People in this Forum

[Tupac-Amaru]

Hello all,

I was reading a page on this site, when i notticed that little blue button at the bottom-right-hand corner of the page. The one that says "GEO VISITORS".

I clicked on it with great curiosity and the page that came up was very interesting.

It appears that a very very large majority of the people who visit this revolutionary far-left site come from the developed countries of the West. I counted only 6 people from south america, only 4 from Afrika, and a little over a dozen from South East Asia and India.

I would like to hear people's opinion on why that is. Why are there more "revolutionaries" in the rich countries?

I mean there's people here from Finland, Denmark, Sweeden, Netherlands; all countries with a very very kind welfare system...surely the workers in those countries are in good working and living conditions...they don't need a revolution.

And why is it that in Latin America, a place that some people here consider a "hotbed" for a Socialist revival, shows little interest in a revolutionary site like this.

Also interesting to note that noone from Cuba and other Socialist states has come to the site to pledge their support.

Please, i encourage you all to share ur thoughts and disscuss.

[Janus]

I would like to hear people's opinion on why that is. Why are there more "revolutionaries" in the rich countries?
Well, this is an English forum. Also, there is the problem of Internet or computer access.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Ah yes! Those are the two arguments i was sure i was gonna hear first.

Concerning the english...remember that this is a multi-lingual site...there's english, german, french, scandinavian, dutch, spanish and chinese. So i dont think that "this is an English site" is a good argument. Furthermore, i'm sure that the leaders of the revolution speak english...like che and fidel.

And i dont think that internet or computer access is a major obstacle appart from in extremely very very poor areas. I have heard from many reports and articles that even poor people in third-world countries go online thanks to internet cafés where someone can pay a small fee and surf the web. And again...i'm sure that the leaders of the revolution can afford a computer with internet access.

[Janus]

remember that this is a multi-lingual site...there's english, german, french, scandinavian, dutch, spanish and chinese
Yeah, but that part of the forum is kind of hidden away.


And again...i'm sure that the leaders of the revolution can afford a computer with internet access.
They would have more important things to do then just post around here.

[RedSabine]

Because quite a few people on this site are spoiled middle-class kids who think they're revolutionary. Or not.

[Zero]

*or* there are a lot of people here who have realised the exploitive nature of the upper classes (first, or second hand) and are concerned for the Earth's future.

[The Grey Blur]

Well in less developed countries there is less internet access, and if a revolution is occuring in a country I doubt the leaders are on revleft looking for tips

I don't see what point this proves anyway

[Tupac-Amaru]

i just seems like a paradox that the rich people of the world claim to be fighting - or if not, supporting - revolutions in poor countries where there doesnt seem to be a substancial revolutionary movement in the first place.

Isin't it funny that there are more marxists in the US than in third world countries?...you'd expect the opposite.

[Janus]

in poor countries where there doesnt seem to be a substancial revolutionary movement in the first place.
Which countries?


Isin't it funny that there are more marxists in the US than in third world countries?...
Surely, you're not concluding that based on the demographics here are you?

[kurt]

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 20 2006, 12:28 PM
i just seems like a paradox that the rich people of the world claim to be fighting - or if not, supporting - revolutions in poor countries where there doesnt seem to be a substancial revolutionary movement in the first place.

Isin't it funny that there are more marxists in the US than in third world countries?...you'd expect the opposite.
Not really. Marxist revolution is supposed to happen in the "first-world" first. It only makes sense that there would be more conscious marxists in the first world, where revolution is supposed to happen.

[Orange Juche]

Seems to me that we probably have more time to stand back and look at the material conditions of the world, and then say "this needs to happen."

People in third world countries, it seems to me, spend most of their time just struggling to live. Many may feel hopeless, or have not really heard of the anti-capitalist/liberation philosophies.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Also interesting to note that noone from Cuba and other Socialist states has come to the site to pledge their support.
Far from every Cuban is a revolutionary santa claus.

I think a lot of them don't have time because they are working two jobs, and are searching for food so that they can put something more than beans and rice to the table.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:34 PM

Which countries?



I was refering to what i said before: that for example many people here beleive that Socialism will rize Latin America as Che dreamed and there will be a united south america...it's a view that people here have.

But if people on those regions were interested in revolution so much, surely they would connect to revolutionary sites such as this one...

And don't tell me that Hugo Chavez is an example of South America moving to the left...Chavez is just a selfish dictator...his "21st century revolution" has little support...only around 30% approve of him.


Surely, you're not concluding that based on the demographics here are you?

Of course not. That's a anecdote one of my University professors made once...i'm not sure if that's 100% correct...but it gives us an idea; that there are a considerable number of Marxists in US (where you would least expect it)then in other countries where you would expect the most support for Marxism.

[Janus]

But if people on those regions were interested in revolution so much, surely they would connect to revolutionary sites such as this one...
Some do. But a lot of them are probably too busy actually doing stuff to come on or they don't have Internet access.

[Dyst]

What the fuck?

Please read a little bit about historical materialism.

Any "revolution" in a third world country could not bring about communist society. The material situation (like technological advancement) makes it impossible.

It is the "civilized" countries which will need progress and where communism will first exist.

What you thought was a clever argument was in fact the opposite.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:57 PM
What you thought was a clever argument was in fact the opposite.
Hmm... :blink: that's weird, because in this thread: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49683

RedStar2000 explicitly told me that third-world countries need communist revolutions now. And that's view that is widely shared in this "online community".

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Tupac-Amaru+May 20 2006, 11:04 PM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ May 20 2006, 11:04 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 10:57 PM
What you thought was a clever argument was in fact the opposite.
Hmm... :blink: that's weird, because in this thread: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49683

RedStar2000 explicitly told me that third-world countries need communist revolutions now. And that's view that is widely shared in this "online community". [/b]
It's our belief that at least progressive, not explicitly socialist, revolutions need to occur in the Third World - this would remove the grip of American Imperialism and in turn radicalise the first-world working-class as their societies become less accomodating

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:45 PM
Because quite a few people on this site are spoiled middle-class kids who think they're revolutionary. Or not.
most western workers have access to internet and a computer.

also, i am from mexico.

[Tupac-Amaru]

It's our belief that at least progressive, not explicitly socialist, revolutions need to occur in the Third World - this would remove the grip of American Imperialism and in turn radicalise the first-world working-class as their societies become less accomodating

:lol: :lol:

Hahahaha, okay man. I understand now. ;)

(What a convenient standpoint: you believe that there should definitely be a communist revolution in the West, but if there's a revolution in the third-world that's ok too).

[The Grey Blur]

Glad to see you've grasped it so well

[fernando]

And don't tell me that Hugo Chavez is an example of South America moving to the left...Chavez is just a selfish dictator...his "21st century revolution" has little support...only around 30% approve of him.

Where did you get that from? :blink:

[Messiah]

I'm going to go with NewsMax.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Tupac-Amaru+May 20 2006, 03:04 PM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ May 20 2006, 03:04 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 10:57 PM
What you thought was a clever argument was in fact the opposite.
Hmm... :blink: that's weird, because in this thread: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49683

RedStar2000 explicitly told me that third-world countries need communist revolutions now. And that's view that is widely shared in this "online community". [/b]
He never said those third-world countries would have communist revolution, he said they needed a "Mao". Redstar considers Maoist revolution to be bourgeois in nature, so yes this position is consistant.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:54 PM

Where did you get that from? :blink:
:o Sorry, my mistake, it may have underestimated chavez's approval ratings...right now they're around 50%.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaysto...tory_id=5274832 (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5274832)





he said they needed a "Mao". Redstar considers Maoist revolution to be bourgeois in nature, so yes this position is consistant.

Hmm...that&#39;s interesting...cose last i heard; Mao was a communist, he was even the head of the Chinese communist party...and ruled the country in Marxists manner...BUT if RedStar said it, IT MUST BE TRUE&#33;&#33;&#33; <_<

[Just Dave]

I disagree with RedStar. You are right Mao was a communist, and in the Chinese revolution he thought he would bring about a socialist society, but the Chinese revolution was a peasent one, where as Marx said that it needs to be a proletarian one. So I think it would be more accurate to say they need a French revolution rather than a Chinese revolution.

[Communism]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+May 21 2006, 10:51 AM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ May 21 2006, 10:51 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 11:54 PM

Where did you get that from? :blink:
:o Sorry, my mistake, it may have underestimated chavez&#39;s approval ratings...right now they&#39;re around 50%.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaysto...tory_id=5274832 (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5274832)





he said they needed a "Mao". Redstar considers Maoist revolution to be bourgeois in nature, so yes this position is consistant.

Hmm...that&#39;s interesting...cose last i heard; Mao was a communist, he was even the head of the Chinese communist party...and ruled the country in Marxists manner...BUT if RedStar said it, IT MUST BE TRUE&#33;&#33;&#33; <_< [/b]
You mean the same true as those figures you made up earlier?

[Tupac-Amaru]

those figures you made up earlier

I didn&#39;t make up those figures; in 2002 Chavez had a 30% approval rating,

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._18/ai_84804836 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_13_18/ai_84804836)

and that&#39;s the first figure that came into my head at the time. I allready admitted i made a mistake, (he is now up to around 50%) but i certainly did not lie...so chill out&#33;


Btw your last post didn&#39;t make much sense...what are you saying? That RedStar is no telling the truth? Are you agreeing with me? :blink:






Just Dave: I disagree with RedStar

Dave, you are one of a rare breed&#33; Maximum respect&#33;

[Communism]

Of course im not agreeing with you, you are one of the rare breeds who scans the internet for arguements. Why would a non-communist join a communist website?

[Just Dave]

I&#39;m agreeing that the 3rd world does not need communism at the moment. But that is not to say they need a Thatcher clone either. They need someone who can transform the peasentry into a proletarian class, and then build socialism. Look permanent revolution, Trotsky can explain it better than I can.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:51 PM
Of course im not agreeing with you.
You still haven&#39;t explained to me what you meant in that previous post&#33;


you are one of the rare breeds who scans the internet for arguements.

acctually, you&#39;ll nottice that many people here cite internet sources to back-up their statements. But since you&#39;re a noob (only 43 posts) you prob didn&#39;t know that.



Why would a non-communist join a communist website?

You probably also did not know that this website has an "Opposing ideologies" section....this one&#33; :lol:

And the reason i joined revleft in the first place was cose i used to be a Marxist, but then i realized that that mobojumbo wouldn&#39;t fly so i changed my views. :ph34r:

[violencia.Proletariat]

It appears that a very very large majority of the people who visit this revolutionary far-left site come from the developed countries of the West.

Yes, thats where communist revolution will happen first.


Why are there more "revolutionaries" in the rich countries?

Do not try and trivialize the movment in first world countries by calling them "rich countries." Do the countries contain mass ammounts of wealth, well yes, but only a few have that wealth. Comparison of third and first world poverty is irrelevant, we are at two different stages in the historical materialist paradigm.


surely the workers in those countries are in good working and living conditions...they don&#39;t need a revolution.

You obviously have no understanding of the revolutionary left. We don&#39;t want your shitty welfare states, we wan&#39;t FULL worker control over the means of production and the OVERTHROW of capitalism, not welfare.


And why is it that in Latin America, a place that some people here consider a "hotbed" for a Socialist revival, shows little interest in a revolutionary site like this.

Socialism isn&#39;t possible there yet.


Also interesting to note that noone from Cuba and other Socialist states has come to the site to pledge their support

Cuba is not socialist, nor do I remember hearing we have to have their approval to discuss ideas.

[fernando]

Yes, thats where communist revolution will happen first.
You&#39;re joking right? I might see some sparkle of rebellion in France or Germany, but an actual "communist revolution"? The situation in Europe isnt that shitty that the masses will remove the current powers and replace them with the full power of the people.


You obviously have no understanding of the revolutionary left. We don&#39;t want your shitty welfare states, we wan&#39;t FULL worker control over the means of production and the OVERTHROW of capitalism, not welfare.
How big will your support be? The idea that the workers will be in control is great, but will they actually rise up? And will the working class have the know-how of the bourgeoise? You can definately expect some form of brain-drain if a communist revolution would occur in Europe.


Socialism isn&#39;t possible there yet.
Where is it possible then? Socialism or even communism is starting to sound more and more like some science fiction stuff that might happen in the far far faaaaaar future...you know like time travel and living on Mars...

[pandora]

Computer access, English language first. There are many leftist revolutionaries throughout Latin America, but they would be looking for a Spanish language first site.

[encephalon]

Hmm...that&#39;s interesting...cose last i heard; Mao was a communist, he was even the head of the Chinese communist party...and ruled the country in Marxists manner...BUT if RedStar said it, IT MUST BE TRUE&#33;&#33;&#33;

I don&#39;t give a damn what redstar says, but in this point he&#39;s rather correct. Lenin, Mao and company sought to develop capitalism in their respective areas in order to establish socialism afterwards.

And guess what? In the case of China, they developed capitalism pretty damned well&#33;

Unfortunately, those on top no longer want to progress towards socialism, because then they wouldn&#39;t be on top any longer. They are now the bourgeoisie. So it will probably take another revolution to overthrow the capitalism that mao and his followers built.

In any case, the fact that most people on this forum are from the most developed countries in the world is rather.. myopic. Most people on the internet, period, are from those same countries. In addition, this would make perfect sense in marxist terms. Do you think the peasants in the middle of nowhere were the ones to start revolting against the monarchies that oppressed them? Of course not--it first developed in a class that had access to the heights of technology at the time who didn&#39;t have an interest in continuing the monarchy--the bourgeoisie.

[bezdomni]

If you look at the world, you&#39;d notice that communism (be it of the anarchist variety or the Maoist sort) has a pretty large following in a lot of "third-world" countries. For example:
Venezuela
Nepal
Cuba
Bolivia
Chile
El Salvador
India
Pakistan

and to a lesser extent;
Vietnam
China
*shudder* North Korea

First world countries now?
Spain
France
Russia
Australia
United States

Every country has some sort of communist organization. The party I&#39;m in even has an underground movement in Iran.

I&#39;ve probably left some countries out, and I might have given some countries too much credit (like N. Korea and Vietnam)...but to assume that Communism is not popular in "third world" countires is ridiculous.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:31 AM



You&#39;re joking right? I might see some sparkle of rebellion in France or Germany, but an actual "communist revolution"? The situation in Europe isnt that shitty that the masses will remove the current powers and replace them with the full power of the people.

The present strength of the movement isn&#39;t why the revolution will happen there first. It will happen first in the advanced capitalist countries because thats where the material conditions exist for them to happen. Third world production is too backwards and young to harbor a communist society.


How big will your support be?

Large, thats usually how revolutions work :rolleyes:


The idea that the workers will be in control is great, but will they actually rise up? And will the working class have the know-how of the bourgeoise? You can definately expect some form of brain-drain if a communist revolution would occur in Europe.

...are you not a communist fernando, oh wait a primmi right? :lol:

The "know how" of the bourgeoisie? What nonsense&#33; They have no special skills that proletarians do not posses, they just have a social system in which their functions are necessary for production. But production does not require them at all, capitalism does.


Where is it possible then?

Advanced capitalist countries


Socialism or even communism is starting to sound more and more like some science fiction stuff that might happen in the far far faaaaaar future...you know like time travel and living on Mars...

So lets go live in the forest and grunt while eating our own shit because we just can&#39;t do anything better :lol:

[fernando]

The present strength of the movement isn&#39;t why the revolution will happen there first. It will happen first in the advanced capitalist countries because thats where the material conditions exist for them to happen. Third world production is too backwards and young to harbor a communist society.
The inequality in the Western world isnt that great though (if you compare it to the Third World), the relatively poor will not rise up. We might have a communist party and groups of people with communist ideas, but seeing the entire proletariat rise up in Western Europe?


Large, thats usually how revolutions work
Yes say that its a nationalist thing like in Cuba and Vietnam and then it will work yes. A purist communist revolution which was carried out/supported by the proletariat (majority of the masses) instead of a small elite group...not yet?


...are you not a communist fernando, oh wait a primmi right?
I wasnt a primmi, I was just against restricting them...for some that is enough to actually be a primitivist...or so the elite of the "left" has spoken. <_<


The "know how" of the bourgeoisie? What nonsense&#33;
Hmm...perhaps I phrased it wrong...I mean the intelligentia which basicly becomes a middle class. Sure the worker knows how to make a product, will he also redestribute it? Will he take care of the international trade? You need another figure for that, not a bourgeoise, but a figure which will represent the workers...will you re-educate some the workers to accomplish this?


They have no special skills that proletarians do not posses, they just have a social system in which their functions are necessary for production. But production does not require them at all, capitalism does.

Yes international trade also needs those skills...the bourgeoise has a higher education and the certain know-how on how to function in these situations...of course some keep their heads in the sand about this.


Advanced capitalist countries
Yes...so you said...I still have to see the entire Dutch proletariat rise up and take control of the country turning it into a communist nation <_<


So lets go live in the forest and grunt while eating our own shit because we just can&#39;t do anything better
Yes...you go do that, and take your little friends with you...please&#33; I just dont believe in the idea that the proletariat in the Western world will rise up, take over control, turn it into one big happy communist utopia. A new elite would probably be formed and eventually we turn back into the same shit...perhaps Im just a cynical.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The inequality in the Western world isnt that great though (if you compare it to the Third World), the relatively poor will not rise up. We might have a communist party and groups of people with communist ideas, but seeing the entire proletariat rise up in Western Europe?

If we look at the conditions of America for example, they are starting to get much worse. It might take a severe depression, etc, for this to happen. It&#39;s all plausible.


I mean the intelligentia which basicly becomes a middle class. Sure the worker knows how to make a product, will he also redestribute it?

The worker? No. The community as a whole? Yes. The distribution of goods is a community affair, not rocket science.


Will he take care of the international trade?

A federation can take care of this but much international trade will cease to be necessary.


Yes international trade also needs those skills...the bourgeoise has a higher education and the certain know-how on how to function in these situations...of course some keep their heads in the sand about this.

Yes the bourgeois is educated in capitalist trade. This is a communist revolution, not capitalism.


I still have to see the entire Dutch proletariat rise up and take control of the country turning it into a communist nation <_<

And yet the third world nations are doing this?


I just dont believe in the idea that the proletariat in the Western world will rise up, take over control, turn it into one big happy communist utopia. A new elite would probably be formed and eventually we turn back into the same shit...perhaps Im just a cynical.

Well yes primitivists (and their supporters, if that suits you) are often cynical, comes with the territory.

[fernando]

If we look at the conditions of America for example, they are starting to get much worse. It might take a severe depression, etc, for this to happen. It&#39;s all plausible.
Hmm, sounds like those theories in which the masses have to suffer so much that the revolution will eventually happen. Would this mean that you would support capitalism to such a level that it would finally explode and the masses would rebel...of course then you would join the masses...their suffering has been a tool right?


A federation can take care of this but much international trade will cease to be necessary.
How so? Especially under developed countries need money from the outside to start their programs, or would they become fully self sufficient? What about nations which are too small to become that?


And yet the third world nations are doing this?

Neither are they really...I havent seen any nation (except China sort of) on Earth which has fully embraced communism, the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions were nationalistic in nature, and later on turned communistic (which also meant a huge lost of support)


Well yes primitivists (and their supporters, if that suits you) are often cynical, comes with the territory.
And commies are naive, over optimistics who keep their heads in the sand?

[Red Polak]

Didn&#39;t Lenin also say that a revolution in a less developed capitalist country (such as Russia) would lead to another revolution in a more developed cappie country (eg. Germany)? :unsure:




er...and on the thread:

What&#39;s the OP&#39;s point? If anything, the higher proportion of people from developed capitalist countries as opposed to the less developed ones would point to capitalism not being perfect and there being unhappiness with it? Surely? Which works in our favour.

[fernando]

Didn&#39;t Lenin also say that a revolution in a less developed capitalist country (such as Russia) would lead to another revolution in a more developed cappie country (eg. Germany)?
Hmm where is that other revolution? Russia might have had state capitalism in the past, but now its turned to good old Yankee like capitalism...Lenin must be turning in his mausoleum right now...


If anything, the higher proportion of people from developed capitalist countries as opposed to the less developed ones would point to capitalism not being perfect and there being unhappiness with it? Surely? Which works in our favour.
But would that unhappiness be that great that they would throw over the existing policitcal/economical/social systems and their relations? I doubt it...

[RedSabine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:39 PM
Hmm, sounds like those theories in which the masses have to suffer so much that the revolution will eventually happen. Would this mean that you would support capitalism to such a level that it would finally explode and the masses would rebel...of course then you would join the masses...their suffering has been a tool right?


The lord works in mysterious ways.


We don&#39;t need to support it, because it will destroy itself anyway.

Their suffering is necisary for them to be liberated.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Hmm, sounds like those theories in which the masses have to suffer so much that the revolution will eventually happen.

Is this not just what you were implying with your response?


Would this mean that you would support capitalism to such a level that it would finally explode and the masses would rebel...of course then you would join the masses...their suffering has been a tool right?

Capitalism will self-destruct, no help needed from me.


How so? Especially under developed countries need money from the outside to start their programs, or would they become fully self sufficient? What about nations which are too small to become that?

Under developed countries don&#39;t need capitalist countries to survive, thats why they are underdeveloped. They need to throw off imperialist influences in order to control their own means of production.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 20 2006, 08:28 PM
i just seems like a paradox that the rich people of the world claim to be fighting - or if not, supporting - revolutions in poor countries where there doesnt seem to be a substancial revolutionary movement in the first place.

Isin&#39;t it funny that there are more marxists in the US than in third world countries?...you&#39;d expect the opposite.
What rich people? are you saying there are no poor in 1st world countries? And is your second fact based solely on this website?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

And don&#39;t tell me that Hugo Chavez is an example of South America moving to the left...Chavez is just a selfish dictator...his "21st century revolution" has little support...only around 30% approve of him.


Actually, since Chavez was democratically elected last year I don&#39;t think he&#39;s much of a dictator. You may not like him, but he&#39;s not a dictator. I&#39;d like to see a link that proves he is selfish and a dicator as he provided cheap gas to America&#39;s working class this winter to help heat there homes and plans to do the same in Europe next winter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4461946.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_re...erendum%2C_2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum%2C_2004)

[overlord]

Capitalism will self-destruct, no help needed from me.


Capitalism is human nature. You think human nature will self destruct? Are you completely insane? You&#39;ve been listening to too much propaganda from the lunatic left. It will NEVER happen. NEVER I tell you. It will happen when hell freezes over. And you guys don&#39;t beleive in hell, so it really is tough luck fellas.


I&#39;d like to see a link that proves he is selfish and a dicator as he provided cheap gas to America&#39;s working class this winter to help heat there homes and plans to do the same in Europe next winter

:wub: AWWWWWWW SHUCKS....... :wub: :wub: Good ole Hugo Shavez. He&#39;s our hero. He doesn&#39;t want those poor little European proletariat to shiver to death this winter. How sweet&#33;&#33; :wub:

(hack, cough, spit, vomit, hack) YEAH RIGHT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Too bad its not his fossil fuel to give. Isn&#39;t he just a paratrooper? Those resources rightfully belong to the companies who controlled them. How is looting justified? How is it sustainable? Chavez is indeed living on borrowed time.

[encephalon]

Capitalism is human nature. You think human nature will self destruct? Are you completely insane? You&#39;ve been listening to too much propaganda from the lunatic left. It will NEVER happen. NEVER I tell you. It will happen when hell freezes over. And you guys don&#39;t beleive in hell, so it really is tough luck fellas.

I&#39;m pretty sure the monarchists of 500 years ago would have disagreed with you. In fact, it&#39;s historically evidential that the monarchists would have said that monarchy is human nature, not capitalism.

Are you oblivious to your own logical fallacies?


Those resources rightfully belong to the companies who controlled them. How is looting justified? How is it sustainable? Chavez is indeed living on borrowed time.

ohhhhhhhhhhh.. you mean the resources they took from the indigenous people in the first place? What is this, reverse robin hood? The rich take from the poor and give to the rich? Have you any sense of history whatsoever?

[kurt]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 21 2006, 02:51 AM
Hmm...that&#39;s interesting...cose last i heard; Mao was a communist, he was even the head of the Chinese communist party...and ruled the country in Marxists manner...BUT if RedStar said it, IT MUST BE TRUE&#33;&#33;&#33; <_<
I never said "if redstar said it, it must be true". I was simply attempting to inform you that you were making a rather large straw-man out of redstar&#39;s argument by mis-interpreting it.

I think you have a gross mis-understanding of what communism really is, or you mis-represent it on purpose. Why would a communist (someone who believes that a stateless, classless society is possible) "rule" a country. Mao certainly was good at using marxist verbiage and jargon, but that hardly qualifies him as a "good marxist". Mao&#39;s "words" are of little value when compared to the actual material reality of China&#39;s situation during his "era".

Marxists don&#39;t rule, nor do they think peasant revolutions lead to communism, got it?

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@May 22 2006, 02:49 AM

What rich people? are you saying there are no poor in 1st world countries?



Comparatively, a poor person in the West is richer than a poor person in say Botzwana.



And is your second fact based solely on this website?

That question was already asked...and answered on page 1.

[fernando]

Is this not just what you were implying with your response?
That is what Im implying yes...the assumption that a communist revolution will come only when the masses suffer enough...capitalism has to grow more extreme. I remember they claimed in the early 20th century that the revolution would come soon throughout the Western nations...then they put in social reform programs which in reality are not that impressive but kept the revolution numbed.


Under developed countries don&#39;t need capitalist countries to survive, thats why they are underdeveloped. They need to throw off imperialist influences in order to control their own means of production.
Yes every country needs to become autarcic (fully self sufficient), but like I said...what about the nations which are too small or lack the resources to do so?


Capitalism is human nature. You think human nature will self destruct?
I would hardly call capitalism human nature...look at all the societies we had outside the Western World or the other large empires, most of them were very collectivist. Capitalism seems to be more of a Western system which is force fed down the troats of the rest of the world.


(hack, cough, spit, vomit, hack) YEAH RIGHT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Too bad its not his fossil fuel to give. Isn&#39;t he just a paratrooper? Those resources rightfully belong to the companies who controlled them. How is looting justified? How is it sustainable? Chavez is indeed living on borrowed time.
The resources belong to the people of Venezuela, not those companies&#33; Chavez is the representing figure of these people. He is now the president of Venezuela, before he was JUST a paratrooper. Why is that such a bad thing? Do all presidents have to be CEO&#39;s and alcoholic cocaine addicts?



Comparatively, a poor person in the West is richer than a poor person in say Botzwana.

True, but you cant compare Western poverty to poverty in Botswana, there is such a thing as relative poverty. You are poor if you cant really make it financially within a society.

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

remember they claimed in the early 20th century that the revolution would come soon throughout the Western nations...then they put in social reform programs which in reality are not that impressive but kept the revolution numbed.


Globalization had a big part to play in this also. Many of the jobs previously performed by the working class of 1st world countries were moved by corporations to third world countries where they could pay the workers far lower wages, much due to the social reforms you have mentioned.

this is why revolutions that are anti-imperialist are neccesary in third world countries must come before first world countries, they will not be purely communist, but will psuedo-socailist anti-capitalist like that seen in Cuba. This will force companies to return to the first world to surviuve as they have been rejected by the 3rd world resulting in worsening conditions for first world workers which in turn will lead to revolutions in these more devloped countries, and the creation of global communist society.

[fernando]

So first the entire Third World has to turn "revolutionary" and remove the Western powers, than the Western powers need to exploit their own workers more and then...a revolution in the Western would occur. Dont you think that the Western nations would prevent the Third World from falling out of their hands?

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

Dont you think that the Western nations would prevent the Third World from falling out of their hands?

There not doin a very good job at the moment. Much of South America is rejecting western imperialism, along with asia and africa. the fact is that the only way the west can "prevent the third world from falling out of their hands", is by remarkably improving conditions for all in the third world, and theyll have to do it quickly because of the revolutionary sentiment across the third world, i cant see it happening, and even if it were it would then destroy western capitalism, because western capitalism relies on the exploiting the third world in order to maintain cheap goods and higher standards of living. the revolutionary change in the third world has already begun and it will not end till the vast majority of third world nations have rejected western imperialism, then the exploitative corporations will have to return to the first world. Your right it will mean things will get worse for those of the first world, the comfort enjoyed by much of the first world working class is the reason for the lack of revolutionary sentiment i see in Britain where i live.

[fernando]

There not doin a very good job at the moment. Much of South America is rejecting western imperialism, along with asia and africa.
Hmm Latin America has Chavez, Castro and Morales...beyond that the rest is pretty moderate and not that hostile towards the US. Peru, Colombia and Mexico are still full US satellite states. What is happening in Asia and Africa? China isnt embracing communism, its becoming capitalistic. Iraq is slowly turning into a Yankee satellite state, a bunch of the big Middle East oil nations are as damn capitalistic as it can get, add some Islam fundamentalism to the mix...not that great of a socialist climate there.


the fact is that the only way the west can "prevent the third world from falling out of their hands", is by remarkably improving conditions for all in the third world, and theyll have to do it quickly because of the revolutionary sentiment across the third world, i cant see it happening, and even if it were it would then destroy western capitalism, because western capitalism relies on the exploiting the third world in order to maintain cheap goods and higher standards of living. the revolutionary change in the third world has already begun and it will not end till the vast majority of third world nations have rejected western imperialism, then the exploitative corporations will have to return to the first world.
Similar sentiments took place in the 60s and 70s of the twentieth century, things looked hopeful and some sort of revolution might happen, however most chickened out and things got more fucked up with the neo-liberal policies. It is however an interesting thing to look at. We have the political/economic block of Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela...how will this block grow? Who will join?


Your right it will mean things will get worse for those of the first world, the comfort enjoyed by much of the first world working class is the reason for the lack of revolutionary sentiment i see in Britain where i live.
Things have to get worse in order for the masses to rise up...hence the suffering of the working class is needed for a revolution...sounds pretty fucked up that you are making the working class suffer so that you can start a revolution for that same working class.

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

Hmm Latin America has Chavez, Castro and Morales...beyond that the rest is pretty moderate and not that hostile towards the US. Peru, Colombia and Mexico are still full US satellite states.

There is large resentment to imperialism in much of South America besides the three you mentioned. Theres the potentional of the Sandanistas returning to power, i belive peru has elected an anti-us leader, colombia has a large revolutionary movement and mexico has a powerful zapatista movement which rejects capitalism. Also i think argentina has many worker owned factories within it, which although not a socailist governed state, is largly rejecting capitalism in a different way to many of the revolutions of the 20th century. ill admit that these countries have not removed capitalist business yet, but its heading that way. i dont say these states have to be run by communists, all i believ is neccesary is the rejection of western capitalism and the removal of impreailistic business from these nations.


What is happening in Asia and Africa?

Theres the tention in nepal im sure your aware of, which looks likely to end in the rejection of western capitalism. iraq&#39;s transition to a pro-us state has sure turned up a lot of hostility within the region, and i wouldnt be suprised if there was to be full scale civil war within a year which may well end up in a vietnam-type removal of foreign troops. anti-imperialism has recieved a serious revitalisation in india, where a war is being raged against the governemnt forces. There are large anit-imperialist movements in other parts of asia and africa, and as long as starvation and poverty continue they can only grow. what do you think people will do, just forever sit there and accept the oppression?


not that great of a socialist climate there

Whilst the formation of socialist governemnts in third world countries is favourable, i never said it was essential, as long as there is rejection of capiatlism then corporations will be forced out.


Things have to get worse in order for the masses to rise up...hence the suffering of the working class is needed for a revolution...sounds pretty fucked up that you are making the working class suffer so that you can start a revolution for that same working class.

im not making the working class suffer. capitalism does that. i would desire that a revolution could happen without things gettin worse in the first world, however as i have already said the comfort of some of the first world working class due to globalisation and capitalist imperialism means there is no revolutionary consconse, seeing that things may have to get worse is just being pragmatic about the potential for global socialist revolution in the near future. even so how is it fucked up, as at the time when things will get worse in the first world, third world nations will have overthrown oppressive imperialistic capitalism and will be enjoying greater freedom? and the workers of the first world will never see conditions as bad as those of third world experinece because they will rise up before they allow such oppression.

[fernando]

There is large resentment to imperialism in much of South America besides the three you mentioned
There is a difference between resentment and actually doing something against it. Puerto Ricans hate to be a US colony, but they do not wish to become an independent state because their economic situation would turn into shit.


Theres the potentional of the Sandanistas returning to power,
True...a very interesting prospect, however I heard that Daniel Ortega isnt the goodie good guy he used to be...some sexual scandals and all that...


i belive peru has elected an anti-us leader
An ethnocentrist figure who might be a positive thing...however the Peruvians havent elected him yet. Polls at the moment show that Garcia will win the elections and thus will return to power. All those who voted for Lourdes (US puppet) will now vote for Garcia because they dont want Ollanta into power.


colombia has a large revolutionary movement
Yes and they have been standing there for about 40 years...so far no big changes...it remains an unstable area in which the Colombian government is still a US puppet.


mexico has a powerful zapatista movement which rejects capitalism.
They are only in Chiapas...the rest of Mexico is stil very capitalistic...


Also i think argentina has many worker owned factories within it, which although not a socailist governed state, is largly rejecting capitalism in a different way to many of the revolutions of the 20th century. ill admit that these countries have not removed capitalist business yet, but its heading that way. i dont say these states have to be run by communists, all i believ is neccesary is the rejection of western capitalism and the removal of impreailistic business from these nations.
Well that is a good thing, I dont mind if a country doesnt take a purist communist stand, as long as we move away from being controlled by the Western world&#33; But these countries still remain dependant on the Western world for money...which is the problematic part in all this.


Theres the tention in nepal im sure your aware of, which looks likely to end in the rejection of western capitalism.
How big is Nepal in Asia? Lets be realistic...great as that revolution might be its still a tiny little dot of no big significance in the region.


iraq&#39;s transition to a pro-us state has sure turned up a lot of hostility within the region, and i wouldnt be suprised if there was to be full scale civil war within a year which may well end up in a vietnam-type removal of foreign troops.
Might happen...but I guess Iraq will turn into a giant shit hole in which everybody wants to blow each other&#39;s brain off because they follow a different interpretation of their religion or whatever else...The Americans will try to stay there for the oil.


anti-imperialism has recieved a serious revitalisation in india, where a war is being raged against the governemnt forces.
Hmm got more info on that? Sounds interesting.


what do you think people will do, just forever sit there and accept the oppression?

Eventually they will rebel and try to shape their own destiny...and that is where the long struggle/war will begin. However some here believe that these people have to suffer even more so that they will get angry enough to rise up and fight.


Whilst the formation of socialist governemnts in third world countries is favourable, i never said it was essential, as long as there is rejection of capiatlism then corporations will be forced out.
Hmm...without the capitalist system these countries are nothing, just deserts with oil in them they need to sell in order to provide their decadent lifestyles. Now if the masses manage to get control of their resources though things would move towards a more positive direction. Problem is though that if I remember correctly none such movements are active in lets say Saudi Arabia. :(

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Capitalism is human nature. You think human nature will self destruct? Are you completely insane? You&#39;ve been listening to too much propaganda from the lunatic left. It will NEVER happen. NEVER I tell you. It will happen when hell freezes over. And you guys don&#39;t beleive in hell, so it really is tough luck fellas.


Ahhh OK now I understand so basically this &#39;human nature&#39; stops us from being good to one another, sharing, aiding the poor. Now I see. Makes complete fucking sense. There is no human nature. The &#39;Human nature&#39; is based on empty stereo types that are used to debunk communist thinking. It&#39;s just another arguement used by desperate capitalists.


:wub: AWWWWWWW SHUCKS....... :wub: :wub: Good ole Hugo Shavez. He&#39;s our hero. He doesn&#39;t want those poor little European proletariat to shiver to death this winter. How sweet&#33;&#33; :wub:

(hack, cough, spit, vomit, hack) YEAH RIGHT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Too bad its not his fossil fuel to give. Isn&#39;t he just a paratrooper? Those resources rightfully belong to the companies who controlled them. How is looting justified? How is it sustainable? Chavez is indeed living on borrowed time.

And how did thye get this fossil fuel? Through paying their workers the bare minimum, selling the fuel for as much as they can get away with, and fucking up the enviroment. Makes tons of sense to me now that you put it in those terms. Yes those poor, rich, fatass corporate oil executives. How will they survive? :(

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

QUOTE]There is a difference between resentment and actually doing something against it. Puerto Ricans hate to be a US colony, but they do not wish to become an independent state because their economic situation would turn into shit.[/QUOTE]

Thats true, but if a viable alternative was to arrise, like being part of a united latin america, or of a re-invigoratted international socialist community, then nations whove been trambled all over by the US but rely on them for economic support might seek refuge with this new bloc.


An ethnocentrist figure who might be a positive thing...however the Peruvians havent elected him yet. Polls at the moment show that Garcia will win the elections and thus will return to power. All those who voted for Lourdes (US puppet) will now vote for Garcia because they dont want Ollanta into power.

Thats a shame, i only heard early developments on the situation which seemed positive for this new guy to get in, even if he isnt great, he&#39;ll be an improvement on the US puppets often churned up in such elections. Also im not sure about the size and importance of the shining path in peru, except that they still exist, which may be another path to rejection of capitalist imperialism.


Yes and they have been standing there for about 40 years...so far no big changes...it remains an unstable area in which the Colombian government is still a US puppet.


i dont deny the current colombian governemnt is a us puppet, all im highlighting is the potential for revolutionary anti-us action in colombia, the civil war will end eventually, and im hopin that it will see the us imperialists kicked out.


They are only in Chiapas...the rest of Mexico is stil very capitalistic...

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0605labotz.htm
this website talks about the revistalistaion of the left in Mexico. its about the emergence of a new independant labour movement within mexico its includes some interstring quotes about this new movement (FSCISP) like
With the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) cornered in Chiapas and the left-of-center Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) covered in disgrace following the revelation of political payoffs, one could say that the FSCISP has emerged as the real potential force of the Mexican left.
i recommed it although it doesnt shed alot of light ont the exact ideology of the group, it certainly seems they would be anti-us imperialism.


Well that is a good thing, I dont mind if a country doesnt take a purist communist stand, as long as we move away from being controlled by the Western world&#33; But these countries still remain dependant on the Western world for money...which is the problematic part in all this.

your right, but perhaps the growth of an alternative block of left-leaning countries can end this.


QUOTE
anti-imperialism has recieved a serious revitalisation in india, where a war is being raged against the governemnt forces.


Hmm got more info on that? Sounds interesting.[/QUOTE]

I saw a tv documentry a while back on bbc which talked about the growth of a communist movement in india and the revolutionary movement there, and here is an article from india daily about the performance of the left in elections.

India: Communist Party To Secure Power?
May 11, 2006

The Left Front, a nine-party coalition led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), is likely to control the legislatures in two of the five states that held elections, early results from India&#39;s Election Commission showed May 11. The most recent results showed that the Left Front will keep control of West Bengal&#39;s legislature and will take over power from the ruling Congress party in the state of Kerala&#39;s legislature. Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi regained her seat in the national parliament for her constituency in Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh.


And heres a link
http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/70418.asp
its not huge, but the support for the left is growin in india, and with its exceeding backwards cast system, i can only see it attractin more support


Eventually they will rebel and try to shape their own destiny...and that is where the long struggle/war will begin. However some here believe that these people have to suffer even more so that they will get angry enough to rise up and fight.

I believe the fight back is begining, the workers and peasents of the third world have suffered enough at the hands of capitalist imperialism, and are startin in certain areas of the world to resist.


Hmm...without the capitalist system these countries are nothing, just deserts with oil in them they need to sell in order to provide their decadent lifestyles. Now if the masses manage to get control of their resources though things would move towards a more positive direction. Problem is though that if I remember correctly none such movements are active in lets say Saudi Arabia.

true although venezuela has oil and is rejecting imperialism, and ahlf of yemen used to be run by the socilaist party which is in the middle east region. im not sayin global revolutions gonna happen overnight, just that there is potential, which i see at the moment as growin.

[fernando]

Thats true, but if a viable alternative was to arrise, like being part of a united latin america, or of a re-invigoratted international socialist community, then nations whove been trambled all over by the US but rely on them for economic support might seek refuge with this new bloc.

If that bloc offers the same economic situation perhaps. If not they woul probably rather remain with the US (or the other European nations which still have colonies in the Carribean)


Thats a shame, i only heard early developments on the situation which seemed positive for this new guy to get in, even if he isnt great, he&#39;ll be an improvement on the US puppets often churned up in such elections.
Hmm, current developments are that Garcia will probably win. However this guy is also claiming to follow the doctrines of the military regimes Peru had in the 70s...will that mean that he will send his family to the US for expensive education and then flee to Miami like those generals?


Also im not sure about the size and importance of the shining path in peru, except that they still exist, which may be another path to rejection of capitalist imperialism.

They are nothing but a bunch of fucked up Maoist which worship their leader...hiding away from being caught and once in a while scream out some stuff. I never got the whole thing with personality cults within a "communist" ideology.


I believe the fight back is begining, the workers and peasents of the third world have suffered enough at the hands of capitalist imperialism, and are startin in certain areas of the world to resist.

That I believe...but some here claim that this revolution would first need to happen in the Westen nations or something vague like that...

[jaycee]

i think 1 mistake being made here is that breaking with western (american) imperialism is the same as breaking with imperialism. When some of these south american countries break away from american imperialism they are forced to embrace other imperialist nations, such as China, the western eurpean countries who are increasingly trying to challenge american dominanation or Rusian imperialism.

another mistake is that the third world bourgeoisie is any more progressive than the 1st world bourgeoisie. If these countries can some how become independant from imperialist domination of all kinds they simply become a stronger imperialist nation themselves. All nations are imperialist, even the weak imperialisms, you can&#39;t have capitalism without imperialism.

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

i think 1 mistake being made here is that breaking with western (american) imperialism is the same as breaking with imperialism. When some of these south american countries break away from american imperialism they are forced to embrace other imperialist nations, such as China, the western eurpean countries who are increasingly trying to challenge american dominanation or Rusian imperialism.

i wouldnt say that any of the countries i have mentioned that have rejected western imperialism have embraced other forms of imperialism, give examples of how that is the case.


another mistake is that the third world bourgeoisie is any more progressive than the 1st world bourgeoisie.


Your right its not, but i wouldnt say that the third world movements i have discussed are led by the third world bourgeoisie.


If these countries can some how become independant from imperialist domination of all kinds they simply become a stronger imperialist nation themselves. All nations are imperialist, even the weak imperialisms, you can&#39;t have capitalism without imperialism.

yes, the construct of nationhood results in inevitable imperialism, but im talkin about the rejection of foriegn corporations that have moved jobs away from first world countries, to third world coutries to cut there wage bill incredibly. if such corporations are forced out of the third world countries they are exploiting, how is that a bad thing? hjow does that create a strong imperialist nation? only when corporations are ejected from the third world will the first world make revolution, because the exploitation of third world workers and the comfort that can bring, has given some of the working class of the first world the belief that they have a stake in the capitalist system, and that it would be to their detriment to destroy it.

[jaycee]

well i know that china has ben trying hard to make business relations with Brazil among others.

Also i&#39;m pretty sure Russia, and germany have triedas well but i&#39;m not deffinate about that.

well i don&#39;t think that its true that revolution will only occur in the first world if the corporations are forced out of the 3rd world.

if u look at whats going on now in the first world we are seeing massive attacks on the working class, which is opening up new movements of the working class, for example the french anti cpe movement.

the workers in the 1st and 3rd world are class brothers and sisters, their enemy is the capitalist class of all countries.

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

if u look at whats going on now in the first world we are seeing massive attacks on the working class, which is opening up new movements of the working class, for example the french anti cpe movement.


i dont see that in the uk. the left is a dead as ever. i think theres more evidence of positive movements in the third world than the first.


the workers in the 1st and 3rd world are class brothers and sisters, their enemy is the capitalist class of all countries.

thats true. i havnt tryed to deny this, just that i believ that before the workers of the first world will see this, there must be anti-capitalist revolutions in the third world.

[Global_Justice]

less developed countries have less internet access. that is the main argument. it&#39;s nothing to do with whether there revolutionary or not, it&#39;s internet access. FOR EXAMPLE if you go to a football/soccer forum, despite football being the most popular sport in africa and certain parts of asia(fucking huge in iran) you are unlikely to find a very populous african football forum. however i know of many US soccer forums that are populous, despite it being only 4th/5th most popular sport. but does that mean people in africa or asia like football less than people in america? no of course it doesn&#39;t. it&#39;s the same prinicple for this forum.

added to the fact it is an english speaking forum (yes there are foreign language boards but they are shite) there isn&#39;t much opportunity for people in places like china, south america etc. to get involved in discussion.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+May 22 2006, 09:47 AM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ May 22 2006, 09:47 AM)
Jesus Christ&#33;@May 22 2006, 02:49 AM

What rich people? are you saying there are no poor in 1st world countries?



Comparatively, a poor person in the West is richer than a poor person in say Botzwana.



And is your second fact based solely on this website?

That question was already asked...and answered on page 1. [/b]
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/

That&#39;s where you belong

[jaycee]

well in the uk there has been quite big movements around pensions and the iraq war, although they were generally on bourgeois terrain, i.e the bourgoisie had control of them they reflect a general re-awakening of the proletariat worldwide.

[Tickin&#39; TimebOmb John]

well in the uk there has been quite big movements around pensions and the iraq war, although they were generally on bourgeois terrain, i.e the bourgoisie had control of them they reflect a general re-awakening of the proletariat worldwide.

this dosnt represent any stable working class movement in the uk, unlike active movements across the third world. the working class in the uk is not awakened to the potential of class struggle, some seem to be movin to back the bnp and such. there is undoubtably a section of the working class involved in the movements you talk of but a reawakening of the working class? look to the miner&#39;s strike of the 80&#39;s and winter of discontent and the like in the 70s, the proletariat was far more active and awake then than it is now, and i maintain this is down to the increased comfort generated from the exploiation of third world labour.