The Cult of Che Guevara

[Communism=Utopia]

http://www.slate.com/id/2107100

well, i couldn't post this article in a post about el che because i wasn't allowed to, but i just wanted to show the truth about el shit...

and please, please, please, dont freaking come with the same bullshit, OHH ITS YANKEE PROPAGANDA!!! listen for once accept the fact that we have freaking freedom of speech in a country called America for god's sake!! HELLO Motorcycle Diaries even won an Oscar

[black magick hustla]

who fucking cares

Most people in the forums don't take che-worshippers seriously.

[which doctor]

What do you expect from bourgeois news?

[redstar2000]

Another bourgeois ideologue condemns Che Guevara.

What a surprise! :lol:

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

[Communism=Utopia]

"Another bourgeois ideologue"

awwww :( , thats right i forget that you guys are the oppressed proletariat, RIIIIIIIGHT!! lmao ;)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:14 AM
"Another bourgeois ideologue"

awwww :( , thats right i forget that you guys are the oppressed proletariat, RIIIIIIIGHT!! lmao ;)
What do you expect?

The bourgeoisie glorifying people who advocate their destruction?

Sure buddy. :lol:

[RedStarOverChina]

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster.
I'll write the rest of the article for this talentless writer:

Cuba is bad. Communism is slavery. Capitalism is NOT slavery. Capitalism good.

[JudeObscure84]

Actually it was written by Paul Berman, a democractic socialist.

[Communism=Utopia]

don't worry man, anything that challenges these people's theoretical point of view is in their own words "propaganda" , lmao.....everything that is opposing is "ahhh imperialist propaganda" , so yeah we never speak the truth heheheee :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

While Che idolization gets on my nerves, as with idolizing anyone, this is just pathetic.


To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams,"

Yes because he didnt want 3 Vietnams because it would cause the destruction of the imperialist American state, he wanted 3 Vietnams because he wanted lots of people to die :lol: What nonsense.

[JudeObscure84]

Che Guevarra was a stalinist at one point. He was also frustrated by the politburo on his visit to the USSR. But still he was a hardened revolutionary guerilla that discriminated heavily against the rich. I dont know why he opted to eliminate class struggle by trying to eliminate a class altogether.

I believe there are several anarchist critiques of Che. I will find and post.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:51 AM
Che Guevarra was a stalinist at one point. He was also frustrated by the politburo on his visit to the USSR. But still he was a hardened revolutionary guerilla that discriminated heavily against the rich. I dont know why he opted to eliminate class struggle by trying to eliminate a class altogether.

I believe there are several anarchist critiques of Che. I will find and post.
Yeah, che was an authoritarian.

However, that article is extremely badly written, and it is filled with bourgeois rhetoric.

Che considered himself a "communist", of course he is going to discriminate the rich.

[вор в законе]

Actually it was written by Paul Berman, a democractic socialist.

Tony Blair is Democratic Socialist as well.

He is the leader of the Labour party which is a member of the Socialist International. :D

[JudeObscure84]

Tony Blair is Democratic Socialist as well.

He is the leader of the Labour party which is a member of the Socialist International.


One of my fav. politicians. So....by your smile is that bad thing?

[JudeObscure84]

Yeah, che was an authoritarian.

Extremely Stalinist, militant and sadistic. Read any of his writings. His compassion was reserved only for the poor.


However, that article is extremely badly written, and it is filled with bourgeois rhetoric.
....to a Marxist it is.


Che considered himself a "communist", of course he is going to discriminate the rich

I would hope to a commie...discriminate yes, kill no. Just distribute thier wealth.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:25 AM
His compassion was reserved only for the poor.


Yeah, and whats wrong with that?

Che was a brave man with many admirable qualities but as all of us he was human and therefore flawed. What is the point of bashing him? It will accomplish you nothing.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:40 AM
don't worry man, anything that challenges these people's theoretical point of view is in their own words "propaganda" , lmao.....everything that is opposing is "ahhh imperialist propaganda" , so yeah we never speak the truth heheheee :lol:
Do you have any other replies than this or are we done yet?

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:31 PM
Do you have any other replies than this or are we done yet?
I think he's shown us the full extent his rhetorical abilities.

[AdamCecil]

I think the writer forgets that Che was only a man, and wished to be treated as such, as can be seen by his last words...

[JudeObscure84]

Yeah, and whats wrong with that?

I dont favor eliminating class warfare by eliminating an entire class.


Che was a brave man with many admirable qualities but as all of us he was human and therefore flawed. What is the point of bashing him? It will accomplish you nothing.

The same can be said about Osama Bin Laden. Im realyl not trying to bash him. I loved the Motorcycle Diaries and understood his pain for the poor. But the romantisizing of his image is going a bit much.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+--> (Atlas Swallowed)Che was a brave man with many admirable qualities[/b]

JudeObscure84
The same can be said about Osama Bin Laden.
:blink:

[Communism=Utopia]

tell me what admirable qualities Che had that differ from Osama Bin Laden Srna, please , if you find this to not be true and instea of putting this face :blink: , why don't you enlighten us and tell us the admirable qualities that Che had that are not like Osama Bin Laden's?

[FULL METAL JACKET]

The only similarity you can come up with is they both wanted to unite "their" world. Che wanted to unite Latin America which is the idea I like from him.

Bin Ladin wants to unite all Muslims and get rid of Jewish people.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Considering these forums are from che-lives.com your argument is understandable. However as it has been pointed out, you might be barking up the wrong tree. There are a percentage here that support Che to some extent, that much is true, but is a minority that idolise him. Many might do this when they arive here, but the other forums tell a different picture much of the time.

Che was charasmatic, and this was in a way that surpasses the "charisma" that Churchill or Hitler for that matter manipulated for various ends. It was inspiring to those around him in his life, and what has become to be the Che "phenomena" is merely an extension of this.

Most people here do not support such romanticising of anyone, it kind of goes against the equal sentiments of some.

As for the articles, saying it is propoganda doesn't mean a lot. I bet that if you read quotas from the USSR it would be "propoganda."

Not all reports are purely propoganda, they just exagerate or underplay aspects, or they imply a context for a comment that would seem ridiculous after further reading (knowing this isn't likely).

This isn't always the fault of the author either. How things are to be taken depends largely on the impressions of the writer, prior to starting research.

[black magick hustla]

Sorry but I had to reply to this:



Extremely Stalinist, militant and sadistic. Read any of his writings.

What is wrong with being militant?

If you are a revolutionary, you are supposed to be militant. Revolutionaries come to the conclusion that the only way to achieve change is through violence-

I wouldn't shed a tear if a CEO in his nice clothes was placed into eternal sleep by a bullet in the head.

I would also be glad to see all the adult neonazis hanged from the same tree.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

What is wrong with being militant?

If you are a revolutionary, you are supposed to be militant. Revolutionaries come to the conclusion that the only way to achieve change is through violence-

I wouldn't shed a tear if a CEO in his nice clothes was placed into eternal sleep by a bullet in the head.

I would also be glad to see all the adult neonazis hanged from the same tree.

No offense but you say those things as if your really going to do it. We all know your not so chill out.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by FULL METAL [email protected] 5 2006, 10:33 PM
^ No offense but you say those things as if your really going to do it. We all know your not so chill out.
I wouldn't probably do them, but I am just saying I would just be glad if someone did them.

Besides who knows, I think I would do alot of crazy things if there wasn't a police protecting them.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Yet if there was no cops all the ceo's will send death squads tracking down communists :lol: Both sides will be at it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by FULL METAL [email protected] 5 2006, 10:37 PM
Yet if there was no cops all the ceo's will send death squads tracking down communists :lol: Both sides will be at it.
I don't think that in the midst of a revolution, dead-squads are going to be that useful against hordes of people. :)

Remember Nicolae Caecescue (s?)? :lol:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:01 PM
tell me what admirable qualities Che had that differ from Osama Bin Laden Srna, please , if you find this to not be true and instea of putting this face :blink: , why don't you enlighten us and tell us the admirable qualities that Che had that are not like Osama Bin Laden's?
Well, for example he... err.. wait, I'm getting to it.. oh, right, he didn't blow up the World Trade Center and killed thousands of innocents! :lol: :lol: Idiot.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

lmao ^^^^

well, i personally think that Che isn't admired because of the things he did (because half the people who idolize him know his actual deeds, heck people probably don't even know he was in Africa), but rather he is admired by what he stood for, his opposition to the "mighty" USA, and well that resembles Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. the list can go on....so rather Che is admired for his rebellious attitude and well in those grounds you might as well admire Bin Laden as well, i have to agree on that...

[JudeObscure84]

The only similarity you can come up with is they both wanted to unite "their" world. Che wanted to unite Latin America which is the idea I like from him.

Bin Ladin wants to unite all Muslims and get rid of Jewish people.

Che was an upper middle class Med student who took a joy trip around the Latin world only to witness corruption and poverty. This scrambled his brains and he became an idealistic militant fighter that wanted to elminate an entire class of people; the rich, in favor of the poor, because in his eyes they were wronged could do no wrong. He devoured the Communist Manifesto and the writings of Lenin and Stalin.

Bin Laden was an uber-millionare playboy who took a spiritual journey around the muslim world to realize that his people were enslaved to autocratic regimes and secular tyrants. So he became a wahaabist islamist and devoured the books of Sayid Qubt and the militant passages of the Quran. He wanted to eliminate an entire class of people; non-muslims.

The both killed civilians and eliminated opposition. The similarities are very eerie. I mean look they both believed that the US supported or supports autocratic regimes subject to US interests. They both wanted to eliminate this in favor of a united Communist or Islamist banner. They both hated liberal democracy and a liberal economy. And they are both ideolized by the poor in thier country.

Islamism is like a freak liberation theology.

[JudeObscure84]

If you are a revolutionary, you are supposed to be militant. Revolutionaries come to the conclusion that the only way to achieve change is through violence-

I wouldn't shed a tear if a CEO in his nice clothes was placed into eternal sleep by a bullet in the head.
.


Neither would a militant Islamist. Militant Islamists come to the conclusion that western democracy has failed and violence is the only way to change the status quo and re-create the Kaliphate. The Kaliphate is the only way for thier to be social justice because Allah states in his holy book that Sharia Law is the only means of true social justice.

[LoneRed]

There are some members on this forum who do tend to have a personality cult around Che. I mean they have a whole forum for Che. Che joined the revolution for his country, and to help his people. He only started becoming socialist after such things were over

[JudeObscure84]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3022358.stm

Former Communist guerilla and terrorist Carlos the Jackel becomes a Muslim.


A convert to Islam since his imprisonment for three murders, Sanchez preaches "revolutionary Islam" - which is the title of his book - as the new, post-Communist answer to what he calls US "totalitarianism".


Revolutionary Islam, he argues, "attacks the ruling classes in order to achieve a more equitable redistribution of wealth" and Islam is the only "transnational force capable of standing up the enslavement of nations".

[JudeObscure84]

Che joined the revolution for his country, and to help his people. He only started becoming socialist after such things were over

Che was not Cuban. He was a white middle class argentine.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

A convert to Islam since his imprisonment for three murders, Sanchez preaches "revolutionary Islam" - which is the title of his book - as the new, post-Communist answer to what he calls US "totalitarianism".

lol, US totalitarianism hehehehehe

anyways, the way i see it , is that all these people are or were trying to play Robin Hood in a real sinister kind of way i guess.....its almost as if they never knew poverty existed in Che's case for example.....

and Bin Laden actually got radicalized i believe by either one of his brothers or a cousin i don't remember, i have his biography, but either way when he started out in his "quest", we supported him , because he was fighting the same enemy we were fighting , which was of course the USSR in the height of the Cold War. The only think is that when this was over, he was like "so what the heck do i and all the people that are under my command do now?". So we the americans were the next to be the "infidels", and it was mostly in Bin Laden's case because the Saudi government rejected Bin Laden's help in the Gulf War instead we came, so this was an obvious insult to him.

[JudeObscure84]

Actually Oh Dae. We did not directly support him at all. In an interview with Robert Frisk in the 90's he admitted to not recieving any direct support from the US. It was all Saudi money and Islamic morale.

The US supported the Afghan fighters. The CIA gave money to the Pakistani Intel agency in a joint funding along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Pakis gave the Saudi money to bin laden and the Afghan Arabs. But at the time no one knew that Bin Laden would have turned into the Islamic Che.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

lol Islamic Che hehehe

well yes you are correct, what i meant was all of what you said above. He dealt with american assistance is what i mean. But heck there is nothing wrong with that, as we do things in our own interest all the time, and although it may or may not have reprecusions, like you said we never know until it happens. The world just like life is a game, you can't play fair, it's eat or be eaten.

[JudeObscure84]

The world just like life is a game, you can't play fair, it's eat or be eaten.


Exactly. Like how extreme western Marxists are indirectly dealing with Islamic extremists. They see it as the best weapon against US globalization.

[Fawkes]

Che joined the revolution for his country, and to help his people. He only started becoming socialist after such things were over



Che was not Cuban. He was a white middle class argentine.








uhh... che wasnt white

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Che was not Cuban. He was a white middle class argentine.

what does that mean? that he was not cuban because he was "white"?well im sure thats not what you ment to imply

and che was not white? lol, so what race would you classify him under? mongoloid?negroid? lol

hispanic or latino is not a race, as there could be black/mestizo/indiginous/and white latinos, latino is not even an ethnic group, well at least not like the basques or catalans, or serbians etc...the only reason why latinos are catagorized as such under a name , is because they share a same language and more or less same culture, but you can't trace the latinos to a common ancestry for example.

anyway what does it matter that he was a white latino? does that make a difference if he was either mestizo , indiginous, or black latino? well maybe this could make for an argument i guess.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:01 PM
tell me what admirable qualities Che had that differ from Osama Bin Laden Srna, please , if you find this to not be true and instea of putting this face :blink: , why don't you enlighten us and tell us the admirable qualities that Che had that are not like Osama Bin Laden's?
As bad as things are in Cuba and as much as Socialism falls short of expectations, Che wasn't a religions fundamentalist. He did not advocate unchallengable absolutes that lead to barbaric practices like the beating to death of adulterers and genital mutilation. Futhermore, the quality of life of any country is relative. Cuba is relatively well off as compared to Somalia, Liberia or Kenya.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Che created an almost holocaust type of conentration camps in Cuba for the "opposition", and he was actually the head of these concentration camps. Do you know how many people he sent to the fire squad? Its like a soccer game, does it matter how you score the goal , or that you score it? does it matter how you kill your victim or that you actually killed them? your still a murderer.

[YSR]

does it matter how you kill your victim or that you actually killed them? your still a murderer.

Tell that the generals running the US imperialist war in Iraq. I assume you're on their side, right?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

ohh god. Well i am American, what do you expect ? im going to be in the Iraqi side? but anyways we are at war!!! and you actually believe that US "generals" "murder" Iraqis? collateral damage is collateral damage, if you want it to stop, than go into a science lab and develop a bullet that can be fired from a distant location enter a building and find a specific target and then suddenly kill them, until than you can label the people who killed Nazi's as murderers as well.

[JudeObscure84]

Tell that the generals running the US imperialist war in Iraq. I assume you're on their side, right?

Theyre not purposely killing civilians.


what does that mean? that he was not cuban because he was "white"?well im sure thats not what you ment to imply

Che was an upper middle class argentine of second generation Italian immigrants I believe. It many have been Spanish, I forget. What I meant was that he was white, not mestizo or indegenous. Most revolitionary marxists from western or heavily western influenced nations like Argentina tend to be afluent and recruit the campesinos.

I meant that he was not cuban because he was from Argentina.

[red team]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 7 2006, 03:54 AM
Che created an almost holocaust type of conentration camps in Cuba for the "opposition", and he was actually the head of these concentration camps. Do you know how many people he sent to the fire squad? Its like a soccer game, does it matter how you score the goal , or that you score it? does it matter how you kill your victim or that you actually killed them? your still a murderer.
Well, since you like historical examples so much, I'll just illustrate a few from history just to show how irrelevant your arguments are. Not all of which are Socialist, but that's also irrelevant.

Do you know how many Romans the Britons led by Boadicea killed?

Do you know how many Empire Loyalists were tortured then killed in the American Revolutionary war?

Do you know how many Native American Indians were killed by the American Army during the country's expansion?

Do you know how many plantation owners were killed in the American civil war?

Do you know how many "innocent" Germans were killed in the fire bombing of Dresden?

Do you know how many "innocent" Japanese were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo?

Do you know how many innocent Laotian and Cambodians were killed in the Vietnam Conflict?
The war spilt over the borders, but that didn't matter to the thousands of tonnage of bombs that were dropped on the people that were actually non-combatants in the conflict, so they were indeed innocent

Do you know how many negroes were tortured then killed in the segregationist south?


Wars are always neat and clean aren't they? :lol:

Now in every single case that I've outlined, is violent conflict justified? That really depends on who you are doesn't it? For the plantation owners you need to torture some of your slaves to keep them in line from time to time. You also need to kill them if they so much as whistle to your "superior" ladies who are of course members of a "superior" race of humans.

Now if I were a member of a darker skin race I could:

1. Accept the system of slavery and bow down to my "superior" masters

2. Discard slavery and violently oppose my masters.

As long as inequality exists violent conflict is inevitable. But depending on what you're going to replace the social system with after the violence is over determines whether or not your side is progressive or not. This leads to two other questions. Was the society replaced after the revolution more equal or less equal for Cuba's inhabitants? Was the society replaced after the revolution more materially abundant for a majority Cuba's inhabitants or not?

Now ask these same questions about Iraq if the American conquest of the country was successful.
Also, ask these same questions about Osama Bin Laden's ideal Taliban Afghan regime.

[black magick hustla]

that wanted to elminate an entire class of people; the rich, in favor of the poor, because in his eyes they were wronged could do no wrong. He devoured the Communist Manifesto and the writings of Lenin and Stalin.


You see it like that because you obviously don't have an understanding of marxist theory.

According to marx, there exists two classes in capitalism, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In order for the proletariat to survive, he needs to sell his labor to the bourgeosie, because the borgeosie unjustly owns the means of production (factories, buisnesses, etc). Without the proletariat, the bourgeosie wouldnt exist, because the proletariat is the one that harvests the means of producton.

The rich are the bourgeosie, and obviously a marxist seems them as the opressors.

How is this remotely "islamic" at all?

Marxism is not about metaphysical shit,.

Now, I don't think Che would have commited genocide to the whole bourgeois class, especially those who don't necessarily support reactionary movements.

You didn't see him shooting every member of the cuban elite class, do you?

Most of that "elite", the "gusanos", was actually exiled just after the revolution

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Do you know how many Romans the Britons led by Boadicea killed?

Do you know how many Empire Loyalists were tortured then killed in the American Revolutionary war?

Do you know how many Native American Indians were killed by the American Army during the country's expansion?

Do you know how many plantation owners were killed in the American civil war?

Do you know how many "innocent" Germans were killed in the fire bombing of Dresden?

Do you know how many "innocent" Japanese were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo?

Do you know how many innocent Laotian and Cambodians were killed in the Vietnam Conflict?
The war spilt over the borders, but that didn't matter to the thousands of tonnage of bombs that were dropped on the people that were actually non-combatants in the conflict, so they were indeed innocent

Do you know how many negroes were tortured then killed in the segregationist south?

good job, now tell me how many shirts or memorabilia are being produced in a daily basis commemorating these acts? lmao , when was the last time you saw a Pol Pot shirt? do you see what i mean here?

[JudeObscure84]

You see it like that because you obviously don't have an understanding of marxist theory. :unsure:


According to marx, there exists two classes in capitalism, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In order for the proletariat to survive, he needs to sell his labor to the bourgeosie, because the borgeosie unjustly owns the means of production (factories, buisnesses, etc). Without the proletariat, the bourgeosie wouldnt exist, because the proletariat is the one that harvests the means of producton.

Without the bourgeoise to invest in factories there wouldnt be a proletariat. And the original meaning of most Marxists for proletariat is working class. Many marxists in Leninist Russia couldnt stand the peasentry. So this isnt really about rich and poor but more about a workers struggle for waht he deems as justice. Marx was shortsighted on the changing face of capitalism.


The rich are the bourgeosie, and obviously a marxist seems them as the opressors.
Ofcourse he does. He presupposes that they'e gotten to the top by being greedy, so they're expendible.


How is this remotely "islamic" at all?
Not Islamic but Islamist. I am seperating the religion from the politized revolutionary movement. The ideas of extreme Islamism camed from Sayyid Qubt and The Muslim Brotherhood. They copied similar methods from Marxist-Leninism and elements of Fascism.


Marxism is not about metaphysical shit,.
No doubt. Its purely material. But thats why Osama isnt Marxist. I wasnt pointing out the similarities between Marxism and Islam.


Now, I don't think Che would have commited genocide to the whole bourgeois class, especially those who don't necessarily support reactionary movements.
Well maybe not killed but certainly exiled.


You didn't see him shooting every member of the cuban elite class, do you?
No but he did shoot.


Most of that "elite", the "gusanos", was actually exiled just after the revolution
Exactly, he "cleasned" Cuba of wealth.

[black magick hustla]

i am not even a marxist, but ok


Without the bourgeoise to invest in factories there wouldnt be a proletariat. And the original meaning of most Marxists for proletariat is working class.

Most marxists think that capitalism was necessary, and that it was a natural evolution of feudaliism.

The bourgeosie invests in the factory because he has the sufficient capital to do it. A marxist would tell you that in communism, money would get abolished.

Many marxists are not really fond of the peasantry, and yes a proletarian is generally an "urban worker". Marx himself didn't like much the peasants.

However, there are numerous schools of "marxism", and maoism does upheld the peasantry.

Remember that Ernesto Guevara admired maoist china.


Many marxists in Leninist Russia couldnt stand the peasentry. So this isnt really about rich and poor but more about a workers struggle for waht he deems as justice. Marx was shortsighted on the changing face of capitalism.

Actually, it is about class struggle, and generally the rich are the "bourgeosie".


Not Islamic but Islamist. I am seperating the religion from the politized revolutionary movement. The ideas of extreme Islamism camed from Sayyid Qubt and The Muslim Brotherhood. They copied similar methods from Marxist-Leninism and elements of Fascism.

A religious movement fails to be marxist for the simple fact religion is inherently antimarxist.


Well maybe not killed but certainly exiled.

So you are telling me that direct supporters of someone as brutal as Batista don't deserve to be exiled?


No but he did shoot.

Of course! How can you overthrow a dictator with flowers?

Exactly, he "cleasned" Cuba of wealth.

Actually not really.

Cubans live in much better economical conditions with Castro than they did with Batista.

[JudeObscure84]

Most marxists think that capitalism was necessary, and that it was a natural evolution of feudaliism.

The bourgeosie invests in the factory because he has the sufficient capital to do it. A marxist would tell you that in communism, money would get abolished.

Many marxists are not really fond of the peasantry, and yes a proletarian is generally an "urban worker". Marx himself didn't like much the peasants.

However, there are numerous schools of "marxism", and maoism does upheld the peasantry.

Remember that Ernesto Guevara admired maoist china.

With the exception of Maoism, most schools of Marxism before Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt School, were generally anti-peasent. Ernesto Che Guevarra also admired Stalin and was frankly upset with the Politburo when he visited USSR because they were too beuraucratic.


Actually, it is about class struggle, and generally the rich are the "bourgeosie".

Well what about the "petit-bourgeoise", some elements of the lumpen-proletariat and the intellectuals in Maoism. They werent considered rich. The workers are supposed to hate them to some degree as well.



A religious movement fails to be marxist for the simple fact religion is inherently antimarxist.

No one said it was marxist.


So you are telling me that direct supporters of someone as brutal as Batista don't deserve to be exiled?

Yes, I dont believe in revolutions the topple the government, unless its to keep the status quo.
And Che not only exiled supporters of Batista but people who were in the top class.

Of course! How can you overthrow a dictator with flowers?
He didnt kill innocent landowners with flowers.


Actually not really.

Cubans live in much better economical conditions with Castro than they did with Batista.

Ha. Cuba is considered in the second lowest rank in poverty next to Haiti.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:27 PM
Ha. Cuba is considered in the second lowest rank in poverty next to Haiti.
That so?

2002 World Poverty Index from 0-100 (Higher number means greater incidence of poverty)
Earthtrends (http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=4&variable_ID=1419&action=select_countries)

Algeria 21.9
Australia 12.9
Bangladesh 42.2
Barbados 2.5
Belgium 12.4
Belize 16.7
Benin 45.7
Bolivia 14.4
Botswana 43.5
Brazil 11.8
Burkina Faso 65.5
Burundi 45.8
Cambodia 42.6
Cameroon 36.9
Canada 12.2
Cape Verde 19.7
Côte d'Ivoire 45.0
Central African Rep 47.7
Chad 49.6
Chile 4.1
China 13.2
Colombia 8.1
Comoros 31.4
Congo 31.9
Congo, Dem Rep 42.9
Costa Rica 4.4
Cuba 5.0
Denmark 9.1
Djibouti 34.3
Dominican Rep 13.7
Ecuador 12.0
Egypt 30.9
El Salvador 17.0
Equatorial Guinea 32.7
Eritrea 41.8
Ethiopia 55.5
Fiji 21.3
Finland 8.4
France 10.8
Gambia 45.8
Germany 10.3
Ghana 26.0
Guatemala 22.5
Guinea-Bissau 48.0
Guyana 12.9
Haiti 41.1
Honduras 16.6
India 31.4
Indonesia 17.8
Iran, Islamic Rep. 16.4
Ireland 15.3
Italy 11.6
Jamaica 9.2
Japan 11.1
Jordan 7.2
Kenya 37.5
Lao People's Dem Rep 40.3
Lebanon 9.5
Lesotho 47.9
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 15.3
Luxembourg 10.5
Madagascar 35.9
Malawi 46.8
Maldives 11.4
Mali 58.9
Mauritania 48.3
Mauritius 11.3
Mexico 9.1
Mongolia 19.1
Morocco 34.5
Mozambique 49.8
Myanmar 25.4
Namibia 37.7
Nepal 41.2
Netherlands 8.2
Nicaragua 18.3
Niger 61.4
Nigeria 35.1
Norway 7.1
Oman 31.5
Pakistan 41.9
Panama 7.7
Papua New Guinea 37.0
Paraguay 10.6
Peru 13.2
Philippines 15.0
Rwanda 44.7
Saudi Arabia 15.8
Senegal 44.1
Singapore 6.3
South Africa 31.7
Spain 11.0
Sri Lanka 18.2
Sudan 31.6
Sweden 6.5
Syrian Arab Rep. 13.7
Tanzania 36.0
Thailand 13.1
Togo 38.0
Trinidad and Tobago 7.7
Tunisia 19.2
Turkey 12.0
Uganda 36.4
United Kingdom 14.8
United States 15.8
Uruguay 3.6
Venezuela 8.5
Viet Nam 20.0
Yemen 40.3
Zambia 50.4
Zimbabwe 52.0

[Oh-Dae-Su]

what does poverty have to do with anything, i would prefer being poor than being oppressed and not being able to speak my mind, freedom is the most important thing for a human being. But even so, Cubans are poor, stop comparing it to countries with about 200 million more people, and with immigration problems, and with countries from Africa and Asia that have constant civil war and famine.

ill give you the data titled "The Human Cost of Social Revolution":

15,000 to 18,000 executed for counterrevolutionary activities
1,000 extrajudicial assassinations
250 disappeared
500 died in prison for lack of medical attention
500 murdered in prison by guards
150 extrajudicial assassinations of women

this is only those who opposed the government, right now its known and it is obvious that you cannot speak your mind, you are persecuted if you are homosexual, pretty much you are owned by the state of Cuba, its either join the Communist Party of Cuba (should be called the Fascist Party of Cuba), or be an outcast and persecuted person. I know of a woman who was promoted to a higher position in her job, and when you were promoted you were ordered to join the party, she refused, and was demoted. Life in Cuba is not as hard as Haiti or African countries, but to even think about comparing to any European country or North America is the dumbest and thing you could do, even the poorest bastard in the USA has more clothes and more access to food than a Cuban does.

[Not Partisan]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 9 2006, 12:36 AM
what does poverty have to do with anything, i would prefer being poor than being oppressed and not being able to speak my mind...
Only because you (and I) have the luxury of being able to say that. You'd have to be relatively well off in the first place to think that way. :)

[cyu]

what does poverty have to do with anything, i would prefer being poor than being oppressed and not being able to speak my mind, freedom is the most important thing for a human being.

Actually, people who work for capitalist corporations prefer restrictions on their freedom over being poor. There's no freedom of speech in corporations because they are private institutions. People obviously can't vote for their leaders in corporations. Sure a corporation can't execute you like a government can, but it can take away your means of making a living, which would be similar to execution if you can't find another job.

People only give up their freedoms when there's no alternative. If there were an alternative, if employees had the right to assume democratic control of their companies, then there would be much more freedom in the world (not to mention less poverty).

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Actually, people who work for capitalist corporations prefer restrictions on their freedom over being poor. There's no freedom of speech in corporations because they are private institutions. People obviously can't vote for their leaders in corporations. Sure a corporation can't execute you like a government can, but it can take away your means of making a living, which would be similar to execution if you can't find another job.

People only give up their freedoms when there's no alternative. If there were an alternative, if employees had the right to assume democratic control of their companies, then there would be much more freedom in the world (not to mention less poverty).

LMFAO!!! :lol:

listen, thats for idiots, if i feel a certain way, im sure not going to keep my mouth shut, if they fire me, what the fuck do i care? is that the end of the world? do i live in Cuba where if you get fired thats it? no!! there are possibly 300 or more job listings each damn day in the newspaper of just my city. Execution? lmao

dignity, morals, liberty thats the last thing you can take away from me, and the first that im not going to give up.

"give me liberty, or give me death". Patrick Henry

plus you are talking about the economic sector , i was refering to the political sector, in the economy you really don't have a choice but to have a boss, unless you create your own business, which anyone can do, and which the economy and government supports.

[cyu]

listen, thats for idiots, if i feel a certain way, im sure not going to keep my mouth shut, if they fire me, what the fuck do i care? is that the end of the world?

What makes you such a coward (and/or idiot) that you demand freedom from your government but won't demand it from your company?


plus you are talking about the economic sector , i was refering to the political sector, in the economy you really don't have a choice but to have a boss

Actually, you do have a choice. Just change the laws and make it legal for employees to assume democratic control over their companies and throw out their bosses if they want to. (Actually, they won't even have to throw him out. They can just stop listening to him and stop paying him. It's the employees collecting the money from sales after all.)

[Oh-Dae-Su]

since i believe in freedom i dont think that this should be a law which applies to every damn business or corporation. Private business thats what they are, private, if they wish to make it a democracy they can choose to. For example sport clubs are owned by many people, if you own a share of the club you have a say, and then democratically they all agree on electing for example the president, and other changes that they want to make. So it does happen here and in Europe as well so i dont know what your talking about.

[KC]

Che created an almost holocaust type of conentration camps in Cuba for the "opposition", and he was actually the head of these concentration camps

You mean prisons? :lol:


Do you know how many people he sent to the fire squad?

Do you know how many people committed crimes punishable by death?


Its like a soccer game, does it matter how you score the goal , or that you score it?

That's a horrible analogy.


does it matter how you kill your victim or that you actually killed them? your still a murderer.

So in your eyes, killing in self defense, killing to save hundreds, thousands, millions of lives, killing to keep something like the holocaust from happening is just as "bad" as cold blooded murder. Now, does that really make sense? You wouldn't kill hitler if you had the chance?


im going to be in the Iraqi side?

Well, that's an option.


but anyways we are at war!!!

So you justify your support of US imperialism by saying "we're at war!!!"?


and you actually believe that US "generals" "murder" Iraqis?

Yes.


collateral damage is collateral damage, if you want it to stop, than go into a science lab and develop a bullet that can be fired from a distant location enter a building and find a specific target and then suddenly kill them, until than you can label the people who killed Nazi's as murderers as well.

You're the one saying murder is wrong no matter what the circumstance. Also, there is no justification for US involvement in Iraq. If you are going to justify it by saying "oh but Saddam was bad!" then you might as well invade half the countries across the globe because Iraq certainly wasn't a special circumstance.


Theyre not purposely killing civilians.

A good deal of them are.


because the borgeosie unjustly owns the means of production

Unjustly is superfluous.



The rich are the bourgeosie, and obviously a marxist seems them as the opressors.


The rich aren't the bourgoesie. Those that own the means of production are. So all bourgeoisie could be rich, but that doesn't mean that all rich people are bourgoeis.



good job, now tell me how many shirts or memorabilia are being produced in a daily basis commemorating these acts? lmao , when was the last time you saw a Pol Pot shirt? do you see what i mean here?


Your stance that all murder is wrong has been completely annihilated. Accept it.



Without the bourgeoise to invest in factories there wouldnt be a proletariat.

Yes there would be! Do you think society would just collapse without the bourgeoisie? Do you think people would say "oh, we don't have anyone to tell us what to do so we're just gonna sit here and die."?


And the original meaning of most Marxists for proletariat is working class

Those that must sell their labour-power to survive.


So this isnt really about rich and poor but more about a workers struggle for waht he deems as justice.

This isn't about rich and poor. This is about proletariat and bourgeoisie. And it has nothing to do with "justice". The class struggle is happening globally as I type this. Marx identified the fact that eventually the proletariat will take control of society, use the power to its means, and then all classes will dissolve. It has to do with his form of analyzing history.


Marx was shortsighted on the changing face of capitalism.

How so? His theories still hold true today.



Ofcourse he does. He presupposes that they'e gotten to the top by being greedy, so they're expendible.


No. They exploit the proletariat. This isn't just about "bad bourgeois" that want to strip workers of their rights to maximize profits; all bourgeois exploit workers.



Well maybe not killed but certainly exiled.

So what?



Yes, I dont believe in revolutions the topple the government, unless its to keep the status quo.

So if a majority of the population of a country want change, and the state isn't willing to give in to that, and it goes so far as violently suppressing the people, you wouldn't support a revolt against that government?



He didnt kill innocent landowners with flowers.

He didn't kill innocent landowners.



ill give you the data titled "The Human Cost of Social Revolution":

Of course, you either pulled this out of your ass or out of an anti-castro book which the author pulled out of his ass. Shit's shit.




this is only those who opposed the government, right now its known and it is obvious that you cannot speak your mind, you are persecuted if you are homosexual, pretty much you are owned by the state of Cuba, its either join the Communist Party of Cuba (should be called the Fascist Party of Cuba), or be an outcast and persecuted person.

You can speak your mind as much as you want. You aren't persecuted if you are homosexual, and many Cuban politicians aren't in the Communist Party.


even the poorest bastard in the USA has more clothes and more access to food than a Cuban does.

No he doesn't. This is common sense.


since i believe in freedom

Then why support US imperialism in Iraq?

[cyu]

since i believe in freedom i dont think that this should be a law which applies to every damn business or corporation.

Actually, there is a law that applies to "every damn business or corporation". It's the law that says employees aren't allowed to assume control over a company, even when they want to. It is the freedom of the employees that is being restricted. If the government weren't going to get involved, employees taking over a company won't be illegal, it would be ignored.


Private business thats what they are, private, if they wish to make it a democracy they can choose to.

Yes, if the employees wish to make a company a democracy, they should be able to. They do the work so they should be the ones who determine who gets rewarded how much. The CEO has to justify to the company's employees that he really deserves his salary. The CEO does not have the "freedom" to layoff half the employees - if we're talking about freedom here, the freedom of those employees matter more than the "freedom" of one person.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

So in your eyes, killing in self defense, killing to save hundreds, thousands, millions of lives, killing to keep something like the holocaust from happening is just as "bad" as cold blooded murder. Now, does that really make sense? You wouldn't kill hitler if you had the chance?

the funny thing is i would bet my left testicle that your one of those strong believers that the Atomic Bomb was a mistake. With that said , if you are smart enough you know what i meant.


That's a horrible analogy.

great comeback, if this was the way to prove things, life would be so much easier wouldn't it? :lol:



Do you know how many people committed crimes punishable by death?
do you? what do you clasiffy crimes punishable by deaths? THE WORMS? THE OPPOSERS OF THE REVOLUTION? yeah great one, i bet if you had the chance you would love killing me just like your idol el Che wouldn't ya.


Well, that's an option.

NO SHIT!!! isnt everything in life an option? why are you a communist? its your personal option for whatever reason!



So you justify your support of US imperialism by saying "we're at war!!!"?


yes, we are imperialist because we are the #1 world power, this has been the same since the beginning of strong "nations/states" or w/e. Imperialism is always going to exist, but we are not imperialist in the colonial sense like Britain or something. At least we are a lot nicer than everyone before us.


QUOTE
and you actually believe that US "generals" "murder" Iraqis?



Yes.

OMG!!! your an idiot!!! We murder Iraqis because they are Iraqis!!! first of all this wouldn't be allowed, and anyways PROVE IT!! since you like to say that so much!!



You're the one saying murder is wrong no matter what the circumstance. Also, there is no justification for US involvement in Iraq. If you are going to justify it by saying "oh but Saddam was bad!" then you might as well invade half the countries across the globe because Iraq certainly wasn't a special circumstance.

this is true i agree with you on that, and also i never said i agreed on Iraq. Like i have said before i supported Bush until Iraq. The Afghanistan conflict was justifiable, we the people of America supported it etc. Iraq was a total lie, and we along with many of our allies bought it. But now that we are in it, its our problem and we have to deal with it, we cant just run away like little cowards, and let the insurgents defeat us in that way. Although im sure with the next elections we are going to maybe withdraw a great deal of our military presence there, which is good, but we can't just leave in an instant, this has to be done gradually.


You're the one saying murder is wrong no matter what the circumstance

"For a good cause, wrongdoing is virtuous" Publilius Syrus

now dont take this and take it as a means to justify the injustifiable, dont take what i just said and make it onto Che's arguemnt. This implies for example to the Atomic Bomb, it was a horrible act, but it is what ended the fucking war, if not we would have had to invade Japan, it would have been going on probably till this day, and millions more would have died.

but el Che, just killed political oppositors, so he was just like Stalin in that sense.


Your stance that all murder is wrong has been completely annihilated. Accept it.

huh? :blink:


Of course, you either pulled this out of your ass or out of an anti-castro book which the author pulled out of his ass. Shit's shit.

right, and all the statistics you and your leftists buddies post are irrelevant as well? why can't you just accept facts? why are they made up? why are they "propaganda? because they oppose your beliefs? great character you show, thats why even if i wanted you i couldn't respect you as a worthy oppositor.



You can speak your mind as much as you want. You aren't persecuted if you are homosexual, and many Cuban politicians aren't in the Communist Party.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ohh man!!! can this be any funnier? so you actually BELIVE!! because this is not a fact, that Cubans can actually go into the streets and do a protest against the government, you actually believe that i can have my own opposition party, you actually believe that i can go into the streets and shout FUCK FIDEL! you actually believe that i can go into the streets with a shirt with the face of say Blair or Bush or something, all this without being persecuted? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!!! you are IGNORANT! thats all i can say.
Cuban government doesn't persecute homsexuals , well i dont think that if you are homosexual in Cuba you are first of all going to go into the street all flamboyant and stuff, because you will obviously be a target, but if you are hand in hand with another homosexual or even worst if you actually kiss in public , OHH BOY!! your fucked! and many Cuban politicians aren't in the Communist Part? yeah i agree with that, i know you are refering to the Cuban Politicians in Miami, thats for sure.


No he doesn't. This is common sense.

yet again thanks for being a great persuasive wirter, lmao :lol:

at least here in america, i can be a homeless in the street, ask for money in any intersection, and when i get like 5 bucks maximum, i can just head my ass over to the McDonald's on the corner , and grab myself some good ol' hamburgers.

Plus im tired of everyone talking about the homeless in America. The majority of the homeless here in America, are drug users, that have nothing to do with the fact of the economy. If you are homeless , 95% of the times is because you let yourself get to that level. Thats the fact.

[KC]

great comeback, if this was the way to prove things, life would be so much easier wouldn't it? :lol:


That doesn't make your analogy true, no matter how much you ***** about my response.



do you? what do you clasiffy crimes punishable by deaths? THE WORMS? THE OPPOSERS OF THE REVOLUTION? yeah great one, i bet if you had the chance you would love killing me just like your idol el Che wouldn't ya.


How about counterrevolutionary attempts to overthrow the government.


Imperialism is always going to exist

Imperialism is a specific stage of any historical stage, which exists towards the end of that historical stage. Hence American Imperialism.


At least we are a lot nicer than everyone before us.

Yes, supporting the instillation of authoritarian puppet regimes, violent suppression of workers, torture, war, etc.... Those are really nice... :rolleyes:




OMG!!! your an idiot!!! We murder Iraqis because they are Iraqis!!! first of all this wouldn't be allowed, and anyways PROVE IT!! since you like to say that so much!!

Take a look through this for a few pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraqi+civilian+abuse&btnG=Search) I'd also suggest to pay attention to the news; you know, all those abuse scandals...


But now that we are in it, its our problem and we have to deal with it, we cant just run away like little cowards, and let the insurgents defeat us in that way.

You do realize that many of the insurgents are against the US because of the occupation, and not because of any fundamentalist religious reasons?




right, and all the statistics you and your leftists buddies post are irrelevant as well? why can't you just accept facts? why are they made up? why are they "propaganda? because they oppose your beliefs? great character you show, thats why even if i wanted you i couldn't respect you as a worthy oppositor.


Cuba Truth Project (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/)


Cuban government doesn't persecute homsexuals , well i dont think that if you are homosexual in Cuba you are first of all going to go into the street all flamboyant and stuff, because you will obviously be a target, but if you are hand in hand with another homosexual or even worst if you actually kiss in public , OHH BOY!! your fucked!

I'd love to know where you heard this from.


and many Cuban politicians aren't in the Communist Part? yeah i agree with that, i know you are refering to the Cuban Politicians in Miami, thats for sure.

No. I'm referring to the ones in Cuba.



at least here in america, i can be a homeless in the street, ask for money in any intersection, and when i get like 5 bucks maximum, i can just head my ass over to the McDonald's on the corner , and grab myself some good ol' hamburgers.

At least in Cuba, there aren't any homeless people.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

That doesn't make your analogy true, no matter how much you ***** about my response.

YOU ARE WRONG (RESPONDING LIKE LAZAR LMAO :lol: )



Imperialism is a specific stage of any historical stage, which exists towards the end of that historical stage. Hence American Imperialism.

wtf? can you talk in english please? lmao, if i grasp correctly you say that imperialism is a period of any historical stage which is the final era of that historical stage. How is this the product of American Imperialism? you made no sense at all, what you meant in your sentance was that imperialism came in an era which was the clousure of a historical stage? you have no idea of what you are talking about, and this is in no way shape or form relevant to what i said about imperialism or america.



Yes, supporting the instillation of authoritarian puppet regimes, violent suppression of workers, torture, war, etc.... Those are really nice...

authoritarian puppet regimes, VIOLENT SUPRESION! :lol: , TORTURE, WAR! :lol:

tell that to South Korea , tell that to Japan, they will laugh in your face just like im laughin now :lol:


I'd also suggest to pay attention to the news; you know, all those abuse scandals...

you are refering to only 1 , incident called Abu Gharib, which has been dealt with in a disciplinary manner, so what are your other proofs in which we are KILLING Iraqis? like i said, stop refering to collateral damage, this is irrelevant, since its a warzone, and its inevitable and unavoidable.



Cuba Truth Project

http://www.therealcuba.com/


You do realize that many of the insurgents are against the US because of the occupation, and not because of any fundamentalist religious reasons?

even if it was because one of our tanks ran over one of their sheeps, don't you think that if they approached us in a more civilized manner they would at least get recognition ? why can't they cooperate with their own newly democratically elected Iraqi government?


No. I'm referring to the ones in Cuba.

which are? names? party organization that they belong to? there is an oposition party, which is the only one i know of, called The Project Democracy or something? but of course like 20 of their members are currently in jail, except the leader of course because if not the human rights movement would be even more in Castro's ass.


I'd love to know where you heard this from.

ever heard of Cuban people? id love to know how you can disporve it! thats what i would def. LOOOOOVE to know.



At least in Cuba, there aren't any homeless people.

at least in Cuba there are no drug epidemics or users, and what do you consider homeless? you don't consider these as homeless right :
http://www.therealcuba.com/Vejezdigna13.JPG :lol:

lmao, can they at least beg to get 5 dollars?

http://www.therealcuba.com/Vejezdigna3.JPG :OHH GOD this guy is def. not homeless!! for suure! :lol:

[elbriffo]

I just want to say that i really admire ones will to fight for his beliefs and having said that,communism really was the downfall of my country Angola.And for me the reason why this happened and why for me communism is nothing but a utopia is because you forget about something that changes everything:human caracther.Ther will never be communism as long as men are greedy,envious ruthless assassins waiting in the shadows...there will never be communism as long the leaders tell you they are fighting for you while drinking champagne,driving fancy cars and bedding their subordinates beautiful wives...look at russia,look at angola...the ones who tortured people because of their wealthy yesterday are the ones living like kings of the riches of the people.No man can resist the allure of the material things in life thats why such beautiful ideal as communism can never be succesful.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

elbriffo, i agree with you my Angolan friend, i am Cuban/American, and i know that my ex-country (because i dont consider myself cuban anymore, appart from the fact that i am neither cuban by paper nor by beliefs) , i know how Cuban forces went into your country and also Ethiopia to support the cause that ravaged both countries-[.. These people although i respect them, don't understand how the human mind works, how humans act naturally. As you said for communism to work, human emotions will have to be lost; and frankly this is a utopian belief. Although communism is just a theory, which has never been really tested. So how can we say its never going to work? that is true, but at least countries have experimented with it or variations of it, and well we already know who those countries are. But also in theory communism looks great, it looks wondeful, but all humans happily harmoniously working together? even if its a theory , lmao its just common sense thats impossible.

anyways, good luck to Angola in the World Cup 2006 Germany, i hate the Mexican team, i hope Angola defeats them hehehehe :D

[Dyst]

Oh-Dae-Su stop being an idiot.

Sadly you are probably incapable.

It is easy to say that freedom is the most valuable thing to human beings when you are not starving to death yourself.

Survival is the most important thing for human beings.

Everyone should have an equal chance to survive.

The definition of freedom, as it is in western countries, is to me extremely strange. Personally I would define freedom as being able to do whatever you want, go wherever you'd like, etc. Have no borders. None of this would I be able to do in for example the U.S.A. unless I was filthy rich.

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
- Bakunin

[cyu]

there will never be communism as long the leaders tell you they are fighting for you while drinking champagne,driving fancy cars and bedding their subordinates beautiful wives

Rule by the wealthy - sounds like capitalism to me :D

If the leaders say they're communist while driving better cars and drinking things the average person can't afford, then obviously they're not really following the ideals of communism. Indeed, I believe people can get corrupted by power, that's why I don't think communism can be achieved without democracy. (And by communism, I don't mean state ownership of business, but rather some form of economic equality.)

Capitalism is no replacement for non-democratic communism, since leaders driving fancy cars and drinking champagne would be seen as part of the system, instead of as hypocrisy.

Then again, I don't believe in state ownership of businesses, even under democratic communism. I believe in businesses owned and controlled democratically by their employees.

[red team]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 11 2006, 12:20 AM
elbriffo, i agree with you my Angolan friend, i am Cuban/American, and i know that my ex-country (because i dont consider myself cuban anymore, appart from the fact that i am neither cuban by paper nor by beliefs) , i know how Cuban forces went into your country and also Ethiopia to support the cause that ravaged both countries-[.. These people although i respect them, don't understand how the human mind works, how humans act naturally. As you said for communism to work, human emotions will have to be lost; and frankly this is a utopian belief. Although communism is just a theory, which has never been really tested. So how can we say its never going to work? that is true, but at least countries have experimented with it or variations of it, and well we already know who those countries are. But also in theory communism looks great, it looks wondeful, but all humans happily harmoniously working together? even if its a theory , lmao its just common sense thats impossible.

anyways, good luck to Angola in the World Cup 2006 Germany, i hate the Mexican team, i hope Angola defeats them hehehehe :D

For Communism to be an alternative, Capitalism have to go to its logical end point. We are not quite there yet. Society is not entirely polarized, social programs as minimal as they are still exists and lastly the world has not been entirely colonized by powerful countries.

Furthermore, it's my personal prediction that global revolution isn't going to start until after global nuclear war. As nuclear proliferation goes ahead unabated this will be more and more likely. Most revolution needs a critical system shock for them to get started anyway and Communist revolution is no exception.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

and lastly the world has not been entirely colonized by powerful countries.

are you sure on that? ohh thats right, no one "colonized" Ethiopia in Africa and like some distant atoll in the Pacifc, yeah thats true the entire world has not been colonized by powerful nations true true :lol:



Furthermore, it's my personal prediction that global revolution isn't going to start until after global nuclear war. As nuclear proliferation goes ahead unabated this will be more and more likely. Most revolution needs a critical system shock for them to get started anyway and Communist revolution is no exception.

actually i agree with you, for the "revolution" to occur (which i dont think is what is going to happen anyways) , there will have to be massive nuclear war, and wipe out like three fourth's of the world population and end the bounderies which devide us as human beings. All i know, is that even if pure communism was to be attempted, a big biiiiiiiiiig major world changing event is going to have to happen, like some sort of fucking meteor or like red team said nuclear war, that would leave the world ravaged, with no world powers or something.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Survival is the most important thing for human beings.

Everyone should have an equal chance to survive.

true, in fact in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs , survival is the at the top of the pyramid, yet it alocates the smallest section. Survival is just a human instinct, its like thirst or something, or hunger, these are things you don't think about, they just come natural to you. So yeah the human will first try to survive. This is true, the poor i don't think really care that much about the freedom, they just want that loaf of bread, but in Cuba, the people are not trying to survive like in Zambia or something, even though they are poor, Cuba i accept is not as bad as these countries, but even so they have less freedoms than many African countries.

So Cubans are better off than most Africans, yet they get less freedom.

[red team]

The world has 6 billion people right now. Even if a nuclear war wipe out 3/4 of the total population we will still end up with 1.5 billion people. This is a lot of human potential to build a super high-tech utopia.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

we would end up with like the population of China :) damn

anyways, what is a super high-tech utopia? lol, what do you describe that as being? well like you said its an utopia so its not going to happen.

[CCCPneubauten]

Actually I heard the fact that the Earth doesn't have enough resources to go through another Industrial Revolution...correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 12 2006, 01:52 AM
The world has 6 billion people right now. Even if a nuclear war wipe out 3/4 of the total population we will still end up with 1.5 billion people. This is a lot of human potential to build a super high-tech utopia.
True, but even if that many survived they would most likely persih admist the nuclear winter and radioactive aftermath.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

True, but even if that many survived they would most likely persih admist the nuclear winter and radioactive aftermath.

OOHHHHHHH!! yeah true, thats right, actually i think it was in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that most people died. I think it killed instantly like 20 to 30 thousand, and then the total was like 200 thousand :( shit

so yeah if there was a nuclear war it would mean the end of the human civilization. So yeah another reason why communism wont happen :D

[CCCPneubauten]

Wrong...we would probaly revert back to what marx called 'Primitive Communism" once again evident that the critics of the Rev Left never have opened a Marx book.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

ohh yeah, true true, the primitive communism is the one that will take over when the humans are gone, whatever is left, they will work together and live happily ever after. :lol:

[Zingu]

so yeah if there was a nuclear war it would mean the end of the human civilization. So yeah another reason why communism wont happen biggrin.gif

Its obvious from this quote you are still thinking idealistically, which renders it impossible for you to understand Marxism.

Well, if humanity did survive, and we were blown back to the stone age, hypothetically we would start from line one and build our way back up again, repeating the march of history...and into Communism.

Primitive Communism gives way to more elaborate class structures with the progress of technology (as we can obviously see from history), but I would contest if we should even call it that...something of a class society still existed even in Neolithic times.

But, it is disturbing, nuclear acpolypse is a possiblity, considering it seems more and more nuts who believe in the second coming/ect. are getting their hands on these things.

Its true, we could be annilated by alien invasion/gamma ray blasts/ecological disaster/zombie takeover/ect....and communism would never be established...which is superflous to say since humans don't actually exist anymore then.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:54 AM
Wrong...we would probaly revert back to what marx called 'Primitive Communism" once again evident that the critics of the Rev Left never have opened a Marx book.
Thats beside the point - The amount of material blown into the air by a global nuclear exchange would be sufficient to block out the sun for several centuries. The extreme cold would kill many people, all the crops and therefore livestock, which would cause global famine. There would be no sunlight due to the sky being filled with nuclear clouds (this is where the term nuclear winter arises from)
Those who dont succumb to starvation and exteme cold would die of cancers due to the radioactive material present in the ground, air and water.

[Tre]

don't worry man, anything that challenges these people's theoretical point of view is in their own words "propaganda" , lmao.....everything that is opposing is "ahhh imperialist propaganda" , so yeah we never speak the truth heheheee


So everyone who goes against or is a critic of imperialism must automatically be wrong? maybe have terrorist ties?

Do you like the taste of propaganda, beacuse you sure swallow it well :D

[Oh-Dae-Su]

umm NO! in fact, i myself, an American living in America, acknoledge the fact that we are an imperialist country, and your point is? So what if we are imperialist? You only seem to look at the bad side, the wrong things that have occured, but look at our "imperialist" success stories: Japan, South Korea, Puerto Rico (the highest standard of living in Latin America), Western Europe etc. What about the USSR's imperialism? lets see its success stories: Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Eastern Europe :lol:

think about it, by the way, iv said this over and over again, we are not imperialist in the sense of the British Empire colonial style or something, we are Imperialist in the economic sense, and because we are the most powerful country in the world. If Zimbabwe was the most powerful country in the world, then they would be the "imperialist" country; now, how they use their imperialist powers is another thing, they might want to be like Nazi Germany, or they can be like us, at least we are a lot nicer than all the imperialist nations that have comed before us.

[Dean]

Che Guevara did some pretty bad stuff, namely the courts at which he executed all 300 or so supposed suspected enemies of the state, but once I saw "pro - soviet" on the site I knew it was bullshit. I don't even know a lot about him, but enough to know that he was not a Stalinist, and despised the aristocratic 'soviet' system.

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/192...evara/index.php (http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/1928-1967-ernesto-che-guevara/index.php)

Che was a Stalinist but after seeing the shambles of the USSR system he switched to Maoism. Im sure he didnt mind supporting the Congolise militias that were funded by Maoist China.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:43 PM
http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/192...evara/index.php (http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/1928-1967-ernesto-che-guevara/index.php)

Che was a Stalinist but after seeing the shambles of the USSR system he switched to Maoism. Im sure he didnt mind supporting the Congolise militias that were funded by Maoist China.
The article doesn't explain how he spread stalinism - especially among groups of guerillas!

[JudeObscure84]

The article doesn't explain how he spread stalinism - especially among groups of guerillas!

what are you jabbering on about? He didnt have to spread "stalinism" to spread unecessary revolutions that ended in bloodshed and mass executions.

[Dean]

unnecessary revolutions? EVery revolution serves a critical purpose in the development of a society, and to call a people's revolution unnecessary is to claim that socialism is not desireable.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-Su
... at least we are a lot nicer than all the imperialist nations that have come before us.

A kinder, gentler, compassionate imperialism!

:lol:

There seem to be a growing number of people around the world who dispute your contention.

To put it mildly. :)

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

[JudeObscure84]

unnecessary revolutions? EVery revolution serves a critical purpose in the development of a society, and to call a people's revolution unnecessary is to claim that socialism is not desireable.

Most of the times socialism is not desirable. Atleast not in a Marxist sense. And Che botched up alot of revolutions. The original Cuban movement against Batista was more liberal democratic than Communist.

[cyu]

Most of the times socialism is not desirable. Atleast not in a Marxist sense.

You seem to be suggesting that some form of non-Marxist socialism is desirable. What kind are you referring to?

[JudeObscure84]

You seem to be suggesting that some form of non-Marxist socialism is desirable. What kind are you referring to?

well not historically marxian. I guess I am referring to mixed economies, fair trade,centrist economics, New Labour or Christian Democracy.

[cyu]

guess I am referring to mixed economies, fair trade

So what is your reasoning for preferring mixed economies and fair trade over purely capitalist economies and what's called free trade? Why don't your views make you oppose capitalism in general? Are you just saying you're a moderate?

[JudeObscure84]

So what is your reasoning for preferring mixed economies and fair trade over purely capitalist economies and what's called free trade? Why don't your views make you oppose capitalism in general? Are you just saying you're a moderate?

I wouldnt instinctly call myself a moderate because I still believe in free trade and liberalization but not as much as a libertarian or a very conservative republican. I believe that big government has proven to be bad while no government has proven to be worse.

I believe in voluntarily supporting fair trade in the greater economic sphere of free trade. Like how Starbucks supports fair trade coffee farms or how there is a growing surge in fair trade shops. But I do oppose fair trade as the only legal means on economics.

My views are similar to that of New Labour UK or the Christian Democrats of Chile and Europe. Even then I believe that George W. Bush's economic policy has not been conservative but centrist like that of LBJ or JFK.

[cyu]

I wouldnt instinctly call myself a moderate because I still believe in free trade and liberalization but not as much as a libertarian or a very conservative republican.

What is your view of labor unions? Should they have more power? Less? About the same?

[OperationSwarmer]

What ever happened to that thread about a bust of Che being beheaded in Venezuela a couple months ago?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:57 PM

unnecessary revolutions? EVery revolution serves a critical purpose in the development of a society, and to call a people's revolution unnecessary is to claim that socialism is not desireable.

Most of the times socialism is not desirable. Atleast not in a Marxist sense. And Che botched up alot of revolutions. The original Cuban movement against Batista was more liberal democratic than Communist.
Every workers' movement shows the people's will, and serves to enlighten the people and lift up their spirit so that they see that revolutionary action is possible and that fighting for the common good is viable. Movements for democracy in China have had good effefcts, and serve as a reminder that a people's movement is viable under any system. Just look at Solidarnosc.

[JudeObscure84]

What is your view of labor unions? Should they have more power? Less? About the same?

This is what I support.

http://www.icftu.org/

Solidarnosc was an excellent union. Love Live Adam Michnik!

[cyu]

This is what I support.

http://www.icftu.org/

What in particular about the ICFTU makes you support it? You don't see how increased labor union power comes into conflict with capitalists?

[chaval]

The original Cuban movement against Batista was more liberal democratic than Communist.

inteteresting that you mention it, i once read a book about the cuban revolution and the author did an interview with castro in the mountains during the guerilla war. apparently there was nothing communist to start off with, he mentions that he saw his 'library' none of which contained anything remontely marxist and that he himself made no mention of anything communist/marxist. it was gonna be liberal democratic but the US hostility towards the revolutionaries ended up pushing them into the arms of the soviets and thus once in power castro kind of had to choose sides and obviousy it wasnt gonna be with the american side
*the author is not crazy cappie propaganda cause he wasnt taking sides. merely said that wasnt at first commie, but then became commie. doesnt say if it was good or bad

[JudeObscure84]

inteteresting that you mention it, i once read a book about the cuban revolution and the author did an interview with castro in the mountains during the guerilla war. apparently there was nothing communist to start off with, he mentions that he saw his 'library' none of which contained anything remontely marxist and that he himself made no mention of anything communist/marxist. it was gonna be liberal democratic but the US hostility towards the revolutionaries ended up pushing them into the arms of the soviets and thus once in power castro kind of had to choose sides and obviousy it wasnt gonna be with the american side
*the author is not crazy cappie propaganda cause he wasnt taking sides. merely said that wasnt at first commie, but then became commie. doesnt say if it was good or bad

Actually the US was going to help the liberal democratic movement in Cuba but that plan was scrapped. I believe it had to do with Moscow intefering. I could be wrong about that though.


What in particular about the ICFTU makes you support it? You don't see how increased labor union power comes into conflict with capitalists?

Depends on what they are arguing for and if the company can provide. These labor unionists are not dense. They understand that their benefits go only as far as to what the company is willing to give them, to not drain the wealth. Read thier publications.
It's a very centrist and moderate position to take. One good example of a free trade labor union that worked great was Solidarnosc.

[cyu]

Depends on what they are arguing for and if the company can provide. These labor unionists are not dense. They understand that their benefits go only as far as to what the company is willing to give them, to not drain the wealth.

What do you mean by draining the wealth? You mean taking money away from shareholders and upper management and paying themselves more?

[JudeObscure84]

What do you mean by draining the wealth? You mean taking money away from shareholders and upper management and paying themselves more?

draining the money that pays for thier benefits. contrary to the labour theory of value, the boss is also a worker.

[cyu]

draining the money that pays for thier benefits.

Isn't a salary part of the benefits? If the shareholder is just cutting, for example, employee health insurance to raise their salaries, what does it matter to the shareholder? It's the same money going to the employees as far as the shareholder is concerned. Now, lowering shareholder and executive compensation in order to pay for union demands for higher salaries, that's something else entirely.


contrary to the labour theory of value, the boss is also a worker.

If the boss is so valuable to the company, he should be able to justify his pay to the employees and let them vote on it. If the employees agree he's worth his pay, then he's really getting what he deserves. A dictator is also a citizen of the country, but does he really deserve his power? He should be able to justify himself to his countrymen.

[JudeObscure84]

Isn't a salary part of the benefits? If the shareholder is just cutting, for example, employee health insurance to raise their salaries, what does it matter to the shareholder?

Well thats something that union is supposed to discuss and win for thier benefit. the workers have a right to strike a better deal. thats the point of a free trade union.


It's the same money going to the employees as far as the shareholder is concerned. Now, lowering shareholder and executive compensation in order to pay for union demands for higher salaries, that's something else entirely.

That is something entirely different. Although the shareholders are the ones putting money back into the business.


If the boss is so valuable to the company, he should be able to justify his pay to the employees and let them vote on it.

He justifies it by building them a factory to work in and pays thier salary.


If the employees agree he's worth his pay, then he's really getting what he deserves.

You mean like keeping the books clean and managing the place. I agree. But if you mean "stealing from the proletariat" to make a profit, then no.


A dictator is also a citizen of the country, but does he really deserve his power? He should be able to justify himself to his countrymen.

Most companies are not run by a one man army. They have shareholders, CEO, CFO's and board of directors. The workers contribute one thing and one thing only....labour.

On that note I would much rather be a labourer or a second hand manager than actually running the company, taking risks and drinking Maalox all day worrying about sales.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:55 PM
On that note I would much rather be a labourer or a second hand manager than actually running the company, taking risks and drinking Maalox all day worrying about sales.
I'd imagine that the obscene salary and regular golf trips make up for it.

[JudeObscure84]

I'd imagine that the obscene salary and regular golf trips make up for it.

If managed well, yes. if your product is selling like hotcakes and you are keeping up with the numbers then enjoy those golf trips.

but then when sales start to slump, there are thousands of yuppy MBA grads ready to steal your position at the snap of a board members fingers.

[cyu]

That is something entirely different. Although the shareholders are the ones putting money back into the business.

He justifies it by building them a factory to work in and pays thier salary.


You make it sound like shareholders have some special power that nobody else has. Yes, it's true that under the current economic system, they do have a special power - that of ownership of capital, but that doesn't mean they have some special powers as human beings - they just happen to own it. Their claim to ownership is just a matter of accounting, and, if eliminated, wouldn't matter at all to the functioning of the economy. Resources could simply be allocated democratically. The result would be an economy that's much more likely to be beneficial for the general public.

[JudeObscure84]

You make it sound like shareholders have some special power that nobody else has. Yes, it's true that under the current economic system, they do have a special power - that of ownership of capital, but that doesn't mean they have some special powers as human beings - they just happen to own it. Their claim to ownership is just a matter of accounting, and, if eliminated, wouldn't matter at all to the functioning of the economy. Resources could simply be allocated democratically. The result would be an economy that's much more likely to be beneficial for the general public

You make it sound as if *poof* the factory appears and then they own it. Under our system, a free based economic system, a worker can one day own a company or become a shareholder in one. This is how they come to own anything, is through money in which they invest. That money does not appear out of the sky but through loans, grants, prior investments or hard earned cash. So bascially you want to stop a working man from ever climbing his way to the top.

Just how would or should resources be allocated democratically?

[cyu]

You make it sound as if *poof* the factory appears and then they own it.

Well, the shareholder doesn't just go poof and a factory appears either. The factory has to be built by workers. If the shareholder wasn't there, all the tools, raw materials, and labor are still there. That's all that's really required to build a factory.


So bascially you want to stop a working man from ever climbing his way to the top.


It depends what you mean by top. If by top, you mean a slavemaster, I think you'll agree we both want to prevent people from being slavemasters. If you mean preventing him from getting a better life, well, I don't think anybody on this website wants that. The difference is whether there's a better life for a few or for as many people as possible.


Just how would or should resources be allocated democratically?

If there are raw materials in an area nobody is using, then the people living in that area vote on what to do with it. If a democratically run company has profits that they decide not to take home and spend by themselves, then they decide democratically what to buy with it to expand the business. If new businesses are required, then the people of an area can vote to give grants or loans to the employees of the new business, but the purpose of the investment isn't to get a return on the investment, it's just to get new products into the market (which is the main reason why new businesses are needed anyway).