it going nowhere. I see that any leftist party Red or Green is going nowhere in the west. The last hope for communism is the KPRF of russia. They are now the biggest party in the Russian Federation. The KPRF would laugh at the views of the Green party. I think Revolution Hero could confirm this since he is from the motherland.

[Revolution Hero]

TheButcher is 100% correct.
Russia and KPRF are the last hopes for COMMUNISM.
First, we will see COMMUNIST RUSSIA.
Second, we will see COMMUNIST WORLD.

[Umoja]

I hate to say it, but it seems that Communism hasn't worked before, it's constantly been dragged down by outside factors. Jumping right to Communism is then foolish, and slower steps should be taken if Communism is so inevitable.

[Kehoe]

Umoja ... first,communism has only existed in the realm of thought and never as a social system.Communism as conceived by Marx and Engels in its fullest expression can never be achieved for the expectations are too far outreaching.To abolish all private property completely would tend only to stir social anger and cause great spilling of blood as one group wars with another for rights of possession.Whether private or public ownership,there must exist a coercive state to enforce existing rights,thus the idea of a revolutionary state that will abolish private property and class distinctions and will then melt away is nothing more than a pipedream.I admire Marx for his intellect,insights and effort but his proposals are unrealistic given the scope of the human dynamic.The revolutionary state,having gained and exerted dictatorial power tends to grow hungry, harsh and repressive until it too is overthrown by a counterrevolution.As for the former USSR,the Peoples Republic of China,North Korea,Vietnam,etc,these are called communist countries but are so only by means of their common ideology and not by any political system they may have established,for as I stated earlier and as any student of Marx can attest ... communism in and of itself must exist absent of any political restraints,for this reason an anarchist is a true communist.What the world has labeled as communist countries are in reality socialist states and such a state is the highest expression of human endeavor in the socio-political sphere.It is the task of socialist thinkers to examine previous socialist states in an effort to reassess the causes for all failures as well as its success.This is the reason I have and will continue to identify myself as nothing more than a socialist in the way of isms.

[antieverything]

Lets not start the USSR discussion again. The USSR was actually a very succesful experiment--it worked and in doing so scared the hell out of the capitalist world.

Of course, I will in no way support an authoritarian order of any kind. (RH might take offense at this statment but I don't really care what he thinks). I say fuck soviet-style communism.

I for one am sick and tired of people stating that Marxist-Leninist style Socialism is inevitable and that it is in the interests of the workers...then attacking any popular movement that isn't Marxist-Leninist but still claiming that they believe in democracy!


The KPRF would laugh at the views of the Green party.And the Greens would laugh at the views of the KPRF. What's your point?

[redstar2000]

"I see that any leftist party Red or Green is going nowhere in the west"

NOT well said, comrade Butcher. At least not well said without any analysis or evidence to back it up.

No marxist would venture to PREDICT the site of the next working class uprising...but any marxist would, like Marx himself, expect it to happen in one or more of the advanced capitalist countries. I rather doubt that Russia qualifies in this regard...though I could be wrong about that.

To suggest that one particular country is "the last hope of communism" is just chauvinistic silliness. Do you think the phrase "workers of the WORLD" is just empty rhetoric?

Of course, I may have misunderstood you. If your comment simply refers to electoral parties of whatever "color" not amounting to anything, then I agree, of course. I cannot even begin to PREDICT what form(s) working class revolution will take (IN the advanced capitalist countries)...but I'm 99.99% certain that "parties" as traditionally understood (including Leninist parties) will have just about ZERO part in it.

It's nice when folks agree with you about something; but it's even better when they agree for the right reasons. :-)

[SonofRage]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 12:47 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
TheButcher is 100% correct.
Russia and KPRF are the last hopes for COMMUNISM.
First, we will see COMMUNIST RUSSIA.
Second, we will see COMMUNIST WORLD.


It's a nice dream, but it's not going to happen. I think that by holding on to the ideal of a Communist Utopia you only get held back. You need to take baby steps first. Perhaps one day in the far future it will happen but it's silly to insist on this extreme and close your mind to other ways of doing things.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 8:10 am on Nov. 16, 2002
Lets not start the USSR discussion again. The USSR was actually a very succesful experiment--it worked and in doing so scared the hell out of the capitalist world.

Of course, I will in no way support an authoritarian order of any kind. (RH might take offense at this statment but I don't really care what he thinks). I say fuck soviet-style communism.

I for one am sick and tired of people stating that Marxist-Leninist style Socialism is inevitable and that it is in the interests of the workers...then attacking any popular movement that isn't Marxist-Leninist but still claiming that they believe in democracy!


The KPRF would laugh at the views of the Green party.And the Greens would laugh at the views of the KPRF. What's your point?


USSR was the strongest state in the world. usa FEARED it, all of the Western World couldn't do anything against the spread of socialism, which was headed by the Soviet Union.

You really knew what I would say on your slander.Good for you, I don't want to repeat myself. I will just say FUCK ALL ANTI-COMMUNISTS!

We believe in the victory of rational logic. That is why we Marxist-Leninists criticize opportunistic ( left and right), revisionististic, centristic and other trends, which mislead people. Marx, Engels and Lenin also criticized the enemies of the international communist movement. If you are against us, you are against them, hence you are against communism, therefore you are the supporter of capitalism. And don't say that you are leftist , you can be on the left , but be the enemy of the progressive leftist movement, and the "friend" of right- wingers, without knowing that, as you are confused.


TheButcher's point was that KPRF had more chances in coming to the power, than those "green" dreamers.

[nz revolution]

The KPRF I think is a load of crap.

They are supporting the current government in everything including the Chechyn genocide.

If someone would like to prove me wrong that it is not just a name, like the Chinese Communist Party, oh damn they are so socialistic with their stock exchange and massacre of socialist students in Tieneman Square (spelling).

This will probably start a raucus but hey debates are good

[nz revolution]

Also Im not anti-communist. I am a commie.

I like the Soviet Union and most things it stood for, except the bureaucracy which im sure everyone doesnt like.

To the Soviet Union!!!

[antieverything]

I am against Soviet-style bureacracy and centralism. I am against the notion of a vanguard party that wages war in the name of the workers and claims that it alone knows what the true interests of the workers are.

I am not anti-communist, I am pro-democracy.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 8:49 am on Nov. 16, 2002
"I see that any leftist party Red or Green is going nowhere in the west"

NOT well said, comrade Butcher. At least not well said without any analysis or evidence to back it up.

No marxist would venture to PREDICT the site of the next working class uprising...but any marxist would, like Marx himself, expect it to happen in one or more of the advanced capitalist countries. I rather doubt that Russia qualifies in this regard...though I could be wrong about that.

To suggest that one particular country is "the last hope of communism" is just chauvinistic silliness. Do you think the phrase "workers of the WORLD" is just empty rhetoric?

Of course, I may have misunderstood you. If your comment simply refers to electoral parties of whatever "color" not amounting to anything, then I agree, of course. I cannot even begin to PREDICT what form(s) working class revolution will take (IN the advanced capitalist countries)...but I'm 99.99% certain that "parties" as traditionally understood (including Leninist parties) will have just about ZERO part in it.

It's nice when folks agree with you about something; but it's even better when they agree for the right reasons. :-)



quote:"NOT well said, comrade Butcher. At least not well said without any analysis or evidence to back it up."

Do you have any EVIDENCE to prove that TheButcher was wrong? Apparently you don't.
Western communist movement experience the time of political crisis. In contrary, Russian communists are strong , the masses support KPRF and they will be victorious sooner or later. ( keep these words in your mind, you will remember them, when they will be proved correct by the future history).

quote:" No marxist would venture to PREDICT the site of the next working class uprising...but any marxist would, like Marx himself, expect it to happen in one or more of the advanced capitalist countries. I rather doubt that Russia qualifies in this regard...though I could be wrong about that. "

Russian Empire of the beginning of the 20 century wasn't advanced capitalistic state, either. This fact didn't stop the Great October Revolution. You are very dogmatic, consider the past, before looking into the future.

quote:" To suggest that one particular country is "the last hope of communism" is just chauvinistic silliness. Do you think the phrase "workers of the WORLD" is just empty rhetoric? "

You didn't get the point ( or you just pretended that you didn't). Russian Federation has the best social - political and political - economical situation for the Communists to work in. That is why we consider Russia the last hope of communism. We need Socialistic Renascense! We will be the witnesses of it! Russia will bring the strong system of the socialistic states back!

quote:" I may have misunderstood you. "

The only correct statement in your reply. Congratulations! You are making progress!

quote:" I'm 99.99% certain that "parties" as traditionally understood (including Leninist parties) will have just about ZERO part in it. "

Wrong statement.
Marxist - Leninist parties play a very important role in organizing the masses and their movements. Only communist parties can offer the strong plan of actions. Only communist parties can lead the SOCIALISTIC revolution.

quote:" It's nice when folks agree with you about something; but it's even better when they agree for the right reasons"

Follow your statement and agree with me!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from SonofRage on 8:53 am on Nov. 16, 2002

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 12:47 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
TheButcher is 100% correct.
Russia and KPRF are the last hopes for COMMUNISM.
First, we will see COMMUNIST RUSSIA.
Second, we will see COMMUNIST WORLD.


It's a nice dream, but it's not going to happen. I think that by holding on to the ideal of a Communist Utopia you only get held back. You need to take baby steps first. Perhaps one day in the far future it will happen but it's silly to insist on this extreme and close your mind to other ways of doing things.


If all people have thought just like you, then the socialistic revolutions wouldn't have ever happened.

This is not utopia. We Marxist- Leninists are never utopian, we know our theory and strive for it's practical implementation.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from nz revolution on 9:25 am on Nov. 16, 2002
The KPRF I think is a load of crap.

They are supporting the current government in everything including the Chechyn genocide.




You are very wrong!
KPRF 's policy can be described as the policy of the extreme opposition to the government. They don't support Yeltsin, Putin and their gang. I know what I am talking about. It is so bad that you don't understand russian, KPRF's site would have opened eyes to all of you.

Chechenian genocide? What the hell?
What an ignorant man told you about it? or do you call a war genocide?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 9:38 am on Nov. 16, 2002
I am against Soviet-style bureacracy and centralism. I am against the notion of a vanguard party that wages war in the name of the workers and claims that it alone knows what the true interests of the workers are.

I am not anti-communist, I am pro-democracy.


Just say that you are "liberal leftist" ( these terms totaly contradicts to each other, but surprisingly we do have many leftists of this kind here). By saying that you are not anti-communist, you confuse not only yourself, but all comrades around.

Answer on all of my previous arguements! Don't try to escape from the answer !

[RGacky3]

Quote: from Zippy on 9:54 pm on Nov. 14, 2002
I'm a liberal, hippy, and i don't agree with pacifism but i don't like violence. If the green party want to make this world a better place through these ideals i'd rather vote for them than a socialist party who wants a violent revolution.

Zippy.


I am a socialist/RIVET HEAD, and I like to kill cappies, and hippies :)

[antieverything]

Uh, RH, you didn't ask a question or put forth any argument...what do you expect me to respond to. What you did do was re-enforce my statements about marxist-leninists being close-minded and claiming a monopoly on the truth.

[nz revolution]

Revolution Hero, if you get or have the time could you translate some of the Ruski Commie Party propaganda for me. email me at [email protected]

I used to think that they would be able to save us from Yankee Imperialism. Things I've heard and read dont say that though, quite the opposite.

If you were calling me ignorant that I object to, Im very open minded.

Imperialist war, OK then the KPRF support the imperialist war.

Reply please, I know you will, you are very good at replying

[truthaddict11]

in response to my reply in the other thread i believe the green party tries to and is doing by taking in former democrats who have lost hope in the party. the artist who does Doonesbury was democrat until we attacked afghanistan last year.both parties have great ideas and should work together to help boost peoples interest and stop voting democrat and the sp-usa can help by trying to stop the greens from going central.
in the 2004 election i will probally vote green although i am a member of the sp-usa this is because if greens get a certain amount of votes they get equal federal funding in the next election if this happens greens/socialists can spread far

[SonofRage]

If all people have thought just like you, then the socialistic revolutions wouldn't have ever happened.

This is not utopia. We Marxist- Leninists are never utopian, we know our theory and strive for it's practical implementation.



I hope you don't mean the Soviet Union and China. Both were/are a farse.

[Iepilei]

Actually, the Soviet Union did quite well for itself, technologically speaking. The only problem it really faced was with it's farming communities.

The major defining factor of any strong nation lies in one thing - it's farmers. The more food you have, the more content your people can truly be (not waiting in line forever for rations).

Centralisation had a major role in this. When it comes to large areas of land, and ultimately, large masses of people - central governments are a bad thing. A federal-style system that allows correct representation from the areas themselves would be far better than 1 central body declaring where what should be planted when.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe the government should take active roles in helping the farmers, but I think the farmers should be able to use their own disgression.

That's what it seems like the Union's major problem was. The state wasn't people-run enough.


(Edited by Iepilei at 7:15 am on Nov. 16, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 10:41 am on Nov. 16, 2002
Uh, RH, you didn't ask a question or put forth any argument...what do you expect me to respond to. What you did do was re-enforce my statements about marxist-leninists being close-minded and claiming a monopoly on the truth.



Don't make me laugh! Read my reply to you one more time. I am surprised that such anti-communist like you, agrees with everything what I have said.
But if you disagrees, you still have nothing to say, as everything , which would be said by you would be based on the lies of the bourgeois class, in one word your statements would be too easy to prove incorrect .

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from nz revolution on 11:25 am on Nov. 16, 2002
Revolution Hero, if you get or have the time could you translate some of the Ruski Commie Party propaganda for me. email me at [email protected]

I used to think that they would be able to save us from Yankee Imperialism. Things I've heard and read dont say that though, quite the opposite.

If you were calling me ignorant that I object to, Im very open minded.

Imperialist war, OK then the KPRF support the imperialist war.

Reply please, I know you will, you are very good at replying




š First of all, I didn't call you ignorant. I just asked ,what an ignorant man had told you about Chechenian genocide.( this genocide have never taken place).
š Secondly, the war in Chechnya is not of imperialistic character. Those chehchenians , who fight for their š š š š š š " independence" are basically terrorists, and the last terroristic act in Moscow perfectly proved it one more time. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Chechnya, just like all of the other subjects of the Federation, is the part of the soil of the Russian Federation. So, russian army defends it's territory. Each citizen of the Russian Federation supports this war, even Chechenians, I mean peaceful Chechenians.

šTranslation.
I promise that I will send you something, but you have to be patient, I'll try to find some free time and translate it for you.

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 7:46 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)

[nz revolution]

Thanks for your time RH, I am a patient person, anytime would be cool.

What was the KPRF stance on mastermind Putin gasing the theatre in Moskva?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Iepilei on 5:09 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
Actually, the Soviet Union did quite well for itself, technologically speaking. The only problem it really faced was with it's farming communities.

The major defining factor of any strong nation lies in one thing - it's farmers. The more food you have, the more content your people can truly be (not waiting in line forever for rations).

Centralisation had a major role in this. When it comes to large areas of land, and ultimately, large masses of people - central governments are a bad thing. A federal-style system that allows correct representation from the areas themselves would be far better than 1 central body declaring where what should be planted when.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe the government should take active roles in helping the farmers, but I think the farmers should be able to use their own disgression.

That's what it seems like the Union's major problem was. The state wasn't people-run enough.


(Edited by Iepilei at 7:15 am on Nov. 16, 2002)


quote:" The major defining factor of any strong nation lies in one thing - it's farmers. The more food you have, the more content your people can truly be (not waiting in line forever for rations). "

You mean peasants, don't you? Actually they are not the only "major definig factor" of the SOCIALISTIC state. There are proletarians , who also play a very important role in the development of any state, especially if this state is SOCIALISTIC.

quote:" When it comes to large areas of land, and ultimately, large masses of people - central governments are a bad thing."

TRUE.

quote:" A federal-style system that allows correct representation from the areas themselves would be far better than 1 central body declaring where what should be planted when. "

USSR had the Federative system of territorial formation. It consisted of the 15 Republics , which were also divided into districts. The biggest of the Republics was the RSFSR ( Russian Soviet Federative Socialistic Republic) , which was Federation itself.
"1 Central body" never declared what , when and how to run the production, everything was managed at the places. The plan was set by the Center and the places had to accomplish it, BUT the latter were free in using the ways of it's implementation.

quote:" I believe the government should take active roles in helping the farmers, but I think the farmers should be able to use their own disgression. "

Have you ever heard about the COLLECTIVE FARMERS? These farmers were actually free from the center.

quote:"That's what it seems like the Union's major problem was. The state wasn't people-run enough."

Do you realise how ridiculous your statement now?

LEARN , and only then SAY!

[redstar2000]

Revolution Hero, are you IN the Russian Army? Or do you have an extensive background in the Russian military?

I ask because there is, well, a tone in your posts that suggests someone who is used to giving and receiving orders. "Learn and only then say!" for example almost sounds like a parade-ground command. and you more or less always sound like this.

It's your right, of course, to strike whatever tone in your posts that appeals to you...but it's a bad choice, in my opinion.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:26 am on Nov. 18, 2002
Revolution Hero, are you IN the Russian Army? Or do you have an extensive background in the Russian military?

I ask because there is, well, a tone in your posts that suggests someone who is used to giving and receiving orders. "Learn and only then say!" for example almost sounds like a parade-ground command. and you more or less always sound like this.

It's your right, of course, to strike whatever tone in your posts that appeals to you...but it's a bad choice, in my opinion.

LOL.

You are correct, redstar. I am the GENERAL of the Army of the Russian Federation. BTW, I know many high ranked military commanders , who share my ideology and support COMMUNISM. We are going to start a military coup against present Russian government.









It was a joke. Actually, redstar, you are subjectively wrong, just like always.

[antieverything]

Uh, RH, Iepilei was actually dead on in saying that the major problem in the USSR was agriculture. Soviet agripolicy was terribly inefficient your reference to collective farms further points out your ignorance of the history of your own country! Collective farms were run by the government and simply paid farmers lower wages but also allowed them to sell some of their crops for personal profit.

After that you go on to say that the USSR was a federalist democracy. [how old are you again?] Only in theorywas the USSR democratic or federalist.

The last constitution of the USSR, enacted in 1977, declared the CPSU “the leading and directing force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system.” Only the party could “guide the great endeavor of the Soviet people and place their struggle for the triumph of communism on a planned, scientific basis.” The CP, of course, consisted of only 5% of the population.

I can hear you now, "What about the Supreme Soviet?"
What kind of shitty history do they teach in your schools? The Supreme Soviet was nothing more than a rubber stamp for the CP. All its members were elected without competition, on slates carefully assembled by the party organs. It met for only several days per year. All votes were unanimous.

The Supreme Soviet also appointed the senior officials in the executive agencies of the government. The cabinet of department heads was known as the Council of People’s Commissars from 1917 until 1946 and the Council of Ministers thereafter. The chairman of the council (unofficially dubbed the premier), the ministers, and the immense bureaucracies that served under them had much everyday power, but answered in the end to the party and served at its pleasure.

Real final authority rested with the Politburo which had only 15 members. Decisions were made in secret--the people had no knowledge of who voted how or why. These decisions were then handed down to the Supreme Soviet and--as I've said before--ratified unanimously.

Now for the claim of federalism.

The 15 union republics had government structures, nominally elected by the population, that largely ran in parallel to those of the central government. The economic concerns of the republics were of lower priority than those of the USSR government, and all republic activities were checked and, if need be, amended from above. Further restraint was applied by the organs of the CPSU: Each republic but the RSFSR had a republic-level Central Committee, Politburo, and Secretariat subordinated to the Kremlin (the seat of the CPSU and Soviet government) in Moscow. Because the union republics were accountable for educational and cultural services, residents often identified them as defenders of republic interests and identities. This perception became highly important when Gorbachev’s reforms led to the weakening of the authority of the central administration in the late 1980s.

Beneath the union republics was an elaborate web of regional and local authorities. Their main duties were to deliver social services (such as health care and public housing) and in the countryside to supervise agricultural production. Ten union republics (all except the three Baltic republics, Moldavia, and Armenia) had regional subunits. These included the autonomous areas for ethnic homelands (autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okrugs) and two other types without ethnic coloration, oblasts and krais (territories). All told, the Soviet Union in 1989 encompassed, besides the 15 union republics, 38 autonomous areas and 120 oblasts and krais. At the most localized level, councils were in place for rural districts (3193 in 1989), towns and cities (2190), small urban settlements (4026), and villages (42,712). Again, all government bodies operated under the close watch of the apparatus of the CPSU.

Thank you all for your time.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 8:42 am on Nov. 18, 2002
Uh, RH, Iepilei was actually dead on in saying that the major problem in the USSR was agriculture. Soviet agripolicy was terribly inefficient your reference to collective farms further points out your ignorance of the history of your own country! Collective farms were run by the government and simply paid farmers lower wages but also allowed them to sell some of their crops for personal profit.

After that you go on to say that the USSR was a federalist democracy. [how old are you again?] Only in theorywas the USSR democratic or federalist.

The last constitution of the USSR, enacted in 1977, declared the CPSU “the leading and directing force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system.” Only the party could “guide the great endeavor of the Soviet people and place their struggle for the triumph of communism on a planned, scientific basis.” The CP, of course, consisted of only 5% of the population.

I can hear you now, "What about the Supreme Soviet?"
What kind of shitty history do they teach in your schools? The Supreme Soviet was nothing more than a rubber stamp for the CP. All its members were elected without competition, on slates carefully assembled by the party organs. It met for only several days per year. All votes were unanimous.

The Supreme Soviet also appointed the senior officials in the executive agencies of the government. The cabinet of department heads was known as the Council of People’s Commissars from 1917 until 1946 and the Council of Ministers thereafter. The chairman of the council (unofficially dubbed the premier), the ministers, and the immense bureaucracies that served under them had much everyday power, but answered in the end to the party and served at its pleasure.

Real final authority rested with the Politburo which had only 15 members. Decisions were made in secret--the people had no knowledge of who voted how or why. These decisions were then handed down to the Supreme Soviet and--as I've said before--ratified unanimously.

Now for the claim of federalism.

The 15 union republics had government structures, nominally elected by the population, that largely ran in parallel to those of the central government. The economic concerns of the republics were of lower priority than those of the USSR government, and all republic activities were checked and, if need be, amended from above. Further restraint was applied by the organs of the CPSU: Each republic but the RSFSR had a republic-level Central Committee, Politburo, and Secretariat subordinated to the Kremlin (the seat of the CPSU and Soviet government) in Moscow. Because the union republics were accountable for educational and cultural services, residents often identified them as defenders of republic interests and identities. This perception became highly important when Gorbachev’s reforms led to the weakening of the authority of the central administration in the late 1980s.

Beneath the union republics was an elaborate web of regional and local authorities. Their main duties were to deliver social services (such as health care and public housing) and in the countryside to supervise agricultural production. Ten union republics (all except the three Baltic republics, Moldavia, and Armenia) had regional subunits. These included the autonomous areas for ethnic homelands (autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okrugs) and two other types without ethnic coloration, oblasts and krais (territories). All told, the Soviet Union in 1989 encompassed, besides the 15 union republics, 38 autonomous areas and 120 oblasts and krais. At the most localized level, councils were in place for rural districts (3193 in 1989), towns and cities (2190), small urban settlements (4026), and villages (42,712). Again, all government bodies operated under the close watch of the apparatus of the CPSU.

Thank you all for your time.


quote: "Uh, RH, Iepilei was actually dead on in saying that the major problem in the USSR was agriculture."

If you agrees with him after reading my reply then you are damn fool.
USSR provided itself with the agricultural products of any kind, moreover it exported many agricultural goods to the other countries. To say the truth, it imported sugar from Cuba, but did this only for the supporting socialism over there, following the principle of proletarian internationalism. Soviet Union was one of the biggest sugar producer in the World, and really didn't need Cuban sugar. ( I can post a quote from Che's conversation with the one of the representatives of an african country, in which Che said that he was grateful to the USSR for supporting Cuba this way).

quote:"Collective farms were run by the government and simply paid farmers lower wages but also allowed them to sell some of their crops for personal profit. "

It is obvious that you don't know what you talk about, ignorant antieverything punk( BTW the signs of your ignorance are in your name).
There were two kinds of agricultural organizations in the Soviet Union:
1. KolHozes - Collective Farms
and
2. SovHozes- Soviet Farms.
The first were completely independent, when the second were accountable to the Soviet State. The latter type of the agricultural organization was considered as the advanced one, as it had all of the characteristics of the socialistic management.

quote:" After that you go on to say that the USSR was a federalist democracy. [how old are you again?] Only in theorywas the USSR democratic or federalist."

USSR was the federative and democratic state both De Facto and De Jure. Practice 100% conformed to the theory. If you read my reply till the end , then you will get the chance to notice how all of your arguements would be destroyed by the true knowledge.

quote:"The last constitution of the USSR, enacted in 1977, declared the CPSU “the leading and directing force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system.” Only the party could “guide the great endeavor of the Soviet people and place their struggle for the triumph of communism on a planned, scientific basis.” "

EXACTLY!

quote:"The CP, of course, consisted of only 5% of the population. "

There is no truth in this one, your statement consists of nothing, but a blatant lie. What bourgeois source did you use in order to get this poor number?
Actually, more than 50% of the Soviet people were the members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. All people studied the principles of the Marxism- Leninism at secondary schools , and those who entered the universities recieved the deep knowledge of the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and studied Scientific Communism. The most able of the students entered the Communist Party ( and they formed majority), those who were not the members still suported Soviet policies.

quote:"I can hear you now, "What about the Supreme Soviet?" "

Are you schizophrenic? I am really sorry for you, man.

quote:" What kind of shitty history do they teach in your schools?"

LOL.
Schools? What the hell are these?
I studied everything myself, on my own. I learned the most objective materials and have the materialistic understanding of the History. Thanks to the Soviets!

quote:" The Supreme Soviet was nothing more than a rubber stamp for the CP. All its members were elected without competition, on slates carefully assembled by the party organs. It met for only several days per year. All votes were unanimous.
The Supreme Soviet also appointed the senior officials in the executive agencies of the government. The cabinet of department heads was known as the Council of People’s Commissars from 1917 until 1946 and the Council of Ministers thereafter. The chairman of the council (unofficially dubbed the premier), the ministers, and the immense bureaucracies that served under them had much everyday power, but answered in the end to the party and served at its pleasure.
Real final authority rested with the Politburo which had only 15 members. Decisions were made in secret--the people had no knowledge of who voted how or why. These decisions were then handed down to the Supreme Soviet and--as I've said before--ratified unanimously. "

Each member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had the chances to get to the seat in the state organs, it all depended on his abilities and political skills.
Politburo's decisions were always very rational and objective; they were taken, considering the interests of the whole soviet nation.

quote:" The 15 union republics had government structures, nominally elected by the population, that largely ran in parallel to those of the central government."

Each of the Republics had it's own Constitution and legislature, own Soviet and own GenSec. In one word, each Soviet Republic had it's own government.

quote:" The economic concerns of the republics were of lower priority than those of the USSR government"

This statement is one of the most ignorant I have heard on these forums.
The economical development of each Soviet Republic was very important. The governments of the Republics always paid a great attention to the economical development of their Republic. It was important, because USSR wouldn't have been the most developed state in the world , if it have not had the developed Soviet Socialistic Republics. How do you expect the Union to be strong and the united state to be highly developed economically, if it has weak internal structure? The development of each Republic served the guarantee of the development of the whole Soviet Union.

quote:" republic activities were checked"

The center didn't need to check the activites of the Republics , as the true communists were at the top of the each. Don't try to present the colonial oppressed and poor republics. The situation was completly different to your hypothesis.

quote:"Each republic but the RSFSR had a republic-level Central Committee, Politburo, and Secretariat subordinated to the Kremlin (the seat of the CPSU and Soviet government) in Moscow. "

One more ignorant statement of yours. You really make me laugh!
Each Republic, but the RSFSR, had it's own Central Commitee and Secretariat. None of the Republics had it's own Politburo, not even RSFSR. Politburo ( Presidium) was the highest political organ of the whole UNION. The representatives of the different Republics were the members of Politburo at a different time.
So, your lack of knowledge resulted in the most SERIOUS MISTAKE of YOUR REPLY!

quote:" when Gorbachev’s reforms led to the weakening of the authority of the central administration in the late 1980s."

I will not be surprised if you do support this renegade, revisionistic bourgeois servant and the enemy of the Soviet State.

quote:" Beneath the union republics was an elaborate web of regional and local authorities. Their main duties were to deliver social services (such as health care and public housing) and in the countryside to supervise agricultural production. Ten union republics (all except the three Baltic republics, Moldavia, and Armenia) had regional subunits. These included the autonomous areas for ethnic homelands (autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okrugs) and two other types without ethnic coloration, oblasts and krais (territories)"

This statement perfectly describes the complex federative structure of the Soviet State.

quote:"Again, all government bodies operated under the close watch of the apparatus of the CPSU. "

You sounded like this:"Again, listen to my new bullshit!"
Now, listen to the truth...All governmental organs consisted of the Party Members, just remember what the Constitution said , and you will come to the conclusion that the Constitution was trully the Supreme Law of the Soviet State. Communists ruled the Soviet State in the interests of the Soviet people. Party or Communists it is all the same.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
SORRY IF SOME PARTS OF MY REPLY WERE VERY OFFENSIVE, I WAS JUST VERY ANGRY AT ANTI-EVERYTHING( this "everything" probably includes socialism, communism, anarchism, anacrho-communism et.c.), AS HE PISSED ME OFF CALLING ME DOGAMTIC AND RIDICULOUS. HE GOT THE APPROPRIATE REPLY.
THANK YOU!



(Edited by Revolution Hero at 1:52 am on Nov. 19, 2002)

[antieverything]

Ok...all that I can say is that I'm completely aghast at the total denial by Revolutionary Hero of every established truth and reality of the Soviet Union.

Denying everything doesn't make for a sufficient argument. Every "fact" you put forward to refute my well-researched and factual arguments was nothing but a lie...pure and simple. Again, how old are you?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 5:44 pm on Nov. 18, 2002
Ok...all that I can say is that I'm completely aghast at the total denial by Revolutionary Hero of every established truth and reality of the Soviet Union.

Denying everything doesn't make for a sufficient argument. Every "fact" you put forward to refute my well-researched and factual arguments was nothing but a lie...pure and simple. Again, how old are you?

Antieverything, you have just made the typical move of the loser. Hey, your king is checkmated! Do you deny this fact?

I didn't just denied your statements, but actually proved them to be incorrect. Read my reply more attentively and carefully and you will find that you have nothing to say against my strong arguements, I call them strong , as I spread the truth, unlike you.
You lied about the Soviets, and you just have lost one of the battles of the IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE, as the result of the numerous mistakes made by you. Sorry, man, wrong strategy!
Then be a man, and admit your defeat!

[antieverything]

You, my friend, are a sad little man.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 8:13 am on Nov. 19, 2002
You, my friend, are a sad little man.

That was another subjective opinion of yours.
You can't judge me, as you don't really know me.

[antieverything]

I refuse to allow this to turn into a mud-slinging competition. Let's just wait and see what everyone else has to say.

Besides...this is way off topic anyway. I think I'll go start another thread for this issue.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 8:28 am on Nov. 19, 2002
I refuse to allow this to turn into a mud-slinging competition. Let's just wait and see what everyone else has to say.

Besides...this is way off topic anyway. I think I'll go start another thread for this issue.

OK, start the new thread and post your arguements starting with :"Uh, RH, Iepilei was actually dead on in saying that the major problem in the USSR ......"; till it's end, and I will post my reply also without any changes.
Let the COMMUNITY decide!

P.S. Post it in "Politics".

[antieverything]

I'll post it all.

[Weidt]

Let me state a couple things in regard to the topic at hand.

I am a member of the Socialist Party of Michigan and some of our members are also Greens. I attend local Green meetings every month and work with them on anti-war rallies and other local activities. We have a very good relationship and share a commonality of opinions. However this depends on State and Local branches, as I hear some Greens dislike Socialists in other States, but thankfully the Michigan Greens are very welcoming of Socialists -- 5 Socialists ran as Greens in the last election, 3 being from the SP, 1 from Solidarity, and 1 from Left Turn.

As to our differences... the SP is for socialism, thus openly anti-capitalism. The GP is not openly against capitalism and many Greens do not oppose capitalism, but rather want a more just society -- European-style capitalism, or "social capitalism". They are a big jump Left of the Democratic Party for sure, but the SP is even further Left. Many Greens are former Democrats who have gotten tired of the right-wing drift within the Democratic Party.

In my opinion, Greens tends to be in a similar league as the Democratic Socialists of America, which retains some hope of reforming, or pulling, the Democratic Party to the Left. There are Greens who see the GP as simply serving such a purpose of "scarying" the Democrats into moving to a progressive Left stance -- something that has been tried since 1890s, which has done nothing and as we know, the Democrats have been moving more and more to the Right.

Yes, be critical of Greens, but be critical of all groups, ideas, and tactics. I like to think the Greens are watermelons -- Green on the outside, but Red on the inside -- they just need to rippen. :)

"We can't fight the far right [Republicans] by supporting the moderate right [Democrats]. The left did that in Germany in the 1930 elections and the moderate right they helped to elect soon handed power over to Hitler." - Howie Hawkins

[SonofRage]

Quote: from Weidt on 2:55 am on Nov. 19, 2002
I like to think the Greens are watermelons -- Green on the outside, but Red on the inside -- they just need to rippen. :)



That's a great analogy.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from Weidt on 7:55 am on Nov. 19, 2002
Let me state a couple things in regard to the topic at hand.

I am a member of the Socialist Party of Michigan and some of our members are also Greens. I attend local Green meetings every month and work with them on anti-war rallies and other local activities. We have a very good relationship and share a commonality of opinions. However this depends on State and Local branches, as I hear some Greens dislike Socialists in other States, but thankfully the Michigan Greens are very welcoming of Socialists -- 5 Socialists ran as Greens in the last election, 3 being from the SP, 1 from Solidarity, and 1 from Left Turn.

As to our differences... the SP is for socialism, thus openly anti-capitalism. The GP is not openly against capitalism and many Greens do not oppose capitalism, but rather want a more just society -- European-style capitalism, or "social capitalism". They are a big jump Left of the Democratic Party for sure, but the SP is even further Left. Many Greens are former Democrats who have gotten tired of the right-wing drift within the Democratic Party.

In my opinion, Greens tends to be in a similar league as the Democratic Socialists of America, which retains some hope of reforming, or pulling, the Democratic Party to the Left. There are Greens who see the GP as simply serving such a purpose of "scarying" the Democrats into moving to a progressive Left stance -- something that has been tried since 1890s, which has done nothing and as we know, the Democrats have been moving more and more to the Right.

Yes, be critical of Greens, but be critical of all groups, ideas, and tactics. I like to think the Greens are watermelons -- Green on the outside, but Red on the inside -- they just need to rippen. :)

"We can't fight the far right [Republicans] by supporting the moderate right [Democrats]. The left did that in Germany in the 1930 elections and the moderate right they helped to elect soon handed power over to Hitler." - Howie Hawkins



Greens do not oppose capitalism, but rather want a more just society

And you still say that greens are red inside? Listen to what you just said. Communist/socialist want to destroy capitalism and the bourgeois societys. The Greens are just as much as the enemy as the other piece of shit bourgeios partys. You kids are so confused it makes me sick!!

[antieverything]

Shut the fuck up and stick your mindless dogma up your ass, Butcher.

Seriously, what the fuck have you ever done to help the cause?

Are you reading anything we tell you? What the Greens support is mostly Socialism...they simply don't describe themselves as anti-capitalist. If they did, they wouldn't get anything done...we still can't beat the Soviet shadow on the name of Socialism.

While the Greens are out there in the line of fire-- standing in the path of the capitalist tank and actually getting results--you sit on an internet message board and denounce them for not being Marxists.

Start your own party, organize your own protests, connect with the workers, nominate a candidate and get ballot status in almost every state, and then go out and get 2% of the vote in a presidential election in one of the world's most anti-Left democracies...and do all of this with grass-roots organizing...then you will have a leg to stand on and I will listen to your attacks on the Greens.

Until then...shut your mouth.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 8:23 am on Nov. 20, 2002
Shut the fuck up and stick your mindless dogma up your ass, Butcher.

Seriously, what the fuck have you ever done to help the cause?

Are you reading anything we tell you? What the Greens support is mostly Socialism...they simply don't describe themselves as anti-capitalist. If they did, they wouldn't get anything done...we still can't beat the Soviet shadow on the name of Socialism.

While the Greens are out there in the line of fire-- standing in the path of the capitalist tank and actually getting results--you sit on an internet message board and denounce them for not being Marxists.

Start your own party, organize your own protests, connect with the workers, nominate a candidate and get ballot status in almost every state, and then go out and get 2% of the vote in a presidential election in one of the world's most anti-Left democracies...and do all of this with grass-roots organizing...then you will have a leg to stand on and I will listen to your attacks on the Greens.

Until then...shut your mouth.

quote: "Shut the fuck up and stick your mindless dogma up your ass, Butcher"

Hey, antieverything , are you that angry? As I remember, you used to be rational in all of your previous posts. You should say: "Excuse me, comrade TheButcher....."( as you, antieverything, behaved like an asshole) You better say it.

quote: " What the Greens support is mostly Socialism...they simply don't describe themselves as anti-capitalist"

If they don't describe themselves as anti-capitalists ( also they don't describe themselves as antieverything punks), then they can't be connected with socialism, no matter how you try to present it.

quote:"we still can't beat the Soviet shadow on the name of Socialism. "

Whom do you mean, by saying "WE"? Bourgeois bastards?

quote:" you sit on an internet message board and denounce them for not being Marxists. "


" The word is also the business"
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

quote:"then you will have a leg to stand on and I will listen to your attacks on the Greens. "

So, this was supposed to mean that you didn't listen to TheButcher during the whole debate. You are very ignorant, then.

quote:"shut your mouth."

Address the same to you, anti-communist bastard.
Go and read CarianB's thread, you will learn more , than you have learned during your whole lifetime.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from antieverything on 10:23 pm on Nov. 19, 2002
Shut the fuck up and stick your mindless dogma up your ass, Butcher.

Seriously, what the fuck have you ever done to help the cause?

Are you reading anything we tell you? What the Greens support is mostly Socialism...they simply don't describe themselves as anti-capitalist. If they did, they wouldn't get anything done...we still can't beat the Soviet shadow on the name of Socialism.

While the Greens are out there in the line of fire-- standing in the path of the capitalist tank and actually getting results--you sit on an internet message board and denounce them for not being Marxists.

Start your own party, organize your own protests, connect with the workers, nominate a candidate and get ballot status in almost every state, and then go out and get 2% of the vote in a presidential election in one of the world's most anti-Left democracies...and do all of this with grass-roots organizing...then you will have a leg to stand on and I will listen to your attacks on the Greens.

Until then...shut your mouth.


LOL!!!!!! Are you getting mad little boy? You know what little kid, I am the head of the communist club at my university. And we analyze every political party in the club and in political science. So don't tell me your hearsay on something you don't know shit about. Your not a communist your a green pussy and support a capitalist system. Enough said, green faggot!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree, on most aspects with the butcher. The green party wants something for America that cannot be attained succesfully. The Socialist party makes more sence. There is no way that the world is going to move into the future by de-industrialization. The green party, is going nowhere. Point weel made, comrade. It's great that revolution hero wants to lead a revolution in Russia. Tell us more please. What sort of Revolution, should we take this seriously?

[antieverything]

Wow...a Communist Club. I'm not suprised that you are the laughing stock of your University! You sit around and "analyze" things? Have you ever actually worked with the poor? Have you ever seen the inside of a prison? Have you ever done manual labor? Have you ever taken your beliefs into the real world and tried to do something that will help people?

I may only be 16 but for me the answer is YES to all of those questions. You just whine. Go kill a cop if you are such a hardcore revolutionary.

Word.

[Umoja]

Antieverythign is right. What has the Socialist Party done for the community? What it seems like to me is that most Republicrats get more positive things done then alot of Socialist because Socialist talk about what should happen and feel happy knowing that they have noble ideas, but so few people practice them.

[antieverything]

" The word is also the business"
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


I don't give a fuck what Lenin said. Talk is cheap...my respect goes to the guys who are actually in the trenches.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from antieverything on 12:23 am on Nov. 20, 2002
Wow...a Communist Club. I'm not suprised that you are the laughing stock of your University! You sit around and "analyze" things? Have you ever actually worked with the poor? Have you ever seen the inside of a prison? Have you ever done manual labor? Have you ever taken your beliefs into the real world and tried to do something that will help people?

I may only be 16 but for me the answer is YES to all of those questions. You just whine. Go kill a cop if you are such a hardcore revolutionary.

Word.


One of the main purposes of the club is COMMUNITY SERVICE! Which includes working with the poor. My minor in college is criminal justice and yes I have took dozens of tours in numerous prisons upstate. What is your point? Whats going to prison have to do with anything? There is nothing but the scum of the earth in prison. And did I ever say anything about being a hardcore revoltionary? And I just wine? Listen to yourself, what the fuck are you doing in your posts? WINE!!!! Your acting like a little child that lost a argument by calling me names. Just give up little boy!:biggrin:

[antieverything]

*ok...don't point out the spelling mistakes...don't do it*

Sorry about that...The scum of the earth, eh? The scum of the earth are out there running corporations...and the only threat to their continued soveriegnty here in the United States is the Green Party...not the Socialist Party, not some pissant Kommy Klub made up of Kollege Kids...the Green Party. If you want to change that, go ahead. Maybe I'll join you.

[Weidt]

Quote: from TheButcher on 4:55 pm on Nov. 19, 2002

And you still say that greens are red inside? Listen to what you just said. Communist/socialist want to destroy capitalism and the bourgeois societys. The Greens are just as much as the enemy as the other piece of shit bourgeios partys. You kids are so confused it makes me sick!!

I did not contradict myself, as I said Greens need to rippen into Reds. In other words, they are a party able to pull in progressive elements of the population who oppose the Democrats, and thus a viable place for spreading socialism and pulling Greens to socialism. It won't happen to all Greens, but some will come to realise that socialism is the goal -- I have gotten a couple Greens to join the Socialist Party and know a couple others who favour socialism, though remain active in the Green Party. It is simply a tactic in acheiving the most possible under capitalism.

Screaming about who is and is not staunchly anti-capitalist and pro-socialism is absurd. Such reasoning is exactly why the Left is fractured into so many small groups. No more schisms -- Socialists Unite!

Butcher, are you a member of the Socialist Party U.S.A.? If not, than it was inappropriate for YOU to even start this topic. If you are a member, than I think you need to re-read our principles and constitution and recognize that we are a multi-tendency party and your biased dogma is not representative of the Socialist Party and it is disgusting that you would even come on a forum of socialists and equate your views with that of the SP, thereby giving us a bad name.

For everyone, please read the Socialist Party USA website and make your own conclusions on our ideas, and not rely on the words of a lone person. In Michigan we are working towards a socialist alliance!

[antieverything]

Ah...Michigan and Vermont...they put the "Red" in the Red White and Blue.

[Umoja]

Most prisoners aren't the scum of the Earth, at least in the United States. The government uses Prisons as their forced labor camps, because under the 13th Ammendenment(Or was it another number) Slavery of prisoners is legal.

Is it any suprise that a large amounts of minorities are made into slaves? The Prison system is a key problem to our society, and although it has little effect on white economics, it makes a huge dent in many communties of color across the nation.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from antieverything on 10:42 am on Nov. 20, 2002

" The word is also the business"
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


I don't give a fuck what Lenin said. Talk is cheap...my respect goes to the guys who are actually in the trenches.


The words come first.
Then actions follow.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from Umoja on 8:54 pm on Nov. 20, 2002
Most prisoners aren't the scum of the Earth, at least in the United States. The government uses Prisons as their forced labor camps, because under the 13th Ammendenment(Or was it another number) Slavery of prisoners is legal.

Is it any suprise that a large amounts of minorities are made into slaves? The Prison system is a key problem to our society, and although it has little effect on white economics, it makes a huge dent in many communties of color across the nation.


What the hell are you saying? That the US government puts minorites in prison because they are minorites? LOL!!! Are you crazy? The scum that is in prison deserve to be there. If you have ever took a tour of a prison you would know that. And then you say they are slaves? They have TVs with cable, they have workout equipment and then you say they are slaves to the government.

[antieverything]

Butcher, you seriously need to seriously do some research on the sorry state of our criminal justice system.

[Umoja]

And the Prison system slaves also save the country millions by making liscense plates and other things to further our capitalist system. The labor done in these forced labor camps could instead be used as hard labor for community service or even pay for the unemployed, but it's more efficent to use Prison slave labor, because they don't have to pay them.

[antieverything]

I recommend you read "The Perpetual Prisoner Machine."

Also, read these:

http://www.yuksel.org/e/law/prison.htm

www.fojtulia.org (I'm personally involved in this one)

http://deepdish.igc.org/lockdown/

I don't want to look for any more but these should be a good jumping off point.

Good luck on your journey into the realities of the American criminal justice system.

[antieverything]

http://www.newaus.com.au/news166greens.html

that is some right-wing bs on the origional topic of the discussion.

[TheButcher]

I'm not going to bother to read any of that shit because more than likely it is all hearsay. I have taken over 4 criminal justice classes and a corrections class. I'm not going to read any liberal propaganda because I have seen the correction system with my own eyes and have studied it for over 2 years. I will give you a list of college course books later when I have more time.

(Edited by TheButcher at 3:10 am on Nov. 21, 2002)

[antieverything]

...suit yourself. Remember, though, the United States currently has more of its own citizens incarcerated than any other country at any time in history--including Stalin's USSR.

I seriously doubt that there is nobody in your Communist Club who can tell you what is wrong with our criminal justice system.

[TheButcher]

Of course there are flaws in the CRJ system, there is no denying that, on this I agree with you. And you are correct to say that the United States have more of its own citizens incarcerated than any other country. But why is that? First of all most of the inmates are repeat offenders. This just shows you that our(assuming you live in the US) laws are extremely liberal because criminals can break the law and then they think they will serve less than a year sentence (which is true). I will wright more tomorrow, I am so tired.

[Sol]

Why do you think most of these "criminals" are repeat offenders? They're drug addicts ie: non-violent offenders who we toss in prison for shooting up and snorting crack. Then what do we do? Turn them out on the street in the SAME SITUATIONS where they started using in the first place.

You're answer to this is to stiffen laws? Keep them in prison longer? Maybe execute drug dealers?

This is such a simplistic approach it's laughable. But then again, most of your ideas are.

[TheButcher]

First of all "Sol", I don't think they are repeat offenders I know they are. More than 95% of the inmates are repeat offenders. If you did some homework you would have known that! Your non-voilent offenders you speak of get four to five chances of clean themselves up and if they get arrested again for using thats when they get thrown in prison. They get so many chances (which is bullshit) and people still fuck up. Before you say I have a simplistic approach think before you type something like this. It is clear you are ignorant on the subject of the CRJ system!

[antieverything]

With mandatory minimum sentences, you only get one chance when it comes to a lot of drug offences. 40 years isn't going to "rehabilitate" anyone...you just come out as an old man with no future and no opportunities to turn your life around.

Even if a non-violent felon gets out with a resolve to turn themselves around it's next to impossible for this to happen. For example, if a someone convicted on drug-related charges wants to go to college, they are ineligable for financial aid--these rules don't apply, however, to murderers and rapists.

(Edited by antieverything at 9:03 pm on Nov. 21, 2002)

[Umoja]

Even when you take a Drug dealer off the street a new one takes his place. So that means theirs a problem with the society as a whole, and I fail to understand how you as a Communist couldn't see this. Crime is created under a capitalist system, because it further creates instablity in the lower, and occasionally middle class.

This isn't to say that crime doesn't exist at the higher levels though, but it is foolish not to see most crime is determined by class.

[antieverything]

I'll just say it. I don't believe you about 95% of prisoners being repeat offenders. Please provide me a source.

We do have a problem with repeat offenders but it isn't because our laws are too soft. On the contrary, they are some of the industrialized world's toughest. Europe doesn't have the problem with crime that we do and they don't have the insane punishment...you know this damn well.

You should know that the reason we have so many repeat offenders is that no sentence in our current system, no matter how long, will rehabilitate a criminal. You should also know that crime can only be stopped by destroying the conditions that breed it. Poverty. Racism. Hopelesness.
Read this... http://www.sentencingproject.org/brief/pub1036.pdf
[hr]
Here are some links about the prison labor issue. (scroll down to the bottom)

http://www.prisonactivist.org/prison-labor/

[Sol]

Um, Butcher, I wasn't disagreeing with you about repeat offenders.

It's interesting, though, that you're waving around your college courses and visits to prisons without stating ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove any point. 95% of the prison population are repeat offenders? Says who? Four or five chances to get clean? Give me examples. I'm surprised you've never heard of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing or Three Strikes.

The vast majority of our prison population are drug offenders; many of them, yes, are repeat offenders, usually not for the same crimes but for petty crimes. But, as I've said before, you can't expect someone to change when you imprison them, only to dump them right back into the same slums, the same economic and social hardships that had a large hand in their turn to narcotics.

It's a proven fact that imprisoning drug offenders does not help them kick the habit. That's why wealthier, mainly white coke heads don't go to prison- they go to rehab.

I ask you again- what is the alternative that Stalinists propose to decrease the prison population? Frankly, I'm very surprised that you keep ignoring the causes of drug abuse and petty crime ie: social and economic injustice and inequality. Even delusional social fascists usually acknowledge that people are a product of society, only minimally a product of their own short comings (many of which are caused by society). You and Rev Hero are always screaming about "bourgouise propoganda" and here you are spewing it out yourself.

[antieverything]

Heh...nice.

[Spiritual Minded]

i haven't read all replies, but from what i can see Umoja seem to get it right

[antieverything]

Don't assume...find out for sure.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from Sol on 4:13 am on Nov. 22, 2002
Um, Butcher, I wasn't disagreeing with you about repeat offenders.

It's interesting, though, that you're waving around your college courses and visits to prisons without stating ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove any point. 95% of the prison population are repeat offenders? Says who? Four or five chances to get clean? Give me examples. I'm surprised you've never heard of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing or Three Strikes.

The vast majority of our prison population are drug offenders; many of them, yes, are repeat offenders, usually not for the same crimes but for petty crimes. But, as I've said before, you can't expect someone to change when you imprison them, only to dump them right back into the same slums, the same economic and social hardships that had a large hand in their turn to narcotics.

It's a proven fact that imprisoning drug offenders does not help them kick the habit. That's why wealthier, mainly white coke heads don't go to prison- they go to rehab.

I ask you again- what is the alternative that Stalinists propose to decrease the prison population? Frankly, I'm very surprised that you keep ignoring the causes of drug abuse and petty crime ie: social and economic injustice and inequality. Even delusional social fascists usually acknowledge that people are a product of society, only minimally a product of their own short comings (many of which are caused by society). You and Rev Hero are always screaming about "bourgouise propoganda" and here you are spewing it out yourself.


"About 93% of correction inmates are repeat offenders. Also 96% of the inmates are imprisoned due to alcohol and drug related incidents." as stated from "Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial issues in Drugs and Society-Fifth Edition" page145.
Sorry I was off by 2% but there you go, there is my source on that issue.

When you speak of the prisoners being dumped out in the same slums. What are you implying? Are we talking about drug offenders or murders and rapist. If we are talking about drug offenders I am in favor of rehabilitation but I beleive that if they fuck up more than 1 time after they go through rehabilitaion thats when they should be imprisoned. I am late for my next class I will finish later on what I have to say.

[Umoja]

Hey Spirit, glad to see my views are respected... even if we moved away from our original intent of this topic.

[antieverything]

Back to the subject at hand.

I think that it is neccesary to point out that there are two separate green parties in America: The Green Party of the United States (moderate-leftist) and the Greens/Green Party USA (hardcore communist/socialist).

You can find the GPUS platform here: http://www.greenpartyus.org/platform/2000/index.html

You can find the G/GPUSA platform here: http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html

As you can see, the G/GPUSA platform is far more radical than either the SP-USA or the CP-USA.

For example:

From the SP Platform
The Extension Of Democracy From Politics To The Economy

Socialists believe that in order for political democracy to work well in a post-industrial society, it must be complemented by economic democracy. Socialists feel that unless at least "the commanding heights of the economy" are socially owned and democratically controlled, those corporations will use their enormous political and economic clout to circumvent and block political democracy. Accordingly, Socialists support such institutions as consumer cooperatives, workers' collectives and worker/consumer participation in the management of governmentally-owned industry, as steps toward a society in which political democracy is reinforced and strengthened by economic democracy. Socialists are also strong supporters of democratic planning in the economy and government.

From the G/GPUSA Platform
Economic Democracy
Eliminate Corporate Personhood: Legislation or constitutional amendment to end the legal fiction of corporate personhood.
End Corporate Limited Liability: Make corporate shareholders bear the same liabilities as other property owners.
Federal Chartering of Interstate Corporations
Periodic Review of Corporate Charters: A public corporate charter review process for each corporation above $20 million in assets every 20 years to see if it is serving the public interest according to social and ecological as well as financial criteria.
Strengthen Anti-Trust Enforcement: Require breakup of any firm with more than 10% market share unless it makes a compelling case every five years in a public regulatory proceeding that it serves the public interest to keep the firm intact.
Democratic Production: Establish the right of citizens to vote on the expansion or phasing out of products and industries, especially in areas of dangerous or toxic production.
Workplace Democracy: Establish the right of workers at every enterprise over 10 employees to elect supervisors and managers and to determine how to organize work.
Worker Control of Worker Assets-Pension Funds and ESOP Shares: Pension funds representing over $5 trillion in deferred wages account for nearly one-third of financial assets in the US. 11 million workers participate in employee stock-option plans (ESOPs). Reform ERISA, labor laws, and ESOP tax provisions to enable workers to democratically control their assets.
Democratic Conversion of Big Business: Mandatory break-up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale of the largest 500 US industrial and commercial corporations that account for about 10% of employees, 50% of profits, 70% of sales, and 90% of manufacturing assets.
Democratic Conversion of Small and Medium Business: Financial and technical incentives and assistance for voluntary conversion of the 22.5 million small and medium non-farm businesses in the US to worker or consumer cooperatives or democratic public enterprises. Mandate that workers and the community have the first option to buy on preferential terms in cases of plant closures, the sale or merger of significant assets, or the revocation of corporate charters.
Democratic Banking: Mandatory conversion of the 200 largest banks with 80% of all bank assets into democratic publicly-owned community banks. Financial and technical incentives and assistance for voluntary conversion of other privately-owned banks into publicly-owned community banks or consumer-owned credit unions.
Democratize Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve System: Place a 100% reserve requirement on demand deposits in order to return control of monetary policy from private bankers to elected government. Selection of Federal Reserve officers by our elected representatives, not private bankers. Strengthen the regional development mission of the regional Federal Reserve Banks by directing them to target investments to promote key policy objectives, such as high-wage employment, worker and community ownership, ecological production, and inner city reconstruction. It gets better too, if you would just bother to read the platform yourself I guarantee that you will be giddy with excitement about the insane radicalism of the GP Platform!

[antieverything]

It is important to point out that, although the G/GPUSA platform doesn't actually say this, that some of the steps that they mention would have to come before others...breaking up corporations would have to come before democratization.

Also, I thought that I might as well post the best part of the thing here.


Labor Law Reforms
…Repeal Repressive Labor Laws: Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, the Landrum-Griffin Act, the Hatch Act, and state "Right-To-Work" laws which have crippled labor's ability to organize by outlawing or severely restricting labor's basic organizing tools: strikes, boycotts, pickets, and political action.
A Workers' Bill of Rights: Enact a set of legally enforceable civil rights, independent of collective bargaining, which (1) extends the Bill of Rights protections of free speech, association, and assembly into all workplaces, (2) establishes workers' rights to living wages, portable pensions, information about chemicals used, report labor and environmental violations, refuse unsafe work, and participate in enterprise governance, and (3) establishes workers' rights to freedom from discharge at will, employer search and seizure in the workplace, sexual harassment, and unequal pay for work of comparable worth.
Expand Worker' Rights to Organize and Enjoy Free Time:
Majority Card-Check Recognition of Unions
Strong and Speedy Penalties for Employers Who Break Labor Laws
Ban Striker Replacements
Triple Back Pay for Illegally Locked-Out Workers
Unemployment Compensation for Striking and Locked-Out Workers
Binding Contract Arbitration at Union Request
Full Rights for Farmworkers, Public Employees, and "Workfare" Workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act
Ban Prison Slave Labor: End the use of US prisoners to produce goods and services for sale to the public.
Double-Time Pay for All Overtime
Prohibit Mandatory Overtime
6 Weeks Paid Vacation Annually in addition to Federal Holidays
1 Year Paid Educational Leave for Every 7 Years Worked
1 Year Parental Leave for Each Child Born with No Loss of Seniority
Right to Work Short Hours: No discrimination in pay and promotion against workers who choose to work short hours.

[redstar2000]

I remain unconvinced of the possibilities of revolution through electoral politics in capitalist countries.

Having said that, I have to admit that the G/GPUSA platform is, I would imagine, just about as far left as you can go and still HAVE a recognizably capitalist society.

In particular, elimination of the "limited liability" attribute of corporate structure is a dagger through the heart of modern capitalism; the consequence would be a society of millions or even tens of millions of small businesses.

From the standpoint of Marxism, such a "great leap backwards" is, to be polite about it, rather unlikely. Certainly, the capitalist class would MUCH prefer fascism and would try to impose it.

But a very interesting document, no question about it. And, yes, FAR to the left of many so-called "socialist" and "communist" parties. I wonder what the people who wrote/approved the G/GPUSA platform will do in the coming years and decades...when they see the bulk of their movement move "towards the center" to acquire votes. A new constituency for real communism, maybe???

[SonofRage]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:10 am on Nov. 23, 2002[brparties. I wonder what the people who wrote/approved the G/GPUSA platform will do in the coming years and decades...when they see the bulk of their movement move "towards the center" to acquire votes.

That's already kind of happened. In 2001, the G/GPUSA had a vote on whether to merge with the Green Party of the US but did not get the 2/3 majority that was needed. Consequently, a lot of people just jumped ship to the Green Party of the US. So now, even though the G/GPUSA is older, the Green Party of the US is now the larger and dominant party.

[antieverything]

A nation of small businesses controlled democratically is not capitalist at all. It is a form of socialism.

Of course these things won't happen peacefully. If they happen there will be a revolution...but the revolution will be a popular and just revolution. It will be FOR democracy, not against it.

[Umoja]

The problem with most revolutions is that they are led by one person, and as such that person feels they are best equipped to control the government. African Socialism is a good example.

[antieverything]

The revolution that I'm talking about comes when the rulers have lost the mandate of the people yet refuse to leave their positions of authority. Of course, things won't appear to be that clear-cut. They will impose fascism before they let that happen.

[antieverything]

http://web.greens.org/s-r/25/25-16.html

A good article on the Green's economics.

[antieverything]

Hell, here's the whole article list.

Several of these are very interesting and thought provoking.

http://web.greens.org/s-r/feature3.html