Three Years from Now There Will Be A New President

[Columbia]

All discussions on impeachment aside, which will, of course, still make my statement which is the title of this thread accurate, I set up this post to allow others to ARGUE this statement.

Here's what I mean:

I have been reading a lot of horseshit out there which argues the Bush Administration will prevent the election of 2008.

Does anyone truely believe this? If so, how would he do it.

My argument is that he CAN'T do it, and that it's impossible TO do it.

I'll explain why later on in this thread.

Also, at the same time, vote for who you believe will be the next Miss America. The pagent is coming up. I hope it's Miss Nebraska.

[LSD]

I have been reading a lot of horseshit out there which argues the Bush Administration will prevent the election of 2008.

Does anyone truely believe this?

No.


My argument is that he CAN'T do it, and that it's impossible TO do it.

No fucking kidding. The appearance of bourgeois legitimacy is all that keeps the American machine running.

So...what the fuck is the point of this thread?

[Columbia]

So...what the fuck is the poing of this thread?

If you agree with the statement, good. That's one more out there who agree with me.

But I believe I wrote clearly what the point of the thread is. So since you agree with me, relax.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Columbia
I have been reading a lot of horseshit out there which argues the Bush Administration will prevent the election of 2008.

Well it's possible, but extremely unlikely. Not because the Constitution may rule out such a thing, but rather because Bush seems not to have the (complete) support of the military.

If the 2008 "elections" were to be stopped, I suspect the "stoppers" would be high ranking people in the military who approve of Christian fascism (like Franco).

Bush (as much as he is "demonised") is pretty insignificant and has very little real power. The likelihood that Bush and co would mount a coup, is well.... very slim.

[Led Zeppelin]

Not because the Constitution may rule out such a thing, but rather because Bush seems not to have the (complete) support of the military.


Right, and not because the workers won't stand for it?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 21 2006, 06:28 PM

Not because the Constitution may rule out such a thing, but rather because Bush seems not to have the (complete) support of the military.


Right, and not because the workers won't stand for it?

Well we can only speculate as to what the American working class would stand for.

The British working class in the 50's (surprisingly) had absolutely no time for Mosley and working class militants took part in quite a few street battles in London (with the backing and support of the Jewish community).

What would be the response of the American working class to a coup? ....I don't know, but I suspect a large portion would fight it. The Spanish working class didn't just roll over for Franco and the German working class (mainly the unemployed) confronted the Brownshirts.

No working class has ever accepted fascism without a fight, the American working class (in my opinion) would be no different.

[Led Zeppelin]

That was my point, you said he won't prevent the elections of 2008 "because Bush seems not to have the (complete) support of the military", that's simply not true, actually I'm pretty sure he has complete support of the military hierarchy, he won't prevent the elections of 2008, i.e., abolish bourgeois democracy because the workers who have reached trade-unionist consciousness (the vast majority of the US) won't allow it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)that's simply not true, actually I'm pretty sure he has complete support of the military hierarchy[/b]

Well we'll never know the exact answer as to whether Bush has the complete support of the military hierarchy. It seems unlikely to me.

Bush hasn't been overly generous on military spending (he's spent, but not spent if you get me). Plus, the military hierarchy is probably pissed at the choice of destination for war. They could lose in Iraq, and that will probably hurt their "pride".


Marxism-Leninism
because the workers who have reached trade-unionist consciousness (the vast majority of the US) won't allow it.

Well I'd say that bourgeois "democracy" won't be "abolished" because it is under no (real) threat from either the American populace or outside forces. It would be pretty silly to try and fix something that ain't broke.

[Columbia]

Not because the Constitution may rule out such a thing, but rather because Bush seems not to have the (complete) support of the military.

Armchair Socialism:

All I can say to this is YOU WISH.

I realize it is the nature of the revolutionary left to discount the Constitution. I learned a long time ago that your hatred toward the American Constitution clouds nearly every argument you make in this regard.

You believe in your heart (regardless of 235 years of history) that the U.S. military is aching to become a right wing, pro-Christian organization that will invade the west and east coasts and force a form of military facisism on our population. It's amazing.

You know, one of the reasons that the radical left continues to lose time and time again is that it places its faith in the notion that Americans do not revere their Constitution, don't understand it, wouldn't fight for it.

Just think: If the organization of Maoists which began the World Can't Wait movement, began a year ago to impeach President Bush for unlawfull reasons, rather than lead a movement to "force him from office", AND if it had a different "front" organization (a non-commie one), imagine just how much further along they'd be to convince America of the ills of the current administration.

When the history of this is all written, we will find that one of the biggest blunders the far left played in this era was to try and reach a world stage rather than a national one.

Armchair, you're not alone. The biggest mistake so many here at this forum make is that they believe the Constitution aint worth squat, and you pay for it every time.

The "forced" resignation of President Nixon was based on the Constitution, not on the dream you lefties have that he didn't have enough support from the army to stay in power. Well, keep up these beliefs.

Right now, former Vice-President Gore is contemplating an open challenge to the American people to consider changing the leadership of Congress by voing Democrat in '06 and moving for impeachment proceedings. As it was done in '74, you know it could be done again. It may even be easier with a president who admits openly that he violated the law (ordering illegal wire taps without a judge's approval).

But I know, I know... keep up the "workers" rant. Don't have faith in the Constitution. See how far you get.

[Amusing Scrotum]

We appear to have early candidate for the Revolutionary Left "Tit of the Year" Award, 2006....


Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)All I can say to this is YOU WISH.[/b]

I "WISH" for a coup by Bush and co? ....if you are going to make baseless accusations, back them up with evidence.


Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)I learned a long time ago that your hatred toward the American Constitution clouds nearly every argument you make in this regard.[/b]

The Revolutionary Left "hates" a piece of paper??? :lol:

If you did a search of this board, I'd be surprised if the Constitution was mentioned that much.

Indeed I did a search.... http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...te=constitution (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=09789982fbad5281d86c678454515d47&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=constitution) ....and there were only 61 pages of threads in which the word "Constitution" was mentioned.

Now probably half of those concern the American Constitution, which means that on a board that probably has upwards of 50 active pages of threads every day, only 30 pages total concern the American Constitution. We're not as "clouded" as you assert.


Originally posted by Columbia
You believe in your heart

Is it even possible to "believe" in ones "heart"??? ....the heart is an organ which pumps blood, I don't think much "believing" goes on in it. :lol:


Originally posted by Columbia
....(regardless of 235 years of history) that the U.S. military is aching to become a right wing, pro-Christian organization that will invade the west and east coasts and force a form of military fascism on our population.

Well the military is a "right wing, pro-Christian organization" (you don't see them espousing the principles of labour and atheism now do you?).

Whether the military (more precisely the military hierarchy) wants to install "military fascism" is disputable. They certainly seem more than willing to do just that in other countries, but whether they would do that in America itself is, as I said, disputable.

The evidence of what the military has been willing to do in other countries, certainly suggests it wouldn't have a "principled" objection to doing the same in America itself.

I certainly wouldn't trust the ruthless bastards not to do it to you.


Originally posted by Columbia
If the organization of Maoists which began the World Can't Wait movement....

Offering tactical advice to the RCP now? ....well they need it, desperately.

However, your argument that they "failed" because they didn't appeal to the notion of constitutional law, is, well.... idealist.

They failed because at this point in time, the material conditions in which their message would be accepted and "taken on" by the American populace just don't exist.

Invoking the Constitution and changing the "front group" would have had little extra effect. Plus any positive effect it did have on "creating a movement" would likely be offset by the negative effects of not using an explicitly Communist (or in the RCP's case pseudo-Communist) message.


Originally posted by Columbia
we will find that one of the biggest blunders the far left played in this era was to try and reach a world stage rather than a national one.

Well we are Internationalists on principle. No (decent) Communist would invoke national pride or any other Nationalist blather to try and further "the cause", because that is fundamentally against what we stand for.


Originally posted by Columbia
The biggest mistake so many here at this forum make is that they believe the Constitution aint worth squat, and you pay for it every time.

Well thanks for your advice. :lol:

However you really shouldn't be giving the "enemy" pointers. :lol:

However, the Constitution is not "sacred". It was created by humans and it is broken by humans depending on the situation. There have been plenty of occasions where the American Government has violated (in one way or another) the American Constitution. Only a fool would assert otherwise.


[email protected]
not on the dream you lefties have that he didn't have enough support from the army to stay in power.

I remember reading somewhere that Nixon, just before he resigned, asked his Chief of Staff if the military could do anything. To which his Chief of Staff replied that the military wouldn't support him.

Do you really think that if Nixon had the full backing of the military and decided to launch a coup, that the Constitution would have stopped him? ....is the Constitution a "supernatural force"? :lol:


Columbia
But I know, I know... keep up the "workers" rant.

I tell you what, I'll stop "ranting" about the "workers", when you remove your head from the ass of the ruling class.

Deal???

[Columbia]

I remember reading somewhere that Nixon, just before he resigned, asked his Chief of Staff if the military could do anything. To which his Chief of Staff replied that the military wouldn't support him.

Fool. You read it here on the board in one of the occasions when the Constitution was mentioned. Ha!

It was written on the post a few months ago, and done to explain to Nixon that there WAS nowhere for him to go. It was a statement of near satire. A Twilight Zone reply showing him there was NOTHING he could do. You have to understand the context of the reply given to Nixon in the circumstance.

RE: Your only a fool would believe the government hasn't violated the Constitution, etc.

Actually, the "government" never has. Administrations and Congresses have, and they are not, by themselves, the government. The Supreme Court's interpretation of, let's say, George Bush's actions, based on legislation, is the government as a whole. Don't blame yourself on this one. Internationalists always get this one wrong. There (Read: Your) obsession with leaders makes you only see who the President is, and not the 108th Congress, or the Roberts Court, both co-equally important branches to our governmental system.

And yes, you ARE afraid of the piece of paper called the Constitution. It prevents your having a leftist revolution in America on a small level, due to the right to associaltion, contract and liberties of privacy. They KILL Maxist experimentation in America. What I mean by that is this:

Let's say a very liberal area, like the City and County of San Francisco, wanted to experiment with some form of socialsim in its jurisdiction. It couldn't. It would have to prevent the action of the capitalists and merchants in the city. While the federal government can do that, the state cannot.

Simply put (in defference to you, Armchair) any revolution in America would have to be the whole thing at once, rather than a state by state affair. Good luck on that one.

And one can go back to the 1880's , when the U.S. Army was wiping out Indians left and right, and had the Bible as part of its daily, mandated use, and had a society far more homogenious than today. Answer this one:

Why didn't the army, under let's say President B. Harrison (very pro-Christian, white male, big business, kill the Indians, expand America) order, with the military hierarchy, order a facism throughout America? If it didn't happen then you really believe it would happen now? You're fucking nuts.

Now, for President Bush to "prevent" the election of 2008:

It's NOT possible. I don't know where you live but it can't be America. Otherwise you would know that we vote as states, not as a nation. The states are broken into counties, and they run the elections. There are over ten thousand voting locations across the nation. You'd have to find 200,000 U.S. troops willing to kill their neighbors to prevent them from voting. That is not the psychology of the American soldier. But as I wrote earlier, since the left needs my help: Keep believing it is. Keep thinking they'd do it. Cripple your cause waiting for our great moment of destroying the Constitution. Ha! :lol:

We'll have 55 states before that happens.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)You read it here on the board in one of the occasions when the Constitution was mentioned. Ha![/b]

"Ha" my arse. I said "I remember reading somewhere".

However as an example it still stands. If the military had supported Nixon and he had decided to launch a coup, the Constitution would have had about as much importance as a puddle of piss.

Guns and tanks would have stopped the coup, not a piece of paper.


Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)Actually, the "government" never has.[/b]

Well I'm no "expert" on either Constitutional Law or the history of the Constitution, but it would seem rather strange if there had never been a case of the Administration violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court overlooking it.

Indeed aren't the wire taps an example of this? ....or how about the open (and proud) persecution of American Communists?


Originally posted by Columbia
And yes, you ARE afraid of the piece of paper called the Constitution.

Really???

Try this....

And yes, you ARE afraid of the piece of paper called the lardydardydaa.

Is that a true statement by me, of course not. Why? ....because there is no evidence of you being "afraid" of "lardydardydaa". So why don't you look through my posts and find evidence that I "fear" the Constitution. If you can't back your statement up, you should shut the fuck up.


Originally posted by Columbia
It prevents your having a leftist revolution in America on a small level....

Reading your post, it seems you don't have the faintest idea of what a revolution actually is.

It's not an "experiment" carried out by local counties. It is a (violent) uprising of an areas populace against those that Govern. In this kind of situation, the "laws of the land" have absolutely no relevance.

I mean, do you think the French Revolutionaries paid any attention to the Monarchy's rules?


Originally posted by Columbia
any revolution in America would have to be the whole thing at once, rather than a state by state affair.

Aside from your rather strange belief that a revolution stays within formal legality, you have taken two extremes here.

A revolution in one state, would (in all likelihood) be easily suppressed by the Police and the Military. However if a revolution happened in four or five states, would the Police and the Military be able to suppress it? ....that the Military is unable to handle Iraq, certainly suggests they wouldn't be able to suppress a radical and (heavily) armed populace in an advanced city.


Originally posted by Columbia
Why didn't the army, under let's say President B. Harrison (very pro-Christian, white male, big business, kill the Indians, expand America) order, with the military hierarchy, order a facism throughout America?

What a poor example. You take a situation where the military was acting like fascists and ask why they didn't "order a facism" (?).

Without taking into account the fact that there was no such thing as fascism then (it hadn't been "invented" as a concept). You are using this as an example of the Militaries "nobleness"???

A better example would be....

Why in 1821 (or whenever) when President X declared the removal of the Military, why didn't the Military revolt?

Of course, that has never happened, but it would be a suitable example.


Originally posted by Columbia
If it didn't happen then you really believe it would happen now?

Your optimism about the "impossibility" of fascism, is rather similar to the views of the German Social Democrats in the early thirties....

Hitler won't come to power, Hitler won't stay long, Hitler can't install fascism etc. etc.

Germany had a Constitution too. It didn't stop Hitler, and needless to say, I'm a little more cynical about the rotten bastards who rule us.


Originally posted by Columbia
It's NOT possible.

I agree....


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] Jan 21 2006, 06:27 PM
Well it's possible, but extremely unlikely.

Oops! :lol:


[email protected]
That is not the psychology of the American soldier.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's priceless.

What exactly do you think the American Military has done in other countries? ....what do you think it is actually doing in Iraq now?

On the issue of the American soldiers "psychology", I found this thread -- Your National Guard at "work", Busted in New Orleans! (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42795&hl=orleans) -- interesting....


New Orleans Times-Picayune
Seventh District New Orleans Police Capt. Bob Bardy said the detention of Sgt. Glen Wallace and Sgt. George Babers marks the second time police have stumbled across apparent looting by National Guard soldiers, a dismaying development in a city that remains dependent on military patrols to prevent theft in vast stretches of vacant neighborhoods.

It is the "psychology" of soldiers to loot and plunder, after murdering people of course.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Bush cannot stay past 2008 because of the amendment in 1951 stating that an American president has a maximum of 2 terms in office before he steps down. Bush doesnt have a choice.

[redstar2000]

It is rather odd to see someone from the right offering us advice...but not unexpected that the advice is rather poor.


Originally posted by Columbia
Right now, former Vice-President Gore is contemplating an open challenge to the American people to consider changing the leadership of Congress by voting Democrat in '06 and moving for impeachment proceedings. As it was done in '74, you know it could be done again. It may even be easier with a president who admits openly that he violated the law (ordering illegal wire taps without a judge's approval).

Your implication, if I don't mistake your views, is that we "ultra-leftists" should "get on board" this rather ramshackle train and ride it "until the wheels fall off".

I think this well-meaning recommendation demonstrates that you don't grasp that there are different kinds of leftists.

There are "leftists" who sincerely believe that the existing social order can be "made better" in incremental steps...get rid of this bad office holder, pass a law against this unfair labor practice, raise the minimum wage to this still ludicrously inadequate figure, and so on.

And then there is...the revolutionary left. Your browser does display the name of this site when you come here, right? :lol:

It's our general contention (with occasional trivial disagreements) that the existing social order in the U.S. is totally and irredeemably fucked!

The path of "incremental progressive change" is closed for good. What exists right now is open despotism.

Of course we still have the forms of a republic...just as Rome under the early emperors maintained the forms of their old republic.

Those of us who try to look at things from the standpoint of the Marxist paradigm are not bedazzled by forms.

It does not matter who is president, who is in congress, who sits on the supreme court, or what happens to be written in the constitution. Whenever people "get their knickers in a twist" over this kind of stuff, it only demonstrates that they're still in thrall to appearances.

The reality was decided at the end of World War II when pretty much all of the leading ruling class figures in the U.S. consciously decided for empire...and everything that's happened in this country since follows from that conscious decision.

Just as, in a sense, the Russian Revolution followed from the decision of Czar Alexander III in 1881 to "do whatever it took" to maintain the full power of the Czarist autocracy without any concessions to the "westernizers".

I daresay we "ultra-leftists" are in an even smaller minority now than Russian revolutionaries were in 1881. Most Americans now, like most Russians then, believe "in their way of life" with an almost superstitious intensity.

Your own posts illustrate that faith.

But the Russians learned what could be expected of a corrupt and incompetent despotism...disaster!

In a way, what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina is a "first installment" on what we can expect from our own despots at home.

Not to mention our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and future targets...which will progressively deteriorate into disasters.

Things are getting worse...and the clock is running.

It might take another 50 years or even more...but the fate of capitalist despotism in North America is sealed.

It's no longer a question of "if"...it's only a question of when.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Columbia]

Redstar2000:

I do understand the concept that there are generally two approaches to being left: One that merely means the "left" wing of the Democreatic party, and the other being the Revolutionary Left.

Needless to say, you and I probably disagree on a wide number of things. My view is that the United States of America is the greatest nation in history and the champion of individual human rights. That Jefferson's and Madison's words are alive today, regardless of who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avanue.

It is possible you are impressed by the work of our Constitutional framers and those living during the American Colonial period, or it is possible that you have no kinship to the views of these enlightened people. (I really don't wish you and I to get in to a boring argument about their faults, so please don't start. I was referring to their writings and arguments which I find far more Rovolutionary than Marx and Co.)

Know that I am not on the political"right" from the point of view of many Americans, nor am I on the left. But I understand in your view I'm some kind of lacky for the capitalist structure.

Of course I believe that instead of finding a wrecked Constitutional America in 50 years, I expect to find 55 states. As we both know, we disagree on many things.

What I question, and what I have to back up my questioning, is current history (the past 30 years or so), demonstrating that either view of the Revolutionary Left, whether the idea that the Revolution is an evolutionary process, or, BANG!, it will happen over the course of merely a few years and be like an earthquake, is totally absurd.

During the past 30 years, regardless of what the world has thought about the United States, those places calling themselves socialist, or based on socialism, have not evolved the way things were supposed to evolve.

Take Cuba, for example. There's an embargo between it and the U.S. Big deal. The Cuban government has a constitution. Let's say for the sake of argument that you believe Cuba is more "progressive" than the U.S. (That is, it has achieved more toward socialism than America.) Ok, I'll buy that. Now. Why hasn't Cuba become MORE socialist during the past 30 years?

Why have China and Vietnam come to look more like South Korea than South Korea? During the past decade in China, doctors have moved from their farm areas to the cities to, get this, make more money. Huh!?! Say What?!? In either the Big Bang or Evolutionary model I KNOW that the PRC can't claim that they get to leave the people living in the farms for the city to make more money. You know this to be so as well.

Originally, in the '50s and '60s, doctors (China cranked them out by the ton back then) the PRC had created a system that gave each farming community access to medicine, yearly checkups, etc. Now, China has "evolved" to a more market oriented system.

SOMETHING'S WRONG AND YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IT.

All of the fromer Soviet Republics are becoming more market oriented. OK, so there's no more USSR. Fine and dandy. But WHERE is the part of the USSR that was worth saving? Who was around in '89 - 92 to say, "Well, here's what worked out well for us, and we should keep it." There appeared to be no baby to throw out with the bathwater, all of it was shit. Otherwise they would have saved something.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Let me ask you something else. On what do you base this 50 year analysis of yours? I keep asking people for a timeline around here and no one will give it to me. Fine. But someone should be able to tell me what will happen to cause people to abandon our current Constitutional system?

So far, there's no nation doing to it: A) So differently than us, and B) So much better than us that would cause all of us to end Federalism.

And if you base your analysis on the end of crude oil, or something like that, watch out. Then your making a basis ONLY on that product, and if a suitible substitute comes along you're back where you started.

So I've given you two problems to solve: One impossible and one totally speculative:

First, you gots to tell me what the hell is going on in China and Vietnam, where neither of these socialist naitons appear to be "evolving" to ANYTHING that looks like the end or property ownership and why not?

Second, you gots to tell me WHY America will be so horrible to live in in 2056, and how it's gonna get that way.

Remember that history is on MY side, not yours.

I say we'll have 55 states; you say we'll be history.

Since our creation, we've done nothing but expand, while at the same time, our enemies have become our allies. Even those who call themselves socialist do so to maintain a party aparat which is an organization of graft and greed, grabbing what it can while the world around it is free enterprise. (I refer to China, and the "socialist (joke)" nations of Africa.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:48 AM

Remember that history is on MY side, not yours.

How so?

Be brief if you wish.

[bezdomni]

Problem with the US Constitution - Americans don't read it.

Also, you seem to forget that the american system of government is theoretically based on the right to revolt. ie, when the government is no longer representative of the people (ie, working class) and when it can no longer be changed by voting (ie, the wealthy controlling political parties, union busting, no paper trails...whatever) the people have the obligation to overthrow the government and set up a new one. I realize that Locke was an ardent supporter of capitalism, but if you just take the word "property" out of his treatsies, he begins to sound somewhat like Marx. Again, I realize that this is somewhat a bastardization of Lockean ideas, but the right to revolt is deeply imbedded in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

You also don't understand that there is ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION of the constitution. I could think that the right to bear arms means I have the right to lop off a bear's arms and keep them in my room. I can think that "no state shall make any law that infringes upon a contract from another state" (paraphrased) as a support for gay marriage. That's why we have a supreme court - to INTERPRET the constitution when there is LITTLE IF ANY legal precedent.

Thomas Jefferson didn't know that we were going to have new phone technology, so there is obviously nothing about phone tapping in the constitution. The right to privacy is highly debated as being either implied or non-existing. We had Katz v. United States to decide that our phone lines are protected by the fourth amendment.

In short, the problem isn't with the constitution as much as it is with capitalism, which is inherent to Locke (government's most sacred duty is to protect private property). There are obvious clashes between Marxism and Lockeanism - and those are the only problems that Marxists have with the US constitution.

[Zingu]

Take Cuba, for example. There's an embargo between it and the U.S. Big deal. The Cuban government has a constitution. Let's say for the sake of argument that you believe Cuba is more "progressive" than the U.S. (That is, it has achieved more toward socialism than America.) Ok, I'll buy that. Now. Why hasn't Cuba become MORE socialist during the past 30 years?

Why have China and Vietnam come to look more like South Korea than South Korea? During the past decade in China, doctors have moved from their farm areas to the cities to, get this, make more money. Huh!?! Say What?!? In either the Big Bang or Evolutionary model I KNOW that the PRC can't claim that they get to leave the people living in the farms for the city to make more money. You know this to be so as well.

Originally, in the '50s and '60s, doctors (China cranked them out by the ton back then) the PRC had created a system that gave each farming community access to medicine, yearly checkups, etc. Now, China has "evolved" to a more market oriented system.

SOMETHING'S WRONG AND YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IT.

All of the fromer Soviet Republics are becoming more market oriented. OK, so there's no more USSR. Fine and dandy. But WHERE is the part of the USSR that was worth saving? Who was around in '89 - 92 to say, "Well, here's what worked out well for us, and we should keep it." There appeared to be no baby to throw out with the bathwater, all of it was shit. Otherwise they would have saved something.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Let me ask you something else. On what do you base this 50 year analysis of yours? I keep asking people for a timeline around here and no one will give it to me. Fine. But someone should be able to tell me what will happen to cause people to abandon our current Constitutional system?

So far, there's no nation doing to it: A) So differently than us, and B) So much better than us that would cause all of us to end Federalism.

And if you base your analysis on the end of crude oil, or something like that, watch out. Then your making a basis ONLY on that product, and if a suitible substitute comes along you're back where you started.

So I've given you two problems to solve: One impossible and one totally speculative:

First, you gots to tell me what the hell is going on in China and Vietnam, where neither of these socialist naitons appear to be "evolving" to ANYTHING that looks like the end or property ownership and why not?

Second, you gots to tell me WHY America will be so horrible to live in in 2056, and how it's gonna get that way.

Remember that history is on MY side, not yours.

I say we'll have 55 states; you say we'll be history.

Since our creation, we've done nothing but expand, while at the same time, our enemies have become our allies. Even those who call themselves socialist do so to maintain a party aparat which is an organization of graft and greed, grabbing what it can while the world around it is free enterprise. (I refer to China, and the "socialist (joke)" nations of Africa.

Such countries weren't even capitalist to begin with, neither were they "socialist". I'm tired of explaining this anyways, so I'll leave it to someone else to repeat the same old answer. :(

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)My view is that the United States of America is the greatest nation in history and the champion of individual human rights.[/b]

Do you imagine that you're the first to make such claims? In the first couple of centuries of the Roman Empire, numerous ideologues proclaimed the "Roman virtue" of "enlightened rule"...bringing "civilization" to the whole world.

Or simply read Rudyard Kipling for a British version of your sentiments.

Has there ever been a "modest" Empire that didn't boast of its accomplishments? :lol:


That Jefferson's and Madison's words are alive today...

Jefferson was an agrarian aristocrat who sometimes got carried away with his rhetoric; he actually despised the earliest corporations in American history. Not to mention the fact that he had no constitutional right to make the "Louisiana Purchase"...there was nothing in the constitution then (or now) that authorizes the executive branch to purchase territory from other countries. :lol:

And Madison was a real "can of worms". He's credited with the authorship of the "Bill of Rights" but then there's this...


Wikipedia
In 1812, President Madison proposed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. “An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” approved February 2, 1813 by Congress.

So much for the "separation of church and state". :lol:

A close look at our "founding fathers" reveals that far from being "demigods", they were actually a rather typical sample of ruling class scoundrels...long on lofty rhetoric and quick to secure personal advantage.

In that sense, they certainly "live today". :o


But I understand in your view I'm some kind of lackey for the capitalist structure.

"Lackey" is too strong a term...unless your day-job is with some D.C. lobbying outfit. Probably like most people on the political right (who aren't rich), you just haven't really thought about politics and economics in a serious way.


Of course I believe that instead of finding a wrecked Constitutional America in 50 years, I expect to find 55 states.

Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan, right? :lol:


During the past 30 years, regardless of what the world has thought about the United States, those places calling themselves socialist, or based on socialism, have not evolved the way things were supposed to evolve.

An accurate observation. All of these "socialist" countries are now either capitalist or becoming so.

What happened?

Back in the early decades of the 20th century, a fellow by the name of V.I. Lenin decided that Marx "was wrong" and that it really "was possible" to have socialism in backward countries that had never really developed capitalism.

Being a rather clever fellow, he led a successful coup in 1917...which he and his followers called a "socialist revolution". His prestige skyrocketed among all the enemies of capitalism; by 1922 or so, everyone was a Leninist.

In the developed capitalist countries, Leninism never amounted to much as a revolutionary force...though in a few countries, some Leninist parties became large reformist parties.

But in some backward countries, Leninism "worked"...like China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and even, in a sense, Cuba. Those countries were able to throw out foreign imperialists and develop modern economies.

Here's the kicker. When you set up a state monopoly capitalist system, you necessarily create a cadre of management to run it. And, over time, these managers develop the desire to own what they manage...to actually become capitalists themselves.

This is a change in material conditions that trumps all the red flags and "Marxist" rhetoric that ever existed.

By the way, capitalists understand that phenomenon quite well; it's the whole rationale behind giving top management "stock options"...making an employee a "part owner" himself.

So, 20th century Leninism actually confirms Marx. You really can't "leap over capitalism" and "build socialism" in backward countries.

The consequence is always despotism followed by capitalism.

Communists in this century still face the challenge of fully grasping that "lesson of history"...but we're getting there. :D

On this board, for example, defenders of Leninism are, well, on the defensive. They scramble rather desperately for arguments to "spin" defeat into "victory"...but with shrinking success.

The prestige of Lenin and all he stood for is vanishing before their eyes. The "winner effect" has become the "loser effect".

And who needs that? :lol:


On what do you base this 50 year analysis of yours?

I expect the initial proletarian revolutions to take place exactly where Marx said they would; England, France and Germany...to be quickly joined by the rest of western Europe. Because the viability of capitalism in all those countries is visibly decaying. I think within a half century, capitalism will be finished there.

In North America, it will take somewhat longer...the two big obstacles are (1) the military successes of the Empire; and (2) religion. I expect the American Empire to run into more and more military disasters and that religion will continue to decline...though at a relatively slow pace compared to western Europe.

A patriotic or superstitious proletariat cannot make a successful communist revolution. But as soon as those obstacles self-destruct, the path lies open.


Second, you gots to tell me WHY America will be so horrible to live in in 2056, and how it's gonna get that way.

When I was a callow youth, it was possible to get a good job paying union wages with healthcare and a pension and job security.

All that is going and will soon be gone forever. In fact, even things like social security and free public education will be disappearing by 2056. Most of us are going to find ourselves living like the working class lived in the 2nd half of the 19th century..."dog eat dog and the devil take the hindmost".

But we are not 19th century proletarians trained in submissiveness to our "social betters". In fact, we increasingly despise servility...in the workplace or anyplace else.

The second half of the 19th century did see a substantial number of violent strikes and, in 1877, something almost like a revolution.

Just imagine what the second half of this century is going to be like. :D


Remember that history is on MY side, not yours.

Said the Roman Emperor Julian to the Gothic ambassador in 360CE or so. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tungsten]

redstar2000

But we are not 19th century proletarians trained in submissiveness to our "social betters". In fact, we increasingly despise servility...in the workplace or anyplace else.
What makes you think they're going to lovingly embrace servility to you- or each other?

[Columbia]

OK, I'd like to thank everyone for their input. I'll leave some final remarks before I begin a new thread on a new topic:

Remember the issue was (originally) about the World Can't Wait organization, which seeks to "unseat" the sitting president by nebulous means. A very wacky concept.

It is probably meaningless to most Commies here that I am not a right winger. I do believe, however, in the general priciples set forth by the framers of the Constitution. I also believe that while the average American may not read the Constitution as night table reading, most know its general priciples, or have some idea of them.

Most Americans know they have rights. The vast majority know about Miranda, know that there is no "state religion" (with the exception of Texas, who's state religion is High School Football), and that the president has great powers but not absolute power.

Someone wrote here that America was founded on the right to rebel and revolt. Of course, and I support such a right. (I'm what you'd call pro-Union, not pro-Capitalist. My only real interests is preventing a splintering of the United States into lesser territories. If people were to democratically choose some kind of socialism, fine by me.)

I do not see America as an empire, though I realize many here do. That is meaningless to me. If it is an empire it's a pretty lousy one. I remember what Hannibal Lecter said in one of the movies, "Half measures are the worst of curses", so something like that.

To stay focussed on the topic: I have been in tough with the Maoists who founded World Can't Wait, and have watched their slow resignation into a better understanding of the Constitution. Our system of choosing executive authority is very weird by many standards: We're more or less stuck with the same person we choose for four years at a shot. If he's lousy, we still got 'em, unless he breaks the law, and that's very difficult to prove. It only happened once. (I count Nixon because his resignation was based on his impending impeachment and enevntually being found guilty. So it worked, just pre-maturly.)

If the president's a good one, or an outstanding one, they can't serve for more than 8 years (10 years on a technicality), and in the scheme of things that's a very short time.

I did receive some interesting comments about "giving you on the Left some help." Yeah, that's what I was doing.

I don't know how this current issue re: President Bush and domestic spying will play out, but for those of us who have watched it unfold, it has been interesting to see impeachment being mentioned here and there, and begin snowball. Will that snowball melt or get larger, time will tell.

But I did bring up something that I had not planned, which I realize the Revolutionary Left can't explain:

You had a great socialist empire (the term "Empire" far better describes the former U.S.S.R. than the United States of America any day) and you pissed it away. I don't care what the excuses, the Soviet Union failed socialism.

China had it going there for about 30 years or so, and changed to free markets.

Vietnam, though a bit young at this commie game, also allows a great deal of market activity based on decisions made by individuals.

And the African "socialist" nations are a joke, and the headquarters for Murder, Inc.

It seems that no one can do it. You can't find a few hundred thousand commies to fill up an area of land and live in such a way as to be an example for us.

It was a group of Americans who challenged an empire in the 1770's, and that resulted in people all over the world challenging empire.

It was a group of Americans who challenged racist laws and built a civil rights movement, and theat resulted in people throughout Africa making themselves independent. (That's right, there's an important link between the U.S. civil rights movement, and African Independence.)

Where was the world wide movement to "copy" Soviet Russia? Outside of them EXPORTING it to Africa and Asia. Why don't I read in the paper about happy socialists running around some country and saying the hell with America, the Soviets, the religous nuts, etc.

Perhaps Venezuela may become this. I don't know enough about the people there to comment.

(Please don't embarrass yourselves by commenting that the world would isn't going socialist because of the United States. If we can't stop terrorists runnig around Iraq, then we can't lead a world wide kill any commie pollicy and be effective.)

About a year ago, near the time President Bush began his second term, there were a lot of radical Lefties who swore that Bush would "do something" to prevent a 2008 election, or repeal the 22nd Amendment so that he could once again be a candidate, or some such nonsense.

Now, no one says any such thing.

And those who did say things of this nature are now investigating what laws he may have broken during the recent and ongoing wiretaps of Americans without judicial authority, and supporting impeachment proceedings.

Once more, the Consitution has triumphed over the intent of the Left to lead us from the rule of law, to the rule of the mob, and ultimately facism.

[KC]

Remember the issue was (originally) about the World Can't Wait organization, which seeks to "unseat" the sitting president by nebulous means. A very wacky concept.

Yes, Maoists are a pretty wacky bunch. :lol:


I do believe, however, in the general priciples set forth by the framers of the Constitution.

Which principles would those be? Could you go into detail?


know that there is no "state religion"

The unofficial national religion is quite obvious.



Someone wrote here that America was founded on the right to rebel and revolt.

Does it matter what it was founded on if it isn't applicable today?



But I did bring up something that I had not planned, which I realize the Revolutionary Left can't explain:

You had a great socialist empire (the term "Empire" far better describes the former U.S.S.R. than the United States of America any day) and you pissed it away. I don't care what the excuses, the Soviet Union failed socialism.

China had it going there for about 30 years or so, and changed to free markets.

Vietnam, though a bit young at this commie game, also allows a great deal of market activity based on decisions made by individuals.

And the African "socialist" nations are a joke, and the headquarters for Murder, Inc.


This is a problem for the Leninists to address, not the Marxists and certainly not just communists in general. These were Leninist/Maoist institutions. They were by no means communist, nor were they even close to achieving socialism. So please, aim this question at Leninists/Maoists and not at communists in general (and certainly not just the "revolutionary left").

Also, why do you think the USSR is a better example of an empire than America?



It seems that no one can do it. You can't find a few hundred thousand commies to fill up an area of land and live in such a way as to be an example for us.

We don't need to. The development of capitalism will turn people into communists (whether they realize it or not). I suggest you educate yourself on marxist economics. A great book to read would be "Marx's Kapital for Beginners" by David Smith and Phil Evans. It's a very easy read and isn't that long.



It was a group of Americans who challenged an empire in the 1770's, and that resulted in people all over the world challenging empire.

Actually it was a group of British rebels.



It was a group of Americans who challenged racist laws and built a civil rights movement, and theat resulted in people throughout Africa making themselves independent. (That's right, there's an important link between the U.S. civil rights movement, and African Independence.)

Yes but this has nothing to do with American government. This was a group of people fighting against the government. It took a couple decades but eventually the push for civil rights against the government by the people was strong enough to force the government to do something about it. Thousands died.



Where was the world wide movement to "copy" Soviet Russia? Outside of them EXPORTING it to Africa and Asia. Why don't I read in the paper about happy socialists running around some country and saying the hell with America, the Soviets, the religous nuts, etc.

Ask the Leninists.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Columbia+Jan 24 2006, 04:17 PM--> (Columbia @ Jan 24 2006, 04:17 PM)And the African "socialist" nations are a joke, and the headquarters for Murder, Inc.[/b]

Which nations are you referring to here???


Originally posted by [email protected]
Once more, the Consitution has triumphed over the intent of the Left to lead us from the rule of law, to the rule of the mob, and ultimately facism.

You really need to learn what fascism actually is, the history of fascism and why it came about.


Lazar
Actually it was a group of British rebels.

Mainly Welshmen with the backing of the French Monarchy. :o

[Columbia]

Lazar,

I really intended to end my commentary at this thread. But you asked some specific questions, and, frankly, you have dealt honestly and with insight with your points, so I'll take on a few of them. (Then I have to tan and write a report.)

QUOTE

Remember the issue was (originally) about the World Can't Wait organization, which seeks to "unseat" the sitting president by nebulous means. A very wacky concept.

Yes, Maoists are a pretty wacky bunch.

Hee Hee


QUOTE
I do believe, however, in the general priciples set forth by the framers of the Constitution.

Which principles would those be? Could you go into detail?

See below.



QUOTE
know that there is no "state religion"

The unofficial national religion is quite obvious.


For an "unofficial" religion, Judeo-Christianity (let's call it) is really doing a bad job. The media's filled with sex, schools raise foul mouthed jerks, and the Bible's been banned from the courtroom and schools, and the words "Under God", just may be removed from our Pledge of Aliegence, if our Ninth Circuit Court has its way. Even the Ten Commandments are suspect and limited to display purposes within a larger message. Public schools can't have prayers and on and on and on. You'd think our unofficial religion would do better.

QUOTE

Someone wrote here that America was founded on the right to rebel and revolt.

Does it matter what it was founded on if it isn't applicable today?


OK, now I'll discuss those principles of the Constitution that are alive and well today (as you asked above) and answer this also.

It is ironic that you make this statement RIGHT NOW. Once more we are being revisited with the big issues of 1770's and 1780's. What is executive authority? How should it be checked? How should government needs be balanced against citizens' rights? How can an overreaching executive be checked by the courts?

If you think these things aren't alive and well and applicable today, baby, you haven't picked up a newspaper for a month!

I could go on but because you are some type of communist (Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyite, Stalinist, what have you) you are obsessed over materialism. If there ain't a workers' issue attached to the question, you couldn't care less. I do understand that. I mean, I see how a person could live their lives and define all politics based on who owns the tools of production, etc. You must allow me that I have lived my life and see things the way I see them as based on my frame of reference. I will allow you the same.



QUOTE

But I did bring up something that I had not planned, which I realize the Revolutionary Left can't explain:
You had a great socialist empire (the term "Empire" far better describes the former U.S.S.R. than the United States of America any day) and you pissed it away. I don't care what the excuses, the Soviet Union failed socialism.
China had it going there for about 30 years or so, and changed to free markets.
Vietnam, though a bit young at this commie game, also allows a great deal of market activity based on decisions made by individuals.
And the African "socialist" nations are a joke, and the headquarters for Murder, Inc.

This is a problem for the Leninists to address, not the Marxists and certainly not just communists in general. These were Leninist/Maoist institutions. They were by no means communist, nor were they even close to achieving socialism. So please, aim this question at Leninists/Maoists and not at communists in general (and certainly not just the "revolutionary left").
Also, why do you think the USSR is a better example of an empire than America?


Well, you have me on a lot of this, because I don't follow this Leninists v. Marxists stuff. I'm sure there's an important difference. But I suppose what binds them is the belief that democracy will always be exploited by the ruling class, and that oppession will be the result. As I cling to a repubican form of democracy, I would be out of my forte in examining your arguments.

If you cannot see what the Soviets did after WWII to the outlying nations, then you are not being fair to yourself about noting the expansion of the USSR. While the US took lands from Indians, the membership of every state but Hawaii was based on a desire to become a state. The same could not be said for the Soviets and the satalite nations. That was genuine force. and Hawaii could be argued either way.


QUOTE

It seems that no one can do it. You can't find a few hundred thousand commies to fill up an area of land and live in such a way as to be an example for us.

We don't need to. The development of capitalism will turn people into communists (whether they realize it or not). I suggest you educate yourself on marxist economics. A great book to read would be "Marx's Kapital for Beginners" by David Smith and Phil Evans. It's a very easy read and isn't that long.


OK, now this is interesting. It appears that all you have to do is "kick back" and wait for the big event to occur, which you believe is inevitable. So, stop moaning about capitalism. Egg it on! Urge it so you can get to socialism ASAP. (Hee Hee)

QUOTE

It was a group of Americans who challenged an empire in the 1770's, and that resulted in people all over the world challenging empire.

Actually it was a group of British rebels.

Not a chance. After 150 years, those colonists became Americans. Otherwise NO ONE ever gets to be an American. Italian Americans would merely be Europeans living in America, 6th generation. Black Americans would be Africans who should not be here, and who should get the hell on a boat or plane immediately. (Wonder why they stay?) Even American Indians would be "Former residents of Asia, 12,000 years ago."


QUOTE

It was a group of Americans who challenged racist laws and built a civil rights movement, and theat resulted in people throughout Africa making themselves independent. (That's right, there's an important link between the U.S. civil rights movement, and African Independence.)

Yes but this has nothing to do with American government. This was a group of people fighting against the government. It took a couple decades but eventually the push for civil rights against the government by the people was strong enough to force the government to do something about it. Thousands died.


Here you are wrong on two levels. The first one is understandable. We are really not a "government" as much as we are a people, who believe our government is our functionary; our servant. These people did not fight against the American government, they fought against STATE governments, and eventually lost. And it was the federal government which made it possible for them to win.

The Civil Rights Act was not a state measure, but a federal one. Brown v. Board of Education was a federal court ruling, telling a state what it had to do. President Kennedy's order to the state of Mississippi compelling it to open the college to black Americans WAS DEFINATELY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT WORK! (You should note that this began in the 1860's, and was "betrayed" in the election of 1876. But that's another story. There were black Senators and Congressmen in the 1860s! But it was betrayed (my word for it.)

Our system is weird, and hard for many to understand. The government doesn't hand everything out, and you often have to fight for things. What the government tires to do is balance various issues and give people a fair place to aire their views, even against the government.

I realize that there's a basic disagreement about America when it comes to my views v. this forum, but I am in the Opposing Views section, so...



QUOTE

Where was the world wide movement to "copy" Soviet Russia? Outside of them EXPORTING it to Africa and Asia. Why don't I read in the paper about happy socialists running around some country and saying the hell with America, the Soviets, the religous nuts, etc.

Ask the Leninists.

Are there any still around?

[Columbia]

Armchair Socialist wrote:
You really need to learn what fascism actually is, and the history of fascism and why it came about.

Listen, kid: If Joe Stalin wasn't a facist to you merely because he lived in Russia instead of Spain, Italy or Germany, you need to go back to school.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Columbia+Jan 24 2006, 07:17 PM--> (Columbia @ Jan 24 2006, 07:17 PM)Listen, kid: If Joe Stalin wasn't a facist to you merely because he lived in Russia instead of Spain, Italy or Germany, you need to go back to school.[/b]

"Listen, kid", I really do suggest you learn what fascism is (and how to spell it). You can even start with wikipedia....


Anti-Communism
The Russian Revolution also inspired attempted revolutionary movements in Italy with a wave of factory occupations. Most historians view fascism as a response to these developments, as a movement that both tried to appeal to the working class and divert them from Marxism. It also appealed to capitalists as a bulwark against Bolshevism. Italian Fascism took power with the blessing of Italy's king after years of leftist-led unrest led many conservatives to fear that a communist revolution was inevitable.

Throughout Europe, numerous aristocrats, conservative intellectuals, capitalists and industrialists lent their support to fascist movements in their countries that emulated Italian Fascism. In Germany, numerous right-wing nationalist groups arose, particularly out of the post-war Freikorps, which were used to crush both the Spartacist uprising and the Munich Soviet.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Anti-Communism).

[Columbia]

Armchair:

I'm a poor speller. I gotts a computer to do that for me.

So, I opened the dictionary on my desk and opened it to fascism:

the principles or methods of a government or a political party favoring rule by a dictator, with a strong control of industry and labor by the central government, great restrictions upon the freedom of individuals, and extreem nationalism and militarism.

This was, of course, the very essense of Joseph Stalin. If you disagree with that notion, we have read from different history books.

Of course I realize that this was not the usual for the history of the USSR. It was an oligarchy.

But lets take a look at the definition above and see how much of it applies to the former Soviet Union:

rule by dictator: in Stalin's particular case, check
strong control of industry and labor by the central government: 1925 - 1985, check
great restrictions upon the freedom of the individuals: 1935 - 1978 at the least, check
extreem nationalism and militarism: 1945 - 1978, check


My point Armchair was that a State Socialism based upon a dictatorship of the Party, eventually becomes or produces a fascist dictator.

It just so happens that the USSR had an example beyond anyone's imagination.

And killing tens of millions of your own people isn't too much of a help for the USSR's image along these lines as well.

[KC]

OK, now I'll discuss those principles of the Constitution that are alive and well today (as you asked above) and answer this also.

It is ironic that you make this statement RIGHT NOW. Once more we are being revisited with the big issues of 1770's and 1780's. What is executive authority? How should it be checked? How should government needs be balanced against citizens' rights? How can an overreaching executive be checked by the courts?

If you think these things aren't alive and well and applicable today, baby, you haven't picked up a newspaper for a month!

This has nothing to do with the right to rebel and revolt, as you claim what this country was founded on. Did you know it's illegal to hold a protest without a permit?




I could go on but because you are some type of communist (Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyite, Stalinist, what have you) you are obsessed over materialism.

Marxist, and you should be "obsessed over materialism" also. That is, if you care to hold rational debate.


Well, you have me on a lot of this, because I don't follow this Leninists v. Marxists stuff. I'm sure there's an important difference. But I suppose what binds them is the belief that democracy will always be exploited by the ruling class, and that oppession will be the result.

The difference is the fact that Marxists believe that the proletariat will revolt on its own as a result of their own material conditions for living. Marxists don't attempt to convince the proletariat to revolt; Leninists do. Marxists don't call for the same type of socialism as Leninists do. Marxists call for directly democratic government and the dictatorship of the proletariat. For more info on the dictatorship of the proletariat and Marxist socialism, there's an entry in my blog that explains it pretty well. Marxists believe that the revolution will start in the first world as a result of the development of capitalism. Leninists believe that it will start in the third world as a result of the working conditions.


As I cling to a repubican form of democracy, I would be out of my forte in examining your arguments.

A faux democracy.



If you cannot see what the Soviets did after WWII to the outlying nations, then you are not being fair to yourself about noting the expansion of the USSR. While the US took lands from Indians, the membership of every state but Hawaii was based on a desire to become a state. The same could not be said for the Soviets and the satalite nations. That was genuine force. and Hawaii could be argued either way.

The USSR was a military empire just as much as the United States is an economic one (although it is becoming increasingly more difficult to hide it behind a cloak of legitimacy).



OK, now this is interesting. It appears that all you have to do is "kick back" and wait for the big event to occur, which you believe is inevitable. So, stop moaning about capitalism. Egg it on! Urge it so you can get to socialism ASAP. (Hee Hee)

Again, I suggest you educate yourself on Marxist Economics.



Are there any still around?

Yep.

[Columbia]

Lazar,

QUOTE
OK, now I'll discuss those principles of the Constitution that are alive and well today (as you asked above) and answer this also.
It is ironic that you make this statement RIGHT NOW. Once more we are being revisited with the big issues of 1770's and 1780's. What is executive authority? How should it be checked? How should government needs be balanced against citizens' rights? How can an overreaching executive be checked by the courts?
If you think these things aren't alive and well and applicable today, baby, you haven't picked up a newspaper for a month!

This has nothing to do with the right to rebel and revolt, as you claim what this country was founded on. Did you know it's illegal to hold a protest without a permit?

OK,

Just to help you out here, two things:

The right to overturn a government memorialized in the Declaration is philosophy which morally justifies the act. Needless to say, it's up to the individuals living at the time, and the history books afterward, to determine whether the action was justified.

Rebelling/Revolting/Formenting a Revolution is different than protest. It matters nothing for law and statute, and makes an enemy of those who would deliver the message of the state to those in revolt. If you're rebelling, who cares about permits, etc.

If you wish to protest, then the Supreme Court has ruled that TIME, PLACE and MANNER are relevant factors to consider.

There's a lot of caselaw surrounding this stuff. Obviously, when, where and the method of protest are all things that can be reasonably regulated. Courts sometimes come down on the side of the state, and sometimes on the side of the citizen applying to protest.

VIEWPOINT is USUALLY (NEARLY ALWAYS) not a matter to consider. Generally, if you can convey a message in one local you can convey the opposite message in the same local.

Also, if your event will draw 20,000 people to Chico, California, Chico should be able to hit you with a bill in the permit for police, traffic and toilet issues. Just because you want to make a statement doesn't mean I should HAVE to listen to you, or pay for your statement.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)So, I opened the dictionary on my desk and opened it to fascism....[/b]

Well you'll run into trouble getting a quick reference for a complicated social, political and economic system from a dictionary. There's only so much information that can be contained within the entry for one word.


[i]Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)If you disagree with that notion, we have read from different history books.[/b]

Well it seems we have been "read from different history books", I mean what are we supposed to make of this statement....


Originally posted by Columbia
Of course I realize that this was not the usual for the history of the USSR. It was an oligarchy.

Are you saying "Stalin's Russia" was an oligarchy???

From wikipedia....


Originally posted by Oligarchy
Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to become inheritors of the power of the oligarchy often at some sort of expense to those governed, as some claim has recently occurred in the U.S.A. In contrast to aristocracy ("government by the 'best'"), this power may not always be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group.

A society may become an oligarchy by default as an outgrowth of the shifting alliances of warring tribal chieftains, although any form of government may transform into an oligarchy at some point in its evolution. The most likely mechanism for this transformation is a gradual accumulation of otherwise unchecked economic power. Oligarchies may also evolve into more classically authoritarian forms of government, sometimes as the result of one family gaining ascendancy over the others. Many of the European monarchies established during the late Middle Ages began in this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Now leaving aside the argument that all Governments are oligarchies, how in the world have you come to the conclusion Russia was an oligarchy under Stalin?

For a start, by "Western" standards the Russian rulers (high up Party members) were not that privileged. Their economic clout was virtually non-existent and the "ruling circles" didn't necessarily produce the new rulers (Stalin was a peasant and Khrushchev worked in industry in his youth).

We can go into this more if you wish?


Originally posted by Columbia
rule by dictator: in Stalin's particular case, check

Even Stalin's power is often over emphasised. He did "get rid" of his main rivals (Bukharin and Trotsky) but the "Central Committee" still had some clout and Stalin didn't always get his way.

Plus of course, Stalin didn't actually ascend to the "throne" until around 1933 (I think). Before then he wasn't in control and there were many internal disputes within the upper circles of the Bolshevik Party (Socialism in one country etc.).


Originally posted by Columbia
strong control of industry and labor by the central government: 1925 - 1985, check

Well the Russian economy was "opened up" by Lenin with the NEP (in 1923 I think) and then in 1956 (I think) they were opened up further by Khrushchev. The dates may be a bit out, but that's what happened.

It was only really under Stalin (and the "five year plans") that the economy was really strongly controlled, but if you look at the process of "Primitive Capital Accumulation" in Western countries, you'll see the economies there were very tightly controlled as well.

Plus, the "strong control of industry" stuff is, in my opinion, a bit of a (libertarian Capitalist) myth. In Nazi Germany foreign companies (particularly American) operated freely and made huge profits.


Originally posted by Columbia
great restrictions upon the freedom of the individuals: 1935 - 1978 at the least, check

Well again, during the process of "Primitive Capital Accumulation" (economy development) freedoms are suppressed. However it was most likely far better to be a Russian worker during this process than a British worker during the same process (which happened in Britain a century earlier).

Again though, the lack of freedom in Russia is over exaggerated. My mother (for instance) spent every summer (from aged 8 to 25) in "Communist" Poland under Party rule.

And I can safely say that the lack of freedom that "Western history" talks about, certainly wouldn't have allowed for half of the stories I've heard about what my mother and her cousins did.

Really the only time I'd say there was a (really bad) restriction of freedom, was during the Civil War and during the Second World War.

Of course a lack of freedom (free to do what?) is always reprehensible, but Russia wasn't especially worse than anywhere else (think what happened to American lefty's in the 40's and 50's) and was certainly no where near to Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy.


Originally posted by Columbia
extreem nationalism and militarism: 1945 - 1978, check

Well you've got your dates wrong for a start. The "Nationalist period" was during the Second World War and the big military spending happened after 1950.

In both cases reasonable excuses (not fascist ideology) can explain these things.

The first being a German invasion (think how much Nationalism was conjured up after September 11th and that hardly threatened the American State).

The second being (real or perceived) fear of American invasion. Particularly the fear of Nuclear War.

Also, a lot of Russian Military spending took the form of aid to guerrilla groups fighting horrendous regimes backed by America.

If you were to ask me who out of Russia backing the Sandinistas' or America backing Somoza was "acting like fascists". I think you'd guess the answer pretty easily. Indeed I think most (rational) people would support the Sandinistas' over Somoza.
____

It really does show how poor using dictionary definitions are, that every definition (bar the first, there's never been a visible dictator) can be applied to America, yet only the most excitable people would call America fascist.


Originally posted by Columbia
....eventually becomes or produces a fascist dictator.

Again you really need to read about fascism and actually how "fascist dictators" come about.


[email protected]
It just so happens that the USSR had an example beyond anyone's imagination.

Perhaps in the "imagination" of a few right wings hacks, for reasonable people, no.


Columbia
And killing tens of millions of your own people isn't too much of a help for the USSR's image along these lines as well.

That again is a highly contested thing. No one (really) knows how many people were killed by Stalin. Indeed they've created the term "democide" to describe what the deaths actually were.

However under the definitions of "democide", Winston Churchill would be responsible for the 1.2 million people who died in Kenya's Gulags during the Mau Mau Wars.

Plus Reagan would be responsible for the 2 million dead Nicaraguans and Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon for the millions of dead Vietnamese and Nixon would also be responsible for the deaths of the 600,000 to 1.4 million Cambodians.

Yet I wouldn't call any of these people "fascists", because fascism has a specific meaning that shouldn't be used to describe everything you don't like.
____

Plus what you'd also have to explain is why if Stalin was a fascist, was Russia the only country (before 1938) actually fighting fascism?

[Columbia]

Sorry I threw so much at you. What I wrote (poorly) was that after Stalin, the USSR became an oligarchy. Stalin was the fascist, and then the rest were part of various oligarchy.

You asked "freedom to do what?"

Truthfully, I don't know. You'd have to ask the tens of millions of people who immigrated to America why they did it.

Then you'd have to millions, er I mean, tens of thousands, er, I mean hundreds, er I mean 2 British ex-patriots, who left western-Europe to emegrate to the USSR.

I guess that's where this ends, isn't it.

One of the things you and I keep on returning to is the definition of fascism, and your hoping that I would accept a more technically correct definition for it, as opposed to me more, oh, protetariat definition of it. (Just a joke.)

The people of the world have voted with their feet.

Millions have come to America and still come; Tens of thousands nationalize every year.

No one can touch that.

the poorest worker who was highly class consious in 1955 would be more likely to emegrate to America than anywhere else.

Just funny, huh?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)What I wrote (poorly) was that after Stalin, the USSR became an oligarchy.[/b]

Yet unless you're using the argument "all Governments are Oligarchies", I really don't see how Russia could be one.


Originally posted by Columbia+--> (Columbia)Stalin was the fascist, and then the rest were part of various oligarchy.[/b]

Yet Khrushchev (who succeeded Stalin) was a factory worker who couldn't read or write until 1918 (I think). Hardly the same as being born into a rich family and then going into the circles of power like your father before you, like say George Bush jnr. :lol:


Originally posted by Columbia
You'd have to ask the tens of millions of people who immigrated to America why they did it.

I wouldn't say (in most cases) it's "freedom" they emigrate for, rather a higher standard of living. For instance I've heard American prisons are considered a step up by some immigrants.


Originally posted by Columbia
Then you'd have to millions, er I mean, tens of thousands, er, I mean hundreds, er I mean 2 British ex-patriots, who left western-Europe to emegrate to the USSR.

Are they official figures? :lol:

I don't think anyone would contest that more people left Russia for Europe and America than went there during that period from Europe and America. However that wasn't because of "freedom", it was (mainly) because people could get a better standard of living in the Advanced Capitalist countries.

Russia was still developing, and its standard of living was therefore below the developed countries (the exception being that the Russian healthcare system was more widely available and more useful than the American healthcare system).


Originally posted by Columbia
The people of the world have voted with their feet.

Don't be so silly. People leaving a country doesn't make it a "fascist country". As I said earlier....


Armchair [email protected] 24 2006, 10:18 PM
....fascism has a specific meaning that shouldn't be used to describe everything you don't like.

There is a purpose to "technical meanings".


Columbia
the poorest worker who was highly class consious in 1955 would be more likely to emegrate to America than anywhere else.

Actually, Western Europe and Australia are more likely destinations.

[redstar2000]

Here are some threads about the "World Can't Wait" campaign at NYC Indymedia...

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/63674.html

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/63724.html

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif