I love leftists

[marxist_troglodytes]

The strength of the Left lies in its indictment of capitalism, or the "bourgeoise" society they despise.
The advantage of being a leftist is that you always argue from the position of an imaginary utopia that obviously does not exist.

Leftists learn very early on that contrasting the real world with all its myriad human failings against a crackpot pie-in-the-sky utopia will always give them a farcical moral high horse from which to dispense their demagoguery.
But when it comes to dealing with the earthly manifestations of their marxist faith--places such as Fidel's Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the late Soviet Union, the Soviet-bloc countries, China, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Cambodia etc.--leftists separate into two groups.

One group pays lip service to those hideous Marxist disasters by claiming that "those countries were not really communist at all"; and thus these hypocritical leftists present a face to the world that purportedly avoids cognitive dissonance.
And the other group which is even more shameless, still pretends that the communist plague that has fallen on humanity is some sort of heavenly experience. These leftists still claim that brutal police states like Fidel's Cuba are "workers' paradises" and models that other nations should follow.

Communists killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century, caused the starvation of at least 30 million more, and impoverished entire swaths of humanity stretching across continents.
All this was done in the name of “social justice”. But more importantly, the leftists that claim to disown those communist failures (the first group) never took any action to undermine these supposedly “non-communist” communist holocausts while they were in full swing. Only after it is impossible to defend those communist atrocities in more sober circles, do these leftists pretend that those brutal gulag states were "never really communist at all". It's easier to disown your race horse after that horse lost the race.

Misery loves company, and thus leftists want the Western Democracies to join the communist gulag suffering that has already fallen on the Left's captives in Marxist dungeon-states.
Leftists are so contradicting and rabid that they even shill for hyper-religious reactionary Islamic fascists--any anti-democratic, anti-freedom political criminals receive an exemption from the Left's indictment.
But not to be outdone with the last century's death toll, today's communists are still adding to that death toll and pile of tortured humanity in places like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Fidel's Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, etc. More communist failures for the first group to pretend to disown, and for the second group to put on a pedestal as "heaven on earth"

[Okocim]

These leftists still claim that brutal police states like Fidel's Cuba are "workers' paradises" and models that other nations should follow.

they do? :unsure: This is despite Castro claiming multiple times that he's not a communist?


One group pays lip service to those hideous Marxist disasters by claiming that "those countries were not really communist at all"; and thus these hypocritical leftists present a face to the world that purportedly avoids cognitive dissonance.

do you know what communism is? or are you simply another brainless idiot indoctrinated by capitalist ideology your entire life?


Leftists are so contradicting and rabid that they even shill for hyper-religious reactionary Islamic fascists--any anti-democratic, anti-freedom political criminals receive an exemption from the Left's indictment.

We're not all SWP. :rolleyes:

[marxist_troglodytes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:04 am




they do? :unsure: This is despite Castro claiming multiple times that he's not a communist?

Sure, the communist flea-bag Castro can say anything he wants. Castro also says that his Cuba is a "democracy". This stuff is good for comic relief.
But if you disown Castro's communism, then what actions (not lip service) do you take to undermine Castro's regime?


do you know what communism is? or are you simply another brainless idiot indoctrinated by capitalist ideology your entire life?

The pretexts leftists use to enslave and toture human beings morphs and changes at their whim. It is easy for you to claim that communism is a "classless and stateless society" because no such thing has ever existed. In this way you pre-emptively shield yourself from complicity in the actual communist nightmares your comrades realize.

[RGacky3]

For the Most part Anarchists and Left Communists hae actively opposed Capitalist Oppression and Red Tyrannies.

[marxist_troglodytes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:24 am
For the Most part Anarchists and Left Communists hae actively opposed Capitalist Oppression and Red Tyrannies.
he he he...
This is great, more semantic games to obfuscate the issue.
"Left Communists'"?? wow hehehe I suppose there are "Right Communists"?? what the %%% ??
As if "anarchists" have ever produced material abundance and political freedom anywhere on earth. Revolutionary leftists have failed hideously at achieving political freedom and material abundance everywhere they have seized power.
Anarchists are so frivolous even their Communist comrades reject them.

What actions (not lip service) are you taking to undermine Fidel, Hugo Chavez, the Sandinistas etc??

When are we going to see anarchist clowns marching in the streets against Hugo Chavez and the Iranian mullahs? Tell us, comrade...

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

So troll, what ideological utopia do you promote?

[détrop]

The strength of the Left lies in its indictment of capitalism

Before I bother deconstructing your argument, are you sure we're even in a capitalism and not a plutocracy?

Now you've got bigger problems on your hands. Besides, all your complaints are contingent upon slippery-slopes, straw-men, and red-herrings.

OMG I just listed three logical fallacies in a row. This is too cool.

[marxist_troglodytes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:59 am
So troll, what ideological utopia do you promote?
Anyone that promises you a utopia is a fraud. Marxists promise to "create a new human race" "end the alienation of humanity"; in effect marxists promise a utopia.
The marxist project is so radical and extreme that they feel righteous when they kill and torture any person that displeases them.

[marxist_troglodytes]

Originally posted by dé[email protected] 04, 2007 01:20 am


Before I bother deconstructing your argument, are you sure we're even in a capitalism and not a plutocracy?

Now you've got bigger problems on your hands. Besides, all your complaints are contingent upon slippery-slopes, straw-men, and red-herrings.

OMG I just listed three logical fallacies in a row. This is too cool.
Deconstruct away, comrade.
Capitalism or plutocracy? Take your pick, it is imcumbent upon you to describe the "enemy" of the revolution. Do not be lazy, comrade.

The "capitalist boogeyman" serves very well as the strawman of leftist polemics.
Leftists all see capitalist-boogeymen hiding under their beds but cannot see the rotting pile of humanity imprisoned in their marxist gulag states.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The advantage of being a leftist is that you always argue from the position of an imaginary utopia that obviously does not exist.

Actually, What set Marx apart from the socialists before him was his scientific analysis of what was wrong with capitalism, the crimes it commited, and what will replace it. I suggest you read Engel's work; Socialism: Utopic and Scientific


moral high horse from which to dispense their demagoguery.

we get the "moral high horse" because you're the fuckers who are starving children in Africa, enslaving workers in Taiwan, and beating black people in the streets you're the ones who are supporting a system of oppression and exploitation.


But when it comes to dealing with the earthly manifestations of their marxist faith--places such as Fidel's Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the late Soviet Union, the Soviet-bloc countries, China, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Cambodia etc.--leftists separate into two groups.


That's a stupid comment. Keep in mind few of those places were socialist or are socialist, in anycase, places like China and the Soviet Union when they were socialist were far better than their capitalist counterparts teeming with sweatshops and shantytowns, and homeless.


These leftists still claim that brutal police states like Fidel's Cuba are "workers' paradises" and models that other nations should follow.

they weren't police states. As long as there is a state, there will be oppression of one class and a state. The difference is, whose hands the police are in. The police beating the landlord who whipped peasants and beat them and payed them nothing for centuries or the police who beat the ones who protest the system or who go on strike in defiance of the system that brutally exploits them. Which is better? The police that sides with the people.


Communists killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century

Bullshit. Anyhow, how many do you think have died as a result of capitalism and its side effects, slavery, sweatshops, homelessness, insufficient healthcare, housing and heating? Are you that fucking stupid?


, caused the starvation of at least 30 million more

that's a bullshit number. Straight up cold warrior propaganda. The real fact of the matter is that there is starvation in capitalist countries like Nigeria and Somalia and shit yet its never blamed on the system. Yet famine in socialist countries are always blamed on the system, meanwhile any idiot who knows anything will look at grain records and realize "oh shit, China had a famine every year before socialism came to China and by the time Mao died, China would never again have a famine."

[détrop]

The strength of the Left lies in its indictment of capitalism, or the "bourgeoise" society they despise.

You mean like your indictment of communism in this thread? Well fuck me, let's just have a Mexican stand-off and get it over with.


The advantage of being a leftist is that you always argue from the position of an imaginary utopia that obviously does not exist.


First things first. Marx's "visions" have nothing to do with the passion in the effort to achive a global communism. Personally, I don't care if we ever make it to a real "utopia," whatever the hell that is. There need not be an end in sight for trying to progress communism.


Leftists learn very early on that contrasting the real world with all its myriad human failings against a crackpot pie-in-the-sky utopia will always give them a farcical moral high horse from which to dispense their demagoguery.

Human failings and suffering is a natural condition for sentient life. People will still suffer in a communism. However, I need not contend this truth to know that a "capitalist" is uneccessary in an economy of material production. Therefore, I don't push communism to stop human suffering, but to eliminate uneccesary postions in a mode of production. If this lessens human suffering, great, if it does not, great, but one thing is for sure: the parasite is gone.


But when it comes to dealing with the earthly manifestations of their marxist faith--places such as Fidel's Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the late Soviet Union, the Soviet-bloc countries, China, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Cambodia etc.--leftists separate into two groups.

Oh come on, you know that communism will not work unless it is global. Nobody wants to trade, import, or export with a communist country. They are left in the dark.


Communists killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century, caused the starvation of at least 30 million more, and impoverished entire swaths of humanity stretching across continents.

And yet, all other politcial systems combined have caused more damage. Check you history. The first industrialized countries set out on countless crusades to dominate the world. Monarchy, feudalism, imperialism, proved in practice that they do not work....after everyone became miserable and revolted against these systems. There is nothing left, dude. Global communism is the only solution for this rock in outer space. Mark my words and watch the whole shit house go up in flames.

The rest of your post is a re-stating of the previous paragraphs, so its a waste of time to quote them and offer an argument.

Essentially I hear this: "Because each particular case of communist rule has failed, communism therefore cannot work."

Answer me this: why did the allied forces drop the bomb on Japan in WW2? Because Japan was offended by the embargo? Why was Japan offended by the embargo? Because the allied nations cut them off? Why did the allied nations cut them off?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:40 pm
"Left Communists'"?? wow hehehe I suppose there are "Right Communists"?? what the %%% ??
One of Lenin's most important works is called "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". If you would have done your homework you would have realised that this statement is truly lame, as well as your fallacious post.

Next time do some research before you make a fool of yourself (although I have the feeling that you are an old banned member and therefore you might not have a "next time" here :lol:)

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:59 am
The strength of the Left lies in its indictment of capitalism, or the "bourgeoise" society they despise.
The advantage of being a leftist is that you always argue from the position of an imaginary utopia that obviously does not exist.

Leftists learn very early on that contrasting the real world with all its myriad human failings against a crackpot pie-in-the-sky utopia will always give them a farcical moral high horse from which to dispense their demagoguery.
But when it comes to dealing with the earthly manifestations of their marxist faith--places such as Fidel's Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the late Soviet Union, the Soviet-bloc countries, China, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Cambodia etc.--leftists separate into two groups.

One group pays lip service to those hideous Marxist disasters by claiming that "those countries were not really communist at all"; and thus these hypocritical leftists present a face to the world that purportedly avoids cognitive dissonance.
And the other group which is even more shameless, still pretends that the communist plague that has fallen on humanity is some sort of heavenly experience. These leftists still claim that brutal police states like Fidel's Cuba are "workers' paradises" and models that other nations should follow.

Communists killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century, caused the starvation of at least 30 million more, and impoverished entire swaths of humanity stretching across continents.
All this was done in the name of “social justice”. But more importantly, the leftists that claim to disown those communist failures (the first group) never took any action to undermine these supposedly “non-communist” communist holocausts while they were in full swing. Only after it is impossible to defend those communist atrocities in more sober circles, do these leftists pretend that those brutal gulag states were "never really communist at all". It's easier to disown your race horse after that horse lost the race.

Misery loves company, and thus leftists want the Western Democracies to join the communist gulag suffering that has already fallen on the Left's captives in Marxist dungeon-states.
Leftists are so contradicting and rabid that they even shill for hyper-religious reactionary Islamic fascists--any anti-democratic, anti-freedom political criminals receive an exemption from the Left's indictment.
But not to be outdone with the last century's death toll, today's communists are still adding to that death toll and pile of tortured humanity in places like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Fidel's Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, etc. More communist failures for the first group to pretend to disown, and for the second group to put on a pedestal as "heaven on earth"
You're full of shit.
I highly suggest you read a book.
Do some history on so-called communist states, then come back.
You know, if you weren't such a dumb ass, you'd realise that there has been much resistance to Red Tyrannies (Russian Revolution, there was alot of resistance to the Bolsheviks. the fact that it was repressed doesn't mean it wasn't there. And alot of the resistant armies had fought the bolsheviks and the white armies [look up Nestor Makhno] and refused to submit until death).
The resistance to tyranny from parts of the left has always been there.

The bottom line is, you're rant lacks any real historical evidence.
Red tyrannies, and all tyrannical governments in general have always had resistance.
ALWAYS.

Do some history, moron.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:59 pm




But when it comes to dealing with the earthly manifestations of their marxist faith--places such as Fidel's Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the late Soviet Union, the Soviet-bloc countries, China, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Cambodia etc.--leftists separate into two groups.
One group pays lip service to those hideous Marxist disasters by claiming that "those countries were not really communist at all"; and thus these hypocritical leftists present a face to the world that purportedly avoids cognitive dissonance.
And the other group which is even more shameless, still pretends that the communist plague that has fallen on humanity is some sort of heavenly experience. These leftists still claim that brutal police states like Fidel's Cuba are "workers' paradises" and models that other nations should follow.

Actually a Marxist position on USSR, China, etc is neither of those, really...

Marxism is primarily a study of historical development in terms of economics, and it identifies this about Capitalism:
Competition forces the capitalists to constantly revolutionise the production process to produce more for less expense. Doing so creates conditions where supply exceeds demand, and therefore creates the material conditions for a socialist society, as social conflict over property can be abolished post-scarcity. This cannot be acclomplished without a revolution, however, as the capitalists must make profit and prices fall too much if there is a surplus, causing a crises.

In the socialist countries of the past, capitalism had not developed production enough to eliminate scarcity.

However that does not mean those revolutions were all bad. In China for example; foreign control of raw materials made industrialisation impossible, and the native bourgeoisies ties to the feudal ruling class and the ruling class of the imperialist countries meant that the bourgeois revolutions seen in the imperialist countries (French revolution for example) which could unify the country and make industrialisation possiblewere also not going to happen.
What was necassary in China, and you can take a similar explanation for the other countries, was to close markets to the imperialist countries (until national capital had accumulated to the point where competition was possible) and set up a planned economy to rapidly industrialise the country.

For Marxists, historical context is everything. We say fuck you and your post modern bollocks, economic systems are not consumer choices.

Communists killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century, caused the starvation of at least 30 million more, and impoverished entire swaths of humanity stretching across continents.

Again I'll use the example of China, because I currently live here and I've studied it quite a bit.
China's famine after the revolution was nothing compared to the famine following the opium wars in the 1800s were imperialist capitalism was imposed on her.
Furthermore, before the revolution China had famines on an annual basis, made far more severe by the introduction of capitalism as the prosperous south was no longer able to subsidise the harsh north. After the revolution and because of the Great Leap Forward these famines stopped. The life expectancy also DOUBLED, and inudstrial output increased 13fold. Eat that beyotch.
Coincidence?
I am no fan of Mao himself, but the Chinese Revolution was an absolute necessity. What would your solution be? Leave China raped by imperialism and ravaged by Warlords and the Guonintang, (who carried out far more killings than the Communists ever did-the commies also banned torture, and furthermore those counted in the deathcount were mostly killed in war, or by autonomous peasant courts set up to try landlords, and were not state executions) with any economic development impossible? Without a revolution China would look identical to Africa today.
There is a reason why Mao is revered in China and made into an inhuman monster by ignorant tossers like yourself who know nothing but propaganda.

All this was done in the name of “social justice”. But more importantly, the leftists that claim to disown those communist failures (the first group) never took any action to undermine these supposedly “non-communist” communist holocausts while they were in full swing. Only after it is impossible to defend those communist atrocities in more sober circles, do these leftists pretend that those brutal gulag states were "never really communist at all". It's easier to disown your race horse after that horse lost the race.

Saying it was done in the name of social justice is so oversimplified it is just plain laughable.
The rise of state bureaucracy (inevitable in China because there was next to no proletarian class, making a Bonapartist state from the outset the only thing really possible, less so inevitable in Russia but caused perhaps by the famine caused by war and sabotage by the Kulaks, thereby weakening and depoliticising the proletariat; but the fact demand exceeded supply due to the lack of capitalist development was probably a more important underlying factor) in the socialist countries was actually heavily resisted by actual communists; the Kronstadt sailors, The Mahknovists in Ukraine, the 56 Hungarian Uprising.

Leftists are so contradicting and rabid that they even shill for hyper-religious reactionary Islamic fascists--any anti-democratic, anti-freedom political criminals receive an exemption from the Left's indictment.

We do?

But not to be outdone with the last century's death toll, today's communists are still adding to that death toll and pile of tortured humanity in places like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Fidel's Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, etc. More communist failures for the first group to pretend to disown, and for the second group to put on a pedestal as "heaven on earth"

North Korea is "Juche" and has nothing to do with marxism and neither does Zimbabwe.
Secondly who is being killed in Venezuela and Cuba? And secondly Venezuela is not a even a planned economy.
And how the hell is Nicaragua ANYTHING other than social democratic?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:40 am
When are we going to see anarchist clowns marching in the streets against Hugo Chavez and the Iranian mullahs? Tell us, comrade...
My only criticism of Hugo Chavez is he is not revolutionary enough.

Protesting against Iran in my own country would achieve nothing other than asking our government to invade Iran which is not the way forward.

But communists in Iran itself are active opposition to a regime that has a nasty habit of killing people like us. Don't be so fucking stupid.

And I have done what little I can in opposition to Iran. A few months ago when I was living in England I was part of a group of communists who organised a community of refugees to resist deportation and one of those we were helping was an Iranian homosexual who faced execution in his own country. There was also a Libyan man who said something bad about Gadhaffi and had to leave with his kids, and a Zimbabwean woman in a similar situation.

Our bourgeois government deported these people presumably to their death, while we communists did everything in our power to save them.
What did you do?

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

I am a leftist and i live in Lebanon and I have received no criticism whatsoever. Sure there are many islamofascists in this part of the world, but not nearly as many neo con christian fascists in your part of the world. And in the West, those people are actually in power. Here they operate in the undertground to avoid being arrested. Here we have an open communist party, and everyone supports hezbollah, and they do not want to establish an islamic state here simply be an active party in lebanon's democracy. Hezbollah provide free schooling, free health care, food, and shelter for people who live in their areas, as well as protection from the zionists. What has america done for its people lately?

[RGacky3]

The thing about arguing with this guy is its not about arguing the meaining or the causes of facts, or arguing if the facts are justified, he simply does'nt have the facts, Anarchists have gained a lot of freedom, the 8 hour work day was in a large effect caused by the IWW, alot of our freedom of speach came from Anarchists opposition to things like World War One, Anarchists (or ones like that) in Oaxaca overthrew an entire government, now lets ask this, what freedoms and Liberties have Capitalists given voluntarily to the people, without HUGE public pressure.
Also Anarchists have actively opposed Castro, Hugo Chavez, the USSR, China, North Korea (to the extent they can), and many other Red Tyrannies, do a bit of reading.

Why was he banned btw?

[RNK]

First of all, I challenge you to name one truely Communist society built upon the foundations of the work Marx and Engels developed. You can't. All you can name are failed Socialist states (which in and of itself is a different story, but sufficed to say, just because it hasn't worked yet is no reason to stop trying).

Secondly, I would like to point out that western democracies and capitalists have killed more people than any failed Socialist state, both directly and indirectly. Directly through their very own armed action, indirectly through the consequences of other actions. Infact, in both World Wars (which were wholly imperialist/capitalist wars) well over 100,000,000 died, and since 1945 the United States alone has caused over 50,000,000 more deaths through direct military actions or the actions of governments militarily supported by the United States.

So don't come in here and start dropping propagandist terms like "gulag" and "dictatorship". Do your homework, take a history lesson, and learn the facts. Big words and articulate sentences do not a smart man make.

[leftist_ghouls]

Actually, What set Marx apart from the socialists before him was his scientific analysis of what was wrong with capitalism, the crimes it commited, and what will replace it. I suggest you read Engel's work; Socialism: Utopic and Scientific

What the hell does this have to do with present-day leftist polemics? Leftists commit any crime that advances their revolution all in the name of that same Marxist creed. Leftists cannot present evidence that their socialist utopia has ever existed anywhere on earth. This is why marxism-socialism-communism (dont bog down the issue with semantic games) is a faith and absolutely lacks scientific empirical evidence to support their claims.

we get the "moral high horse" because you're the fuckers who are starving children in Africa, enslaving workers in Taiwan, and beating black people in the streets you're the ones who are supporting a system of oppression and exploitation.

A leftist "moral high horse" is the commanding heights from which they starve children in African Zimbabwe or North Korea; enslave workers in China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam etc.--and beat Cuban blacks in the streets for committing the "heinous" crime of expecting freedom of speech. Leftist oppression is euphemized by leftists as "liberation". About %80 of the prisoners in Castro's gulags are black while only %.08 of the Cuban Communist party is of that race.
Communism is such a miserable failure that even Communista China is resorting to special capitalist zones to build a real economy.
Notice how there are NO free market economies creating "special communist zones" to advance their economic development. hahahahahaaa :lol:


That's a stupid comment. Keep in mind few of those places were socialist or are socialist, in anycase, places like China and the Soviet Union when they were socialist were far better than their capitalist counterparts teeming with sweatshops and shantytowns, and homeless.

Ofcourse, this is classic. The more obvious it becomes that socialist experiments are hideous catastrophes, the more their reasons for those revolutions shrink from their original grandiose promises.
Before they seize power, leftists will paint a picture of their revolution as being nothing short of a miracle blissful existence. But after their socialist mauling of those societies takes its toll, leftists roll out the old "at least its better than before excuse" Pathetic.
So what is the point of marxist revolutions, to build the perfect world, or "at least its better than before"??
To add insult to injury, every single leftist revolution has left its society exponentially worse than before that revolution. Leftist regimes are more repressive, brutal, ruthless, sanguinary and TOTALITARIAN than the governments they replaced.
This is the pattern established by the French Revolution and its Terror.
Sweatshops, shantytowns and homelessness is not the exception in communist countries, it is the rule.

they weren't police states. As long as there is a state, there will be oppression of one class and a state. The difference is, whose hands the police are in. The police beating the landlord who whipped peasants and beat them and payed them nothing for centuries or the police who beat the ones who protest the system or who go on strike in defiance of the system that brutally exploits them. Which is better? The police that sides with the people.

Communists cannot separate their propaganda from reality.
Police in liberal democracies only exist to enforce law and order; and they are completely unpoliticized. As if Western Democracies have ruling "Capitalist" Parties along with its own insignia that is worn on the uniforms of their police officers. As happens in their respective versions in socialist states.
Police officers in the USA are banned from asking people about their immigration status to protect illegal aliens and to facilitate the lawlessness of these illegal aliens' existence. Most illegal aliens are brown skinned Mexicans. So where is the "racism, hate, exploitation , imperialism" of Western police forces there?
Communist police forces on the other hand exist to protect the ruling Communist nomenklatura's power and privilege. And these communist policemen are politicized to the point of taking oaths to either the Communist Party or the ruling Communist strong-man himself.
Now where do Western Democratic police officers swear an oath to the imaginary ruling "Capitalist" party?

Bullshit. Anyhow, how many do you think have died as a result of capitalism and its side effects, slavery, sweatshops, homelessness, insufficient healthcare, housing and heating? Are you that fucking stupid?

A menial worker in the USA has more rights, privileges, freedoms and recourses to legal action than even Communist commisars in Marxist countries. Even privileged Communist commisars live their life looking over their shoulders scared to death that they might fall out of favor.
Slavery sweatshops, homelessness, insufficient healthcare, housing and heating is what captives in socialist countries receive if they are lucky.
An illegal alien picking grapes in California makes more money, has more rights freedoms, and recourses for redress than a doctor in Fidel's Cuba. Now, whos the one being exploited?


that's a bullshit number. Straight up cold warrior propaganda. The real fact of the matter is that there is starvation in capitalist countries like Nigeria and Somalia and shit yet its never blamed on the system. Yet famine in socialist countries are always blamed on the system, meanwhile any idiot who knows anything will look at grain records and realize "oh shit, China had a famine every year before socialism came to China and by the time Mao died, China would never again have a famine."

Nigeria and Somalia are "capitalist" in the sense that leftists live in a polarized dementia where anything they dont absolutely own is "capitalist".
China's "great leap forward'' was itself one of the biggest govt imposed famines in history.
The Soviets' collectivization of the countryside killed millions of Russian peasants who's name that bloody revolution was carried out in the first place.

[MrDoom]

You're going to have to explain one of these days (before banning) exactly what criteria North Korea, China, etc. meet to make them "communist".

[Louis Pio]

Hmm China is a market economy were unions and strikes are banned. One should think such a country would be the dream of any reactionary

[IcarusAngel]

Wow. This guy is a complete idiot (leftist_ghouls). He can't even use a % sign correctly, and actually, under Mao, the longevity rate of the population went up, and never did Mao purposefully exterminate millions of people like Hitler and other capitalists did. It is true that millions died from starvation (people were living longer, the population grew, there wasn't enough food to go around, etc.), but millions of people have always been dying in china from starvation.

I think leftist_ghouls may be a protest-warrior. His grammar and intelligence are about that low of a level.

[colonelguppy]

i'm pretty sure people were starving because mao tried to force the transition between subsistence farming and industrialized agriculture, and this was horribly mismanaged because of incompetence within the government (although i'd like to meat the person who could pull this off succesfully in an under-developed country).

either way, i don't see how honest debate is going to take place if people keeping blaming the problems of communist countries by distancing them from communism by calling them capitalist or by simply distracting the attention onto other bad htings that "capitalists" have done. i also don't know why people talk about hitler being a capitalist as though it was his defining characteristic.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:52 am
Before they seize power, leftists will paint a picture of their revolution as being nothing short of a miracle blissful existence. But after their socialist mauling of those societies takes its toll, leftists roll out the old "at least its better than before excuse" Pathetic.
So what is the point of marxist revolutions, to build the perfect world, or "at least its better than before"??
To add insult to injury, every single leftist revolution has left its society exponentially worse than before that revolution. Leftist regimes are more repressive, brutal, ruthless, sanguinary and TOTALITARIAN than the governments they replaced.
This is the pattern established by the French Revolution and its Terror.
My God, you're shitting on the FRENCH revolution now? You do realise the French Revolution was a BOURGEOIS revolution designed to establish capitalism and ruin the old feudal ruling class? If the French Revolution and the other bourgeois revolutions had never occured, we would all be peasants working on farms for the feudal landlord with no advances in technology.

Equally, China and Russia, without their revolutions, would look like any random undeveloped African country.

To call a revolution "marxist" is arbitary and means nothing; Marxism is not the same thing as socialism. A bourgeois revolution in a feudal country is a marxist revolution because Marx identified capitalism as the necassary stage after feudalism, and would therefore support a bourgeois revolution.

To label things marxist or socialist is purely semantic and completely meaningless. Marx identifies socialism as the society that capitalism lays the groundwork for; you cannot deny that the only new society possible to build in a developed capitalist world is some type of socialism. (fascism is NOT socialism, it is a particular type of capitalist society; fascism is an alliance of business owners and the state, it may be heavily regulated but only as a means to preserve the capitalist mode of production and distribution. all capitalism is regulated to whatever extent is appropriate) Capitalism prepares for this by the creation of the proletariat, (someone with no access to any means of production and must receive a wage directly or indirectly from a capitalist) a class who are capable of collectively organising and seizing the means of production-secondly it develops production to the point where it is possible for supply to exceed demand, meaning social conflict over use values can disappear.

The previous revolutions, though they can be called socialist depending on how you choose to define the word, (but it is a word, no more. only the actual material conditions matter to marxists in describing a society) these conditions were absent so they were NOT the socialism that marxists strive for. We do however support these revolutions because they are PROGRESSIVE in terms of development-I support the Chinese, Russian, etc revolutions in the same way I support capitalist revolutions like the French Revolution and the American Civil War. You obviously did not take the time to read my post on China so here it is again in simpler terms; the imperialist form of capitalism is a hinderance to development because raw materials necassary for development leave the country to go into the hands of the dominant industrialised countries. Secondly, the progressive tasks of the bourgeois revolution cannot be carried out by the bourgeois in countries dominated by imperialism due to their ties to the imperialists and to the ruling feudal class. Trotskys theory of permanent revolution is one that only the proletariat (or with Mao, the population in general as China had a very undeveloped proletariat placing the peasantry in a more important position) could carry out the tasks of the bourgeoisie. (i.e. industrialisation, creation of a national market and currency) This theory is pretty hard to deny.

Example of these achievements in China; under Mao life expectancy doubled, equal rights for women were established, industrial output increased 13x, equal access to education and healthcare, and other small things like building roads, successful campaigns to reduce Malaria epidemics (for example in Simao, where I am living!) Torture was also banned and political killings were greatly reduced, despite what the myths say. Without the revolution there is no way this could have been achieved, and no way China could look anything better than Africa today.

As for saying they are more repressive and ruthless, that is just plain ignorance. Why do you suppose the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cubans, and Russians respect their revolutions whilst spoiled westerners who have no idea about the circumstances surrounding the revolutions demonise them beyond belief?

And no, the answer is not brainwashing. :rolleyes: (although that is part of it)

I hope you will read this with an open mind, as it will explain a lot to you about the thinking of Marxists. But somehow I think you're a well conditioned idiot, a complete waste of time.

[Matty_UK]

Notice how there are NO free market economies creating "special communist zones" to advance their economic development. hahahahahaaa :lol:

That is because communism can only be created from the bottom up, and the capitalist ruling classes will lose their money and power by voluntarily creating "special communist zones."

Although, if you're one of those ignorant Americans who define anything with state intervention as socialist, then your statement is completely false as all capitalist governments regulate the capitalist economy to keep it running stable.

Sweatshops, shantytowns and homelessness is not the exception in communist countries, it is the rule.

Which planned economies had any homeless people again?

And your statement about sweatshops is truly absurd.

Police in liberal democracies only exist to enforce law and order; and they are completely unpoliticized. As if Western Democracies have ruling "Capitalist" Parties along with its own insignia that is worn on the uniforms of their police officers. As happens in their respective versions in socialist states.

If the police are not defending capitalism, then I guess I could walk into a supermarket and help myself and I wouldn't get arrested? Supermarkets generally destroy 40% of what they produce to keep prices high. This is criminal. So why does a kid who steals a CD get arrested, or worse, why do kids who download music (which costs nothing to produce digitally) get sued?

And if they are not on the side of capital and capitalist property, why do they break strikes and subvert labour organisation but do not bust capitalists who ruin the lives of their workers by making them redundant? Or maybe you are so braindead and conditioned you haven't considered this?

Now where do Western Democratic police officers swear an oath to the imaginary ruling "Capitalist" party?

By agreeing to follow orders and follow the laws set by the bourgeois state.

Slavery sweatshops, homelessness, insufficient healthcare, housing and heating is what captives in socialist countries receive if they are lucky.

:D
Yeah Haitis healthcare system is sooooo much better than Cubas, and it's homelessness problem is sooooo more trivial.

Nigeria and Somalia are "capitalist" in the sense that leftists live in a polarized dementia where anything they dont absolutely own is "capitalist".

I thought they were capitalist in the sense that industry is privately owned and production is for profit not use?

China's "great leap forward'' was itself one of the biggest govt imposed famines in history.

"Imposed" deliberately? It was mismanaged, but the famine was miniscule compared to the famine caused by the introduction of imperialist capitalism following the opium wars, (where in the name of freedom Britian and France destroyed China so they could sell OPIUM to them....) making southern subsidising of the harsh north impossible. China had annual famines in the north every winter, but because of the great leap forward these famines no longer exist.

You are ignorant.

[SmashCapitalism]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+March 04, 2007 03:17 am--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ March 04, 2007 03:17 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 09:40 pm
"Left Communists'"?? wow hehehe I suppose there are "Right Communists"?? what the %%% ??
One of Lenin's most important works is called "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". If you would have done your homework you would have realised that this statement is truly lame, as well as your fallacious post.

Next time do some research before you make a fool of yourself (although I have the feeling that you are an old banned member and therefore you might not have a "next time" here :lol:) [/b]
I was gonna say the same thing, but you did it for me :D

[grouchomarx]

First things first. Marx's "visions" have nothing to do with the passion in the effort to achive a global communism. Personally, I don't care if we ever make it to a real "utopia," whatever the hell that is. There need not be an end in sight for trying to progress communism.

At least this leftist is flirting with the truth that communism does not create a utopia. Isnt this grounds for this leftist to be ex-communicated from the leftist community? Even leftists realize that their marxist faith will fail in practice every single time its tried. And this is why leftism is the politics of bad faith. Leftists really are a class of willful nihilistic parasites.


Oh come on, you know that communism will not work unless it is global. Nobody wants to trade, import, or export with a communist country. They are left in the dark.

Marx asserted that the "liberation" power of the "proletariat" was autonomous. Marx never said the entire world had to be socialist for any one socialist country to thrive. In fact, Marx said that only industrialized modern liberal democracies he despised were fertile grounds for his failed discredited marxist creed.

Germany was a first world well-developed techonologically advanced industrialized country before the Soviet armies invaded its eastern territories. The Soviets imposed communism on the new Communist East Germany. So what happened? East Germany not only lagged terribly behind its West German counterpart(which was leveled to ruins just as bad as the East--if not worse--in the aftermath of WW2), but East Germany was reduced to a standard of living and per capita GDP comparable to a third world country.

Now, this is the cue for leftist windbags to roll out their mountains of excuses as to why the communist (marxist socialist leftist anti-imperialist blah blah blah) East Germany failed while the capitalist West Germany performed an economic miracle and would eventually become the central pivot point of the fall of the Soviet Empire precipitated by the fall of the Berlin Wall.

An industrialized modern society split in two sections: A capitalist West that thrives as one of the great economic powers of the world to the point that it attracts immigrants; and a non-capitalist "anti-imperialist" East Germany exempt from the Left's indictment experienced a rapid entropy into a Stalinist terror-state with the poverty and desperation of a socialist economy as its complement. East Germany attracted no immigrants. In fact, East Germans would escape the Stasi-controlled East German hell-hole the way Cubans rafters still escape the "anti-imperialist" non-capitalist exempt-from-the-Left's-indictment Castroite Cuba.

Roll out the old tired mountains of banal marxist verbiage to explain this away, comrades.

Even Marx was sharp enough to leech from the material bounties and freedoms of the capitalist democracies he sought to detroy.

Bounties and freedoms which Marx's ideological descendants squander and abolish in a matter of days-- if not hours --upon their seizure of power. Never to return again.
Left in the dark??
Communist countries received billions of dollars in Western aid and/or loans.
The Soviet trained Sandinistas had the distinct advantage of being funded by the Soviet Union and the United States in the first year of their revolution.
The leftist American president Jimmy Carter saw to it that his sweetheart Sandinista terrorists were not left in the dark.
If it wasnt for American monetary and military aid to the Soviet Union during WW2, that Communist Empire would of been erased from the map.
If it wasnt for Western food donations, many communist countries would starve to death altogether.
If it wasnt for the political, moral, and institutional support that the Western Leftist press corps, academia , and leftist Parties posing as "social democrats" or "liberals" lavish on leftist revolutionaries, then these communists would never even seize power in the first place.
Fidel Castro once boasted :" ...the New York times got me the job!!..." And he's right. For all essentials the Cuban "revolution" was a public relations campaign fought on the pages of the New York Times and other prestigious American newspapers and television networks.
Marx stated that the "ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class"

So how is it that the "capitalist imperialist exploitative racist fascist Nazi" United States of America has its universitiy system overwhelmingly dominated by Marxists or some form of kitsch Marxism; its media dominated by marxoid (the "oid" being key) fellow-traveler leftists, and its major political party--the Democrats--composed of socialists posing as "liberals"???

All these leftist institutions are the ruling class that dictate the popular culture.

The most prestigious American newspapers: The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times are all leftist biased and shills for leftist causes. The New York Times prints gushing reviews of Marx's Manifesto. These newspapers set the tone for all other media outlets to follow.

Television networks such as NBC, CBS , ABC, and CNN are all "liberal" leftist biased. Billionaire marxists like Ted Turner control CNN outright. This is the media of the ruling class as their domination of the airwaves is creeping close to monopolistic. And they are hypocrites as if being leftist shills wasnt bad enough. None of these media--print or television--are non-profit organization as would be dictated by their socialist premise. No. These media outlets command huge profits and resources that make their directors the real capitalist predators of Marx's caricature.

The Democrat Party is dominated and composed by a vanguard of convinced socialists such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Maxine Watters, Barbara Lee, Dennish Kucinich, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter etc. Some of these Democrat leftists have even traveled to Cuba, celebrated with Fidel Castro and returned to the States with glowing praise for the Communist despot. They all oppose and/or undermine the Patrioc Act and any counter-terrorism measure with the full knowledge that this favors ultra-religious reactionary Islamic fascists.

Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Berkeley etc; the most prestigious American universities have their faculties and administrations heavily dominated by not just mere leftists, but by outright Stalinists, Communists and even Jihadists thrown in for good measure. Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Cornel West, Ward Churchill, and the like are all hard-left self-declared enemies of the "capitalist" system that has given them status, prestige, wealgh and power. All these leftists are revered members of university faculties and each has a huge following in his own right. And many of these leftists are millionaire parlor marxists denouncing wealth while they themselves command exorbitant salaries. How do you leftists explain this away? This leftist academia is the ruling academia as their is no other.

The media, academia, and a major political party dominated by the Left in a supposedly "capitalist imperialist exploitative" United States. They dominate and control the popular culture, hence their ideas are the ruling ideas. Where are the imaginary "Capitalist Party" stormtroopers arresting any of these leftists controlling any of these powerful institutions?

[grouchomarx]

My God, you're shitting on the FRENCH revolution now? You do realise the French Revolution was a BOURGEOIS revolution designed to establish capitalism and ruin the old feudal ruling class? If the French Revolution and the other bourgeois revolutions had never occured, we would all be peasants working on farms for the feudal landlord with no advances in technology.

The French Revolution was the emotional model for Karl Marx's class antagonisms.
Marxism is a perverse romantic longing for a time when real immutable class stratification existed. This feudal class conflict provides Marxists with the indignation that fuels their passions.
This infantile assinine Marxist obsession with class warfare is central to their error.
Robespierre was the prototype for all populist dictators of the 20th century.
Long before Marx or the Russian Revolution even, Robespierre was invoking the grievances of others to justify his statist terror.
Robespierre's class victimhood speeches read like eerily prescient specimens of the rhetoric and arguments that Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and others would recite years later as if populism and marxism are some sort of gruesome virus infecting the brains of men throughout the ages.
Marx's manifesto was already unfeasible and archaic by the time he published it.
Marx's ideological desendants are still clueless as to how modern industrialized societies function.
A key to the marxist mindset is the concept of permanent class distinctions.
As if poor people are born with "proletariat" tattooed on their foreheads. As if rich people are born with "bourgeoise" tattoed also on their foreheads.
As if being "working class'' is a genetic feature such as race that cannot be changed. Leftists are clueless to the dynamic of class mobility in modern democratic industrialized societies.
Today's poor man can be tomorrow's rich man. Todays rich man can loose his fortune and be poor tomorrow. Is that former "capitalist predator" now a proletariat darling?
A "proletariat" can become an entrepeneur and rise above poverty, so exactly at which point does a working-class or proletarian lose his exemption from the Left's indictment? What is the cut-off point in a person's bank account balance where leftists assign their permanent class roles of "proletariat" and "oppressor"?
That leftists are completely ignorant to the social fluidity of modern societies demonstrates their total lack of connection to reality.
Leftists are clueless to how modern societies operate, and hence leftists are clueless to how national wealth is created.
In modern industrial democratic societies class distinctions are meaningless. This is what leftists will never understand or are too venal to admit.
Leaders of Marxist vaguards are millionaires many times over. By their own Marxist standard, marxist leaders are the capitalist "enemy". Fidel Castro makes the capitalist Forbes list as one of the richest men in the world.


Marxism is a reactionary regression to a time when political freedom and free markets did not exist. Leftists are trying to realize a discredited 19th century Marxist dogma based on a feudal 17th century agenda. To pretend that leftists are "progressive" is a joke.

[grouchomarx]

For Marxists, historical context is everything. We say fuck you and your post modern bollocks, economic systems are not consumer choices.

this about Capitalism:Marxism is primarily a study of historical development in terms of economics, and it identifies

For people that supposedly boast about being students of history, leftists are blind to the history unfolding right in front of their eyes.
Leftists learn nothing from their communist experiments because leftists are not operating honestly or scientifically.
Leftists look at the horrendous results of their socialist experiments and casually dismiss them because they do not match their preconceived imaginary result of a "classless and stateless society". In this way leftists are insulated from ever having to reflect on their marxist dogma.
For leftists, it is not the results of communist experiments that count as evidence--no--for leftists it is their unproven discredited ruinous archaic reactionary barbaric theory that is the only purported "evidence".
So for leftists, the theory itself--communism as a "classless and stateless"--is the only evidence that matters. Mountains of real evidence in the form of a sea of ruined lives and slaughtered humanity are merely inconvenient little details that need to be obfuscated.
Marx claimed that the abolition of private property and the seizure of power by the proletariat would usher in the "whithering away of the state" So when revolutionary leftists carried out precisely that, what happened?
Far from whithering away the state, the abolition of private property left the "proletarian" government completely unchecked. The proletarian governments did not lose their "political character". To the contrary, by abolishing private property
the power of the new state became absolute and totalitarian.
Leftists will never understand that private property stands as the cornerstone of human liberty. Why? Because private property is a defense against the predations of governments and other people.
The core marxist principle of abolishing private property or capital, which is total government ownership of the means of production robs people of an economic life beyond the control of government.
Marx was tragically wrong about the effects of state-proletarian ownership of the means of production whithering away the state.
To the terrible contrary, by regressing humanity back to a time when free markets did not exist, the new proletarian governments dropped upon themselves the cosmically colossal function of directing, regulating, predicting and planning the millions upon millions of infinite market calculations and adjustments that their hated free market economy was able to carry out in an invisible effortless manner.
And thus the proletarian governments had to grow. Not "whither away"...
The resulting gargantuan communist statist bureacratic machine also doubled as the commanding heights from where the Party nomenklatura doled out doses of terror to keep alive the socialist lie.
Leftists cannot admit any of this , because admitting this would mean ex-communication from their leftist community of familty and friends; and it would mean wasted lives in the futile chase of a drug-like high attained from acting out their class-misery moral drama.

Leftists are broken marxist records, so they will claim that "but real socialism-communism-marixsm has never even been tried"

Every single leftist government whether advertised as socialist, communist, marxists, or leninist etc was and is exempt from the Left's indictment while they are living and rotting. Only after the left's atrocities and miserable failures there are too obvious to hide, that leftists pretend to disown their communist holocausts.
Notice how there are NOOOO none nada leftist protests out in the streets anywhere aimed against Fidel Castro, the Sandinistas, Hugo Chavez, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and even Islamo-fascists.
See?
Leftist dictators are exempt from leftist criticism. So yes, leftist gulag states indeed put into practice Karl Marx's prescriptions for a "utopia", because otherwise, the left would condemn them on arrival. And all of you leftists know this.
If they are "not really communist at all" then where are the leftists protesters in
the streets denouncing the "non-communist" communistsbefore these revolutionary vanguards bankrupt their countries and rip open the rivers of blood?
Surely if they are "not communist at all" then you should be able to see this before they fail, right?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by grouchomarx
Leftist dictators are exempt from leftist criticism.

You're an idiot.

Anarchists, and other libertarian communists have been critiquing authoritarian 'leftists' since marx; that is for more than 100 years.

[KC]

Anarchists, and other libertarian communists have been critiquing authoritarian 'leftists' since marx; that is for more than 100 years.


As well as non-libertarian communists. Marxists of all kind critique them.

[Herman]

Leftists really are a class of willful nihilistic parasites.

Oh of course, conservatives and liberals are way better.


At least this leftist is flirting with the truth that communism does not create a utopia. Isnt this grounds for this leftist to be ex-communicated from the leftist community?

Why don't you name me one single communist or anarchist who said that communism was a utopia.


Marx asserted that the "liberation" power of the "proletariat" was autonomous. Marx never said the entire world had to be socialist for any one socialist country to thrive. In fact, Marx said that only industrialized modern liberal democracies he despised were fertile grounds for his failed discredited marxist creed.

"Workers of the world, unite!"

Out of all of Marx's writings, you forgot the most obvious line. And I'd like to see where he actually mentioned that "the liberation power of the proletariat was autonomous".

[red team]

At least this leftist is flirting with the truth that communism does not create a utopia. Isnt this grounds for this leftist to be ex-communicated from the leftist community? Even leftists realize that their marxist faith will fail in practice every single time its tried. And this is why leftism is the politics of bad faith. Leftists really are a class of willful nihilistic parasites.

Ahh, another feeble-minded fool for me to play with. That's good. I was getting kind of bored.


communism does not create a utopia.

Which communism?


Even leftists realize that their marxist faith will fail in practice every single time its tried.

But, money also fails. Capitalism also fails. Religion also fails. Empires also crumble.

What's your point?

Suppose they are all articles of faith. Is there anything special about your beloved Capitalism?


Leftists really are a class of willful nihilistic parasites.

Isn't that the definition of someone or something that plays no useful part in the productive growth of an entity, but still extracts part of the benefits of that growth?

So, tell me when I'm paying for the price of a product what part of the price goes into supplying for productive work and fixed production assets and which part goes into investor returns?

Does investor returns (profit) count as productive work (either human or machine "labour"), is it a productive asset or is it parasitical to the growth of the entity? Given the obvious answer to that given question, isn't Capitalists willful nihilistic parasites?


East Germany not only lagged terribly behind its West German counterpart(which was leveled to ruins just as bad as the East--if not worse--in the aftermath of WW2), but East Germany was reduced to a standard of living and per capita GDP comparable to a third world country

What does GDP have to do with anything?

If it was an important indicator of anything then the population of East Germany must be as miserable as some starving African countries. Clearly that was not the case. There are also some countries with high GDP, but with terrible living conditions for large segments of the population, so what does GDP "measure" really? What if the majority of the GDP was simply observed as intra-corporate trading activity? Very good measure of "wealth" isn't it?


A capitalist West that thrives as one of the great economic powers of the world to the point that it attracts immigrants;

Relatively wealth countries attract immigrants from ALL poorer countries. Does the socio-economic system play any part in this? If what you are implying is true, that Capitalist countries are rich relative to Socialist countries then why aren't Cubans fleeing to Haiti? They're similar sized islands and one is Socialist and one is Capitalist.


East Germany attracted no immigrants. In fact, East Germans would escape the Stasi-controlled East German hell-hole the way Cubans rafters still escape the "anti-imperialist" non-capitalist exempt-from-the-Left's-indictment Castroite Cuba.

Attracts no immigrants or none that is "worth reporting about"? I'm pretty sure some African hut dweller would love moving to a concrete apartment block in Socialist East Germany, but something like that just wasn't "newsworthy". Politics is a dirty manipulative game isn't it?

Speaking of which why are there African hut dwellers in the middle of the twentieth century? Must be because of their inferior DNA which leads to an inferior brain that is incapable of the great scientific achievements of the western white man. That&#39;s why you&#39;ve went on a "civilizing mission" to "save" them from their wretchedness. But, like all noble crusades undertaken by the "civilized" white man this one failed to bring up their living standards. Must be because the African negroes are hopeless cases wouldn&#39;t you say? <_<


Love to chat with fools, but time for bed now.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:37 am





The French Revolution was the emotional model for Karl Marx&#39;s class antagonisms.

What the fuck is an emotional model?
The French Revolution created capitalism and some limited political freedoms. It&#39;s creation of the proletariat and the creation of the market system gave Marx&#39;s writings a material basis, but "emotional model" is meaningless.

Marxism is a perverse romantic longing for a time when real immutable class stratification existed. This feudal class conflict provides Marxists with the indignation that fuels their passions.
This infantile assinine Marxist obsession with class warfare is central to their error.
Robespierre was the prototype for all populist dictators of the 20th century.
Long before Marx or the Russian Revolution even, Robespierre was invoking the grievances of others to justify his statist terror.
Robespierre&#39;s class victimhood speeches read like eerily prescient specimens of the rhetoric and arguments that Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and others would recite years later as if populism and marxism are some sort of gruesome virus infecting the brains of men throughout the ages.
Marx&#39;s manifesto was already unfeasible and archaic by the time he published it.
Marx&#39;s ideological desendants are still clueless as to how modern industrialized societies function.
A key to the marxist mindset is the concept of permanent class distinctions.
As if poor people are born with "proletariat" tattooed on their foreheads. As if rich people are born with "bourgeoise" tattoed also on their foreheads.
As if being "working class&#39;&#39; is a genetic feature such as race that cannot be changed. Leftists are clueless to the dynamic of class mobility in modern democratic industrialized societies.
Today&#39;s poor man can be tomorrow&#39;s rich man. Todays rich man can loose his fortune and be poor tomorrow. Is that former "capitalist predator" now a proletariat darling?
A "proletariat" can become an entrepeneur and rise above poverty, so exactly at which point does a working-class or proletarian lose his exemption from the Left&#39;s indictment? What is the cut-off point in a person&#39;s bank account balance where leftists assign their permanent class roles of "proletariat" and "oppressor"?
That leftists are completely ignorant to the social fluidity of modern societies demonstrates their total lack of connection to reality.
Leftists are clueless to how modern societies operate, and hence leftists are clueless to how national wealth is created.
In modern industrial democratic societies class distinctions are meaningless. This is what leftists will never understand or are too venal to admit.

Who says class is hereditary? Clueless liberals moreso than marxists.

The family remains a model used for passing class down the generations, but it is not impossible to move classes. Even prior to capitalism people outside of noble families became landowners. (I think they were called Franklins but I could be wrong)

If a bourgeois came from proletarian origins he is no less bourgeois. The class domination comes from employers, landlords, i.e. people with the means to accumulate capital. If someone owns some houses than they charge people to live in, or if they employ a workforce who do not get the full proceeds of their labour. All bourgeois wealth ultimately comes from short-changing their workforce.

While we acknowledge that it is very rare and increasingly rare for a proletarian to become bourgeois, we define class as a social relation, and it is not directly to do with birth. You are showing your social conditioning and archaic thinking. It is the bourgeois (who have a very influential voice, with a monopoly on all mass media) who spread the idea that for class to exist it must be inherited. Capitalism conceals class divisions as all people are indeed equal in the eyes of capital. (equality originates in bourgeois ideology, which is perhaps why contrary to popular belief it is liberals who harp on about equality more than marxists)

Leaders of Marxist vaguards are millionaires many times over. By their own Marxist standard, marxist leaders are the capitalist "enemy". Fidel Castro makes the capitalist Forbes list as one of the richest men in the world.

State exploitation does indeed exist in developing world socialism, but it is largely necassary to accumulate national capital to industrialise and to survive in a world shaped by imperialism.

But as for Fidel being one of the richest men in the world, that is only based on claiming that he owns all of Cuba&#39;s net wealth. Which is not true, as democratic workers councils do exist in Cuba, although they are not autonomous and organised federally as they would be if the revolution was lead by a strong and developed proletariat in an already industrialised country where supply exceeds demand and the threat from imperialism no longer exists.

Marxism is a reactionary regression to a time when political freedom and free markets did not exist. Leftists are trying to realize a discredited 19th century Marxist dogma based on a feudal 17th century agenda. To pretend that leftists are "progressive" is a joke.

You show an absurd misunderstanding of the marxist conception of class.

And you ignored all my most important points about the necessity of the "socialism" in the developed world, instead coming out from uninformed textbook anti-marxism that is clearly aimed at liberal, not marxist, rhetoric. You have to get the idea that we are super-liberals out your head

Why has capitalist dominated Africa seen next to no development while Russia, China, the former eastern bloc, Cuba, Vietnam, are now strong and industrialised when they started as semi-feudal hellholes?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:50 am
For people that supposedly boast about being students of history, leftists are blind to the history unfolding right in front of their eyes.
Leftists learn nothing from their communist experiments because leftists are not operating honestly or scientifically.
Leftists look at the horrendous results of their socialist experiments and casually dismiss them because they do not match their preconceived imaginary result of a "classless and stateless society". In this way leftists are insulated from ever having to reflect on their marxist dogma.
For leftists, it is not the results of communist experiments that count as evidence--no--for leftists it is their unproven discredited ruinous archaic reactionary barbaric theory that is the only purported "evidence".
So for leftists, the theory itself--communism as a "classless and stateless"--is the only evidence that matters. Mountains of real evidence in the form of a sea of ruined lives and slaughtered humanity are merely inconvenient little details that need to be obfuscated.
Marx claimed that the abolition of private property and the seizure of power by the proletariat would usher in the "whithering away of the state" So when revolutionary leftists carried out precisely that, what happened?
Far from whithering away the state, the abolition of private property left the "proletarian" government completely unchecked. The proletarian governments did not lose their "political character". To the contrary, by abolishing private property
the power of the new state became absolute and totalitarian.
Leftists will never understand that private property stands as the cornerstone of human liberty. Why? Because private property is a defense against the predations of governments and other people.
The core marxist principle of abolishing private property or capital, which is total government ownership of the means of production robs people of an economic life beyond the control of government.
Marx was tragically wrong about the effects of state-proletarian ownership of the means of production whithering away the state.
To the terrible contrary, by regressing humanity back to a time when free markets did not exist, the new proletarian governments dropped upon themselves the cosmically colossal function of directing, regulating, predicting and planning the millions upon millions of infinite market calculations and adjustments that their hated free market economy was able to carry out in an invisible effortless manner.
And thus the proletarian governments had to grow. Not "whither away"...
The resulting gargantuan communist statist bureacratic machine also doubled as the commanding heights from where the Party nomenklatura doled out doses of terror to keep alive the socialist lie.
Leftists cannot admit any of this , because admitting this would mean ex-communication from their leftist community of familty and friends; and it would mean wasted lives in the futile chase of a drug-like high attained from acting out their class-misery moral drama.

Leftists are broken marxist records, so they will claim that "but real socialism-communism-marixsm has never even been tried"

Every single leftist government whether advertised as socialist, communist, marxists, or leninist etc was and is exempt from the Left&#39;s indictment while they are living and rotting. Only after the left&#39;s atrocities and miserable failures there are too obvious to hide, that leftists pretend to disown their communist holocausts.
Notice how there are NOOOO none nada leftist protests out in the streets anywhere aimed against Fidel Castro, the Sandinistas, Hugo Chavez, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and even Islamo-fascists.
See?
Leftist dictators are exempt from leftist criticism. So yes, leftist gulag states indeed put into practice Karl Marx&#39;s prescriptions for a "utopia", because otherwise, the left would condemn them on arrival. And all of you leftists know this.
If they are "not really communist at all" then where are the leftists protesters in
the streets denouncing the "non-communist" communistsbefore these revolutionary vanguards bankrupt their countries and rip open the rivers of blood?
Surely if they are "not communist at all" then you should be able to see this before they fail, right?
Until you respond to my post about the necessity, inevitability and SUCCESS of the past socialist revolutions (although not in creating a classless society, which can only be achieved after significant development of capitalism) that it is clear you are not willing to understand that political ideas are not something that can be tried at any point.

[grouchomarx]

If the police are not defending capitalism, then I guess I could walk into a supermarket and help myself and I wouldn&#39;t get arrested? Supermarkets generally destroy 40% of what they produce to keep prices high. This is criminal. So why does a kid who steals a CD get arrested, or worse, why do kids who download music (which costs nothing to produce digitally) get sued?

This "Matty UK" is a knuckle-dragging criminal that wants to rob supermarkets and feels indignant when the police are called on him. Even socialist terror states had laws against the proletarian engaging in street crimes and larceny such as this.
The Party elite on the other hand, looted, plundered, and ransacked the nation&#39;s resources as a matter of occupational perquisite.

That Matty thinks that "supermarkets" produce anything reveals the mongoloid childish understanding that leftists have about free market economies. It is no wonder that socialism produces shortages, famine, and squalor.
Matty has no clue that supermarkets are retail outlets. Supermarkets are not factories. Leftists really are marxist retards.
It doesnt even faze the leftist flunky Matty that his imaginary supermarket "factory"--or whatever the hell dances around in his little mind--would be producing prolifically--maybe even a surplus--to be able to "destroy" his fabricated 40% of what they produce. If a socialist economy ever produced a surplus or material abundance of anything it would mean the Party&#39;s propaganda department was getting desperate.
It is true what they say :" if marxists ever seized control of the Sahara desert, there would soon be a shortage of sand there" hahahaha :lol:


And if they are not on the side of capital and capitalist property, why do they break strikes and subvert labour organisation but do not bust capitalists who ruin the lives of their workers by making them redundant? Or maybe you are so braindead and conditioned you haven&#39;t considered this?

This is a good example of the venal, mendacious, and utterly dishonest character of leftists everywhere. Or to put it better, leftists have no character.

It is the year 2007. At least in the USA--the nation which receives the bulk of leftist subversion--no police department anywhere "break strikes". Much less "subvert labor organizations" Police officers themselves are unionized and many Police unions support the leftist Democratic Party. How do leftists explain that away? Matty is a stinking liar.
Police officers disperse or arrest violent street riots or melees. No peaceful, legal congregation of people are arrested anywhere in the USA. Matty needs to
lie and invent false scenarios because leftists are reactionary baboons that cannot accomodate their lives to the modern world.


By agreeing to follow orders and follow the laws set by the bourgeois state.

Laws against larceny and theft are bourgeoise? What the hell does that say about marxism??
Are you sure you leftists want this marxist baboon "Matty UK" representing your side?


If what you are implying is true, that Capitalist countries are rich relative to Socialist countries then why aren&#39;t Cubans fleeing to Haiti? They&#39;re similar sized islands and one is Socialist and one is Capitalist.


Yeah Haitis healthcare system is sooooo much better than Cubas, and it&#39;s homelessness problem is sooooo more trivial.

I love this.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic are much closer to Castro&#39;s Cuba than they are to the USA.
If according to you leftist flunkies, all the proletarian want is "social justice" and marxist propaganda about free schools (forced indoctrination) and free health care ( the price for healthcare in socialist states is utter submission to a life without civil rights, civil liberties, human rights or dignity as the local block commisar has to qualify you for medical care) then why do Haitian and Dominican rafters bypass nearby "workers&#39; paradise" Cuba and instead risk life and death in the open seas for even more dozens of miles to reach the "racist exploitative capitalist hell hole" USA?
Leftist imbeciles, answer that.

Why dont Mexicans jump onto homemade rafts to "emigrate" to Cuba?
Why do Mexicans instead love to sneak into the "racist Nazi KKK imperialist concentration camp" USA?
Why?
If all the "working class&#39;&#39; people in the USA want is "social justice" then why arent there any poor Americans desperately jumping into make-shift floatation devices to emigrate to Cuba? or to China? or to Venezuela?

If all Cubans want is "social justice" and communist propaganda, then why do thousands upon thousands of Cubans rafters risk their lives to reach the USA?

How is it that Mexicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans and other non-white third world people all around the world seek freedom and a better life in the "racist KKK Nazi imperialist capitalist" USA ??
To give you leftist monkeys an advantage: lets forget about economic advantages of living in the USA.

How the hell is it that the great mass of humanity that seeks freedom and opportunity for themselves and their children emigrate to the "racist KKK capitalist imperialist Nazi concentration camp" USA ??

Why do communist nations attract no immigrants?
How is it that "capitalist racist failures" of the Western Democracies attract the vast bulk of all humanity that seek a better life?
Explain this...

[grouchomarx]

so what does GDP "measure" really? What if the majority of the GDP was simply observed as intra-corporate trading activity? Very good measure of "wealth" isn&#39;t it?

A better measure is the simple fact that centrally-planned economies are places of mass emigration. Whereas the Left&#39;s despised free market societies are the destination of choice for the great masses of humanity that seek freedom, opportunity and a better life.

Communist countries are such miserable terror states that the Communist authorities there take measures to thwart the escape of their people.
Western free market societies attract so many immigrants that the "capitalist" authorities there take measure to keep people out&#33;

Now, how is it that the supposedly voracious "imperialist" predator USA is trying to find ways to keep illegal aliens out?
If the USA was so "imperialist" then shouldnt the entire world already be US territory and its people American subjects already?
If the USA is supposedly "imperialist", then why is Japan and Germany (countries occupied by the USA as a result of WW2) now completely independent, autonomous, sovereign, the second and third economic powers of the world, democratic; and its people free and prosperous?
What happened to the capitalist American "imperialist pigs" occupying Japan, France and Germany?? Did these American "imperialist pigs" forget that they were supposed to be "imperialists"??

Why do German authorities petition the US government to keep American military bases on German territory while many US officials want to close those bases; if supposedly the USA is so "imperialist"?

[Matty_UK]

This "Matty UK" is a knuckle-dragging criminal that wants to rob supermarkets and feels indignant when the police are called on him. Even socialist terror states had laws against the proletarian engaging in street crimes and larceny such as this.

rofl. I don&#39;t personally rob supermarkets but to claim that when Tesco&#39;s destroys 40% of what it purchases to keep prices up, that is far more criminal than petty shoplifting.

Socialist "terror" (boo) states did, because they were still in a society of scarcity. Capitalism has developed technologies that can abolish this scarcity-full utilisation of GM foods and hydroponics under a socialist system would ultimately make paying for food and essential goods an absurdity.

The Party elite on the other hand, looted, plundered, and ransacked the nation&#39;s resources as a matter of occupational perquisite.

Actually they allocated resources in a rational and useful way to industrialise the country and provide the population with what they needed.
Meanwhile capitalists become billionaires based purely on telling people what to do and then taking the profit from what they have earned, and leave industrial apparatus and farmland idle and then destroy what they actually do produce.

You&#39;re brainwashed. There are some smart anti-commies on this board, but you are just a boring liberal-baiting protest warrior goon.

That Matty thinks that "supermarkets" produce anything reveals the mongoloid childish understanding that leftists have about free market economies. It is no wonder that socialism produces shortages, famine, and squalor.

Matty has no clue that supermarkets are retail outlets. Supermarkets are not factories. Leftists really are marxist retards.


Actually most big supermarkets own a great deal of farmland in Africa and South America.

How does "socialism" necassarily produce shortages and famine?
Or is that more to do with the fact the socialist countries did not have a well developed industry?

It doesnt even faze the leftist flunky Matty that his imaginary supermarket "factory"--or whatever the hell dances around in his little mind--would be producing prolifically--maybe even a surplus--to be able to "destroy" his fabricated 40% of what they produce. If a socialist economy ever produced a surplus or material abundance of anything it would mean the Party&#39;s propaganda department was getting desperate.

It&#39;s a well known fact, and one of the barbaric aspects of capitalism, that surplus is destroyed to keep prices up. If you&#39;re denying this, then you ought to read more about economics and marxism then come back, rather than coming out with contrived Protest Warrior rhetoric.

It is true what they say :" if marxists ever seized control of the Sahara desert, there would soon be a shortage of sand there" hahahaha :lol:

You really are a moron.

This is a good example of the venal, mendacious, and utterly dishonest character of leftists everywhere. Or to put it better, leftists have no character.

It is the year 2007. At least in the USA--the nation which receives the bulk of leftist subversion--no police department anywhere "break strikes". Much less "subvert labor organizations" Police officers themselves are unionized and many Police unions support the leftist Democratic Party. How do leftists explain that away? Matty is a stinking liar.
Police officers disperse or arrest violent street riots or melees. No peaceful, legal congregation of people are arrested anywhere in the USA. Matty needs to
lie and invent false scenarios because leftists are reactionary baboons that cannot accomodate their lives to the modern world.

The USA recieves the bulk of leftist subversion???? :D :D

The USA has by a long way less communists than any other country on Earth, and strike demands in the USA are usually very limited.

It is illegal for Walmart workers to strike in the USA. Why is that?
And why do the bourgeois not get in trouble for wasting resources, ruining lives?

It is clear that the state is on the side of capital.

Anyway this is absurd that you are arguing that the state is completely unbiased between capital and workers. Read history, the modern state was created by the bourgeois.

Also, it is not the USA so much that is the problem, (again-we are NOT FUCKING LIBERALS stop talking to us like we are) but the bourgeois of Europe, USA, Australia, Canada. All the imperialists. Precisely because the proletariat got too strong in the west, making the cost of labour too expensive, almost all industry is done for cheap in the developing world while people in the west can work forever in worthless service jobs.
It is here where the oppression takes place. For example it is indisputable that coca-cola murders it&#39;s Columbian workers who are members of trade unions. This is a common occurence.

Laws against larceny and theft are bourgeoise? What the hell does that say about marxism??
Are you sure you leftists want this marxist baboon "Matty UK" representing your side?

There was a time when laws against theft of any commodity were justified by the economic necessity. Capitalism has abolished the economic necessity of it&#39;s own existence by developing the productive forces to be capable of abolishing scarcity. The bourgeois state and it&#39;s laws stand as an obstacle to a rational and democratic economy, and a revolution which sees direct democratic control of production in federalised workers councils freely distributed wealth would gradually abolish the need for regular work and a price system.

I love this.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic are much closer to Castro&#39;s Cuba than they are to the USA.
If according to you leftist flunkies, all the proletarian want is "social justice" and marxist propaganda about free schools (forced indoctrination) and free health care ( the price for healthcare in socialist states is utter submission to a life without civil rights, civil liberties, human rights or dignity as the local block commisar has to qualify you for medical care) then why do Haitian and Dominican rafters bypass nearby "workers&#39; paradise" Cuba and instead risk life and death in the open seas for even more dozens of miles to reach the "racist exploitative capitalist hell hole" USA?
Leftist imbeciles, answer that.

For fucks sake......
The USA is not our fucking problem. The world does not revolve around your stupid country. The problem we have is the capitalist imperialist system based upon exploitation.
The wealth of the USA, Europe, Austrialia, Canada, comes from the fact that Haiti, Nigeria, Iraq, Columbia, are all shit-holes. A capitalist system is necessarily international, and you can&#39;t take the undisputed wealth of the USA as an example of the benefits of capitalism because it does not show the other side of the story.


Why dont Mexicans jump onto homemade rafts to "emigrate" to Cuba?
Why do Mexicans instead love to sneak into the "racist Nazi KKK imperialist concentration camp" USA?
Why?
If all the "working class&#39;&#39; people in the USA want is "social justice" then why arent there any poor Americans desperately jumping into make-shift floatation devices to emigrate to Cuba? or to China? or to Venezuela?

If all Cubans want is "social justice" and communist propaganda, then why do thousands upon thousands of Cubans rafters risk their lives to reach the USA?

How is it that Mexicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans and other non-white third world people all around the world seek freedom and a better life in the "racist KKK Nazi imperialist capitalist" USA ??
To give you leftist monkeys an advantage: lets forget about economic advantages of living in the USA.

How the hell is it that the great mass of humanity that seeks freedom and opportunity for themselves and their children emigrate to the "racist KKK capitalist imperialist Nazi concentration camp" USA ??

Why do communist nations attract no immigrants?
How is it that "capitalist racist failures" of the Western Democracies attract the vast bulk of all humanity that seek a better life?
Explain this...

"Non-white?" Why are you so concerned about race? Race exists only as an abstract idea, there are only different genes and different cultures that are perfectly capable of overlapping.

And people want to leave Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic BECAUSE the imperialists and the capitalists have ruined their country. They leave to the west because the west has benefitted from ruining their country and is wealthier.

[grouchomarx]

Yeah Haitis healthcare system is sooooo much better than Cubas, and it&#39;s homelessness problem is sooooo more trivial.

Leftists are so ignorant and shameless (a ruinous combination) that they use their own Marxist failures in attempts to favor other Marxist disasters by contrast.
Haiti is another country destroyed by Marxist clowns.
Leftist moron, go look it up.


Which planned economies had any homeless people again? &#39;

Homeless people in "planned economies" (even the word communist has stigma among leftists hehehe) were arrested and either placed in the gulag, slave labor factories or simply disappeared never to be seen again.
The rest of the homeless people in communist gulag states are the millions of human beings that flee marxist dungeons in harrowing escapes.

And your statement about sweatshops is truly absurd.

Its funny how marxist reactionaries condemn the USA as a "military-industrial complex"; while the communist nations they revere actually are real-world military-industrial complexes.
For all essentials the late Soviet Union and China were huge industrial factories processing human beings like cattle.
If they were lucky, human beings in Communist states were just numbers in some communist commissar&#39;s list. The less lucky ones were merely cogs in the marxist industrial machine; completey disposable and replaceable.

The marxist refrain "the machine of capitalism is oiled with the blood of the workers" was a reality in its own version in the new "planned economies"
After 70 years of Communist rule, the average Soviet citizen had less daily meat intake than his counterpart in czarist times.
Behind its predatory military facade--after 70 years of communism--the giant Soviet Union had less economic output than tiny little South Korea.
Stripping the Soviet Union of its veil of terror, belligerence, and threats; revealed just another third world backwater.
Child labor and exploitation in the late Soviet Union and today&#39;s China are commonplace.
The Chinese military owns slave labor factories--real sweatshops--that produce the implements of war that leftist revolutionaries used to enslave other people.
And the hypocrite communist Chinese make huge profits.
The Chinese army has corporate-front organizations that even produce non-military items, again at great profit.

Where is leftist sympathy for the millions of workers forced to labor against their will at little or no pay in communist sweatshops in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe etc.??
Oh wait, communist atrocities are acts of "liberation" in marxist lingo, right?

China feeds, arms, and supplies nuclear material and technology to the Stalinist North Korean criminals so they can act as China&#39;s attack dog terrorizing and threatening the USA, Japan, and South Korea with a nuclear holocaust.
China also has its own nukes looming over Taiwan as a "deterrent" to the democratic free Taiwanese people&#39;s aspirations to official sovereignty and independence.

If according to you leftists North Korea is "not communist" then when are we going to see leftists polluting the streets in protest against Chinese military and nuclear support for North Korea?
When?
Never, ofcourse.

[grouchomarx]

The machine of marxism is oiled with the blood of the people.

...consider this:

People in marxist "planned economies" have:

no freedom of speech
no freedom of the press
no freedom of association
no freedom of conscience
no freedom of religion
no freedom to travel
no freedom to vote
no civil liberties
no civil rights
no human rights
no economic life beyond the control of government

People (even illegal aliens) in Western "capitalist" democracies
have all these things (and more).
So leftists look at this balance sheet, and they conclude:
"People in "planned economies" are "liberated" and people in modern free market liberal democracies are "exploited" and "enslaved""
This leftist paradigm is the totalitarian corruption that the Left has always stood for.

[grouchomarx]

What?, no response? Even leftist fanatics get sick of their own marxist garbage.
I&#39;ll post it again:

The machine of marxism is oiled with the blood of the people.

...consider this:

People in marxist "planned economies" have:
no freedom of speech
no freedom of the press
no freedom of association
no freedom of conscience
no freedom of religion
no freedom to travel
no freedom to vote
no civil liberties
no civil rights
no human rights
no economic life beyond the control of government

People (even illegal aliens) in Western "capitalist" democracies
enjoy all these freedoms and liberties (and more).

So leftists look at this balance sheet, and they conclude:
"People in marxist "planned economies" are "liberated" and people in modern free market liberal democracies are "exploited" and "enslaved""

This leftist paradigm is the totalitarian corruption that the Left has always stood for.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:34 am

Yeah Haitis healthcare system is sooooo much better than Cubas, and it&#39;s homelessness problem is sooooo more trivial.

Leftists are so ignorant and shameless (a ruinous combination) that they use their own Marxist failures in attempts to favor other Marxist disasters by contrast.
Haiti is another country destroyed by Marxist clowns.
Leftist moron, go look it up.


Which planned economies had any homeless people again? &#39;

Homeless people in "planned economies" (even the word communist has stigma among leftists hehehe) were arrested and either placed in the gulag, slave labor factories or simply disappeared never to be seen again.
The rest of the homeless people in communist gulag states are the millions of human beings that flee marxist dungeons in harrowing escapes.

And your statement about sweatshops is truly absurd.

Its funny how marxist reactionaries condemn the USA as a "military-industrial complex"; while the communist nations they revere actually are real-world military-industrial complexes.
For all essentials the late Soviet Union and China were huge industrial factories processing human beings like cattle.
If they were lucky, human beings in Communist states were just numbers in some communist commissar&#39;s list. The less lucky ones were merely cogs in the marxist industrial machine; completey disposable and replaceable.

The marxist refrain "the machine of capitalism is oiled with the blood of the workers" was a reality in its own version in the new "planned economies"
After 70 years of Communist rule, the average Soviet citizen had less daily meat intake than his counterpart in czarist times.
Behind its predatory military facade--after 70 years of communism--the giant Soviet Union had less economic output than tiny little South Korea.
Stripping the Soviet Union of its veil of terror, belligerence, and threats; revealed just another third world backwater.
Child labor and exploitation in the late Soviet Union and today&#39;s China are commonplace.
The Chinese military owns slave labor factories--real sweatshops--that produce the implements of war that leftist revolutionaries used to enslave other people.
And the hypocrite communist Chinese make huge profits.
The Chinese army has corporate-front organizations that even produce non-military items, again at great profit.

Where is leftist sympathy for the millions of workers forced to labor against their will at little or no pay in communist sweatshops in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe etc.??
Oh wait, communist atrocities are acts of "liberation" in marxist lingo, right?

China feeds, arms, and supplies nuclear material and technology to the Stalinist North Korean criminals so they can act as China&#39;s attack dog terrorizing and threatening the USA, Japan, and South Korea with a nuclear holocaust.
China also has its own nukes looming over Taiwan as a "deterrent" to the democratic free Taiwanese people&#39;s aspirations to official sovereignty and independence.

If according to you leftists North Korea is "not communist" then when are we going to see leftists polluting the streets in protest against Chinese military and nuclear support for North Korea?
When?
Never, ofcourse.
What is socialist about Haiti? Duvalier was not a marxist, he repressed communists and was actually supported by the USA. You seem to think everywhere in the world bar the USA is socialist, which is completely absurd.

We use the word "planned economies" because that is what they were and they were not communist.

There is nothing communist about China Vietnam and Laos, especially not anymore, and the sweatshops, owned by companies like Nike, are actually one of the major rallying points of leftists in opposition to global capital. There are no sweatshops in Cuba and I&#39;m not ashamed to show support for that country, and as for Zimbabwe there are definitely no leftists with any sympathy for Mugabe.

I&#39;m not sure what you mean by saying that those in planned economies (again, you have not disputed the necessity of a temporary planned economy in these countries and the achievements it brought) being disposable and replaceable because surely the same applies in a capitalist country where workers are fired at will when they are no longer a benefit, and often murdered if they fight for higher wages? (we are not talking about the usa here) This is where your post wanders off into general rhetoric yet again rather than any serious points.

[cb9's_unity]

grouchomarx, this thread may be more interesting if you learned how to actually debate. Many communists have laid out numbers and facts that have stated some of the countries you have called communist were in fact better off after the revolution. You have chosen to completly ignore these arguments in order to comense with your mix of flaming and rhetoric.

Also when you label a specific government don&#39;t just throw out the word stalinist or communist as an insult, try to identify the country as what it really is. When communists use the bourgeois or capitalist they do so do accuratly descripe the affilition of a person or particular organization.

In order to clarify what the hell your talking about please give a deffinition to what you think communism is in an objective manner. You&#39;ve described communism as a utopian ideoligy, a Tyranical athoritarian ideoligy, and an ideoligy followed by liberal democrats.

Knowledge of what class struggle and proletarian revolution are might come in handy when discussing communism. Every country you have mentioned, execpt east germany, could not have become communist even with the most genuine revolutionaries at the when a "communist" party occupied. This is because they all had tiny working classes that were not nearly powerful enogh to overthrow there bourgeois, and sometimes fuedal, masters. Marxism promotes a revolution by a large working class in a highly industrialized nation againt the bourgeois state.

Please put away you rhetoric and talking points and really debate.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:40 pm

Actually they allocated resources in a rational and useful way to industrialise the country and provide the population with what they needed.
Meanwhile capitalists become billionaires based purely on telling people what to do and then taking the profit from what they have earned, and leave industrial apparatus and farmland idle and then destroy what they actually do produce.


It is illegal for Walmart workers to strike in the USA. Why is that?
And why do the bourgeois not get in trouble for wasting resources, ruining lives?

The bourgeois state and it&#39;s laws stand as an obstacle to a rational and democratic economy, and a revolution which sees direct democratic control of production in federalised workers councils freely distributed wealth would gradually abolish the need for regular work and a price system.


It is not illegal for Wal-Mart workers to strike.

But in general, this is the sort of generalization which socialisst make- then rarely back up.

For example, PROVE that the "bougeoise" wastes resources, and that socialism doesn&#39;t.

PROVE that "federalised workers councils" will gradually reduce the need for work and a price system.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by cb9&#39;[email protected] 07, 2007 12:16 am
grouchomarx, this thread may be more interesting if you learned how to actually debate. Many communists have laid out numbers and facts that have stated some of the countries you have called communist were in fact better off after the revolution. You have chosen to completly ignore these arguments in order to comense with your mix of flaming and rhetoric.

Also when you label a specific government don&#39;t just throw out the word stalinist or communist as an insult, try to identify the country as what it really is. When communists use the bourgeois or capitalist they do so do accuratly descripe the affilition of a person or particular organization.

In order to clarify what the hell your talking about please give a deffinition to what you think communism is in an objective manner. You&#39;ve described communism as a utopian ideoligy, a Tyranical athoritarian ideoligy, and an ideoligy followed by liberal democrats.

Knowledge of what class struggle and proletarian revolution are might come in handy when discussing communism. Every country you have mentioned, execpt east germany, could not have become communist even with the most genuine revolutionaries at the when a "communist" party occupied. This is because they all had tiny working classes that were not nearly powerful enogh to overthrow there bourgeois, and sometimes fuedal, masters. Marxism promotes a revolution by a large working class in a highly industrialized nation againt the bourgeois state.

Please put away you rhetoric and talking points and really debate.

Marxism does indeed promote revolution by a large proleteriat against a highly industririalised nation.

It also has not come to pass in this way.

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

So we have the scenario where NOWHERE has there been a proper revolution Marxist revolution, and where there has been, it demonstrably failed.

We are now in the third century, folks. When are the gospels questioned?

[KC]

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 07, 2007 05:54 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 07, 2007 05:54 pm)
Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation. [/b]
Perhaps. But saying &#39;perhaps&#39; doesn&#39;t prove shit, it is possible I will concede that, but it isn&#39;t, in actuality, true.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 07, 2007 01:43 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 07, 2007 01:43 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:54 pm

Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation.
Perhaps. But saying &#39;perhaps&#39; doesn&#39;t prove shit, it is possible I will concede that, but it isn&#39;t, in actuality, true. [/b]

No, it doesn&#39;t. But since the socialists about here famously deny the relevency of actually having to prove their claims as to the potential and possibilities of socialism, it will have to do.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 07, 2007 01:43 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 07, 2007 01:43 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:54 pm

Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation.
Perhaps. But saying &#39;perhaps&#39; doesn&#39;t prove shit, it is possible I will concede that, but it isn&#39;t, in actuality, true. [/b]
what else do you test theory on besides practical application?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 07, 2007 09:33 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 07, 2007 09:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:43 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:54 pm

Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation.
Perhaps. But saying &#39;perhaps&#39; doesn&#39;t prove shit, it is possible I will concede that, but it isn&#39;t, in actuality, true.
what else do you test theory on besides practical application? [/b]
...I&#39;ll get back to you when a Marxist revolution happens.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 07, 2007 05:26 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 07, 2007 05:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:43 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:54 pm

Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation.
Perhaps. But saying &#39;perhaps&#39; doesn&#39;t prove shit, it is possible I will concede that, but it isn&#39;t, in actuality, true.
what else do you test theory on besides practical application?
...I&#39;ll get back to you when a Marxist revolution happens. [/b]
In that case, we had &#39;em in:

1917, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1945,1946, 1948, 1949, 1950, the entire 1960s (it seems), 1973, 1974, 1979, 1983

A long string of failure.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 07, 2007 10:32 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 07, 2007 10:32 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:26 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:43 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:54 pm

Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation.
Perhaps. But saying &#39;perhaps&#39; doesn&#39;t prove shit, it is possible I will concede that, but it isn&#39;t, in actuality, true.
what else do you test theory on besides practical application?
...I&#39;ll get back to you when a Marxist revolution happens.
In that case, we had &#39;em in:

1917, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1945,1946, 1948, 1949, 1950, the entire 1960s (it seems), 1973, 1974, 1979, 1983

A long string of failure. [/b]
Wow. I now feel utterly vindicated in not replying to any of your ****y trollposts anymore. If you think a Marxist revolution occured on each of those dates you&#39;re either an idiot or delusional.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 07, 2007 06:21 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 07, 2007 06:21 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:32 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:26 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:43 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:54 pm

Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:07 pm

The claim is often that beause Russia, or China, or Bulgaria were not advanced industrial states, it can not rightly be called Marxist.

Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t realized that many of these were tactical failures and not theoretical ones?
Perhaps the tactical failures were the result of an unsound theoretical foundation.
Perhaps. But saying &#39;perhaps&#39; doesn&#39;t prove shit, it is possible I will concede that, but it isn&#39;t, in actuality, true.
what else do you test theory on besides practical application?
...I&#39;ll get back to you when a Marxist revolution happens.
In that case, we had &#39;em in:

1917, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1945,1946, 1948, 1949, 1950, the entire 1960s (it seems), 1973, 1974, 1979, 1983

A long string of failure.
Wow. I now feel utterly vindicated in not replying to any of your ****y trollposts anymore. If you think a Marxist revolution occured on each of those dates you&#39;re either an idiot or delusional. [/b]
Yeah i know. a failed revolution is proof it was not Marxist.
I love the scientific nature of it all&#33;

[cb9's_unity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:13 pm
Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.
First who ever said that Marxism was tried in east germany? Where did marx write about a country being takin over by a Stalinist state. In my last read of the manifesto it only talked about revolution...


So we have the scenario where NOWHERE has there been a proper revolution Marxist revolution, and where there has been, it demonstrably failed.

Your using the "well it&#39;s never existed before so it must not work" which besides the fact it is completely incorrect (native American societies were perfectly functioning primitive communisms), is a pretty lame argument considering that socialism needs to be built upon advanced capitalisms and industrialization only started a few hundred years ago. Feudalism lasted an extremely long time before capitalism took it&#39;s place. The conditions for socialism only exist in a few places and the conditions have only been right for a short period of time.

[cb9's_unity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:26 pm
Yeah i know. a failed revolution is proof it was not Marxist.
I love the scientific nature of it all&#33;
You don&#39;t give a damn for theory or material conditions or anything else important do you? You spend to much time trying to be witty and not enough time thinking.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by cb9&#39;s_unity+March 07, 2007 06:46 pm--> (cb9&#39;s_unity @ March 07, 2007 06:46 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 12:13 pm
Yet the otherway of looking at it, is that Marx was wrong inj his analysis.

east Germany, which was conceded to be proper fit for a Marxist community, collapsed.
First who ever said that Marxism was tried in east germany? Where did marx write about a country being takin over by a Stalinist state. In my last read of the manifesto it only talked about revolution...


So we have the scenario where NOWHERE has there been a proper revolution Marxist revolution, and where there has been, it demonstrably failed.

Your using the "well it&#39;s never existed before so it must not work" which besides the fact it is completely incorrect (native American societies were perfectly functioning primitive communisms), is a pretty lame argument considering that socialism needs to be built upon advanced capitalisms and industrialization only started a few hundred years ago. Feudalism lasted an extremely long time before capitalism took it&#39;s place. The conditions for socialism only exist in a few places and the conditions have only been right for a short period of time. [/b]
You made the claim regarding east germany.

The correct "material condition" for Marxism will NEVER exist. That is because capitalism continues to grow and become more advanced. Was the USA more suited to a Marxist revolt in 2007 or in 1957? Will it be more so in 2057? What did the Marxists of 1957 think of the appropriatness?

Why do Marxists, who pride themselves on their scientific approach and their support for modern ways, rely upon stone age culture to show the way to the future?

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 07, 2007 12:03 pm--> (ZX3 @ March 07, 2007 12:03 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 09:40 pm

Actually they allocated resources in a rational and useful way to industrialise the country and provide the population with what they needed.
Meanwhile capitalists become billionaires based purely on telling people what to do and then taking the profit from what they have earned, and leave industrial apparatus and farmland idle and then destroy what they actually do produce.


It is illegal for Walmart workers to strike in the USA. Why is that?
And why do the bourgeois not get in trouble for wasting resources, ruining lives?

The bourgeois state and it&#39;s laws stand as an obstacle to a rational and democratic economy, and a revolution which sees direct democratic control of production in federalised workers councils freely distributed wealth would gradually abolish the need for regular work and a price system.


It is not illegal for Wal-Mart workers to strike.

But in general, this is the sort of generalization which socialisst make- then rarely back up.

For example, PROVE that the "bougeoise" wastes resources, and that socialism doesn&#39;t.

PROVE that "federalised workers councils" will gradually reduce the need for work and a price system. [/b]
Your right its not illigal for them to strike, but Wal-Mart as well as numerous other Large and Small Corporations have gone way out of their way to bust unions, to fire organizers and the such, which IS illigal, I personally don&#39;t care if its legal or not, but Walmart goes through great leangths to stop unions. For example when their meat department tried to unionize, it shut down the whole meat-department, entirely, Why are Capitalists so afraid of an Organized work force? Is that really a free Market? I don&#39;t know.

When you ask for Proof of things like waste and the such its very hard, because we don&#39;t have much to work off, I can give you an example of the Zapatista Municipalities that pretty much run off Anarcho-Communist principles, but its very hard to get numbers about the production and waste of things like that. I can tell you this much though, During the Spanish Civil war it is an accepted fact that the areas controlled by the CNT actually produced more than the ones still under Capitalist Control.

When you ask for Proof theres only 2 ways to go about it, go about it the Rationalistic way, talking about non tangible principles and motivations, and things like that in an almost mathimatical way, which is a very hard way to prove something when you are dealing with Non-Mechanical things with Free-Will like Humans, or I can go the empirical way, talking about specific examples of societies, which is also very hard, because there are very few examples and very few records on their production and waste. What is a little easier to prove is the Causes and Effects of a Capitalistic Society, the Immorality of it (assuming your basic sense of Morals is the same as mine, which is&#39;nt a long shot because Basic Morality is for the most part universal), and how a Communistic Society would eliminate those Causes and Effects and how it would fit better with human Morality.

[luxemburg89]

lets all just remind ourselves of how well capitalism has worked in the &#39;third world countries&#39;. :D I would like to ask the banned members to consider this, when you are banging your mothers tonight (or fathers, whatever), when you lose all comfort and money - everything of material value - are you gonna look to capitalism to pull you out of your deepest depression or will you become radical? You see you envy us &#39;lefties&#39; because you are a &#39;capitalist&#39; - knowing only greed and loneliness, whereas we are &#39;lefties&#39; - a plural, we are united despite minor differences we will always unite. The only bonds you have to anyone is your sexual organs to that of your parents, i bid thee goodnight :D

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 08, 2007 12:44 am--> (RGacky3 @ March 08, 2007 12:44 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:03 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 09:40 pm

Actually they allocated resources in a rational and useful way to industrialise the country and provide the population with what they needed.
Meanwhile capitalists become billionaires based purely on telling people what to do and then taking the profit from what they have earned, and leave industrial apparatus and farmland idle and then destroy what they actually do produce.


It is illegal for Walmart workers to strike in the USA. Why is that?
And why do the bourgeois not get in trouble for wasting resources, ruining lives?

The bourgeois state and it&#39;s laws stand as an obstacle to a rational and democratic economy, and a revolution which sees direct democratic control of production in federalised workers councils freely distributed wealth would gradually abolish the need for regular work and a price system.


It is not illegal for Wal-Mart workers to strike.

But in general, this is the sort of generalization which socialisst make- then rarely back up.

For example, PROVE that the "bougeoise" wastes resources, and that socialism doesn&#39;t.

PROVE that "federalised workers councils" will gradually reduce the need for work and a price system.
Your right its not illigal for them to strike, but Wal-Mart as well as numerous other Large and Small Corporations have gone way out of their way to bust unions, to fire organizers and the such, which IS illigal, I personally don&#39;t care if its legal or not, but Walmart goes through great leangths to stop unions. For example when their meat department tried to unionize, it shut down the whole meat-department, entirely, Why are Capitalists so afraid of an Organized work force? Is that really a free Market? I don&#39;t know.

When you ask for Proof of things like waste and the such its very hard, because we don&#39;t have much to work off, I can give you an example of the Zapatista Municipalities that pretty much run off Anarcho-Communist principles, but its very hard to get numbers about the production and waste of things like that. I can tell you this much though, During the Spanish Civil war it is an accepted fact that the areas controlled by the CNT actually produced more than the ones still under Capitalist Control.

When you ask for Proof theres only 2 ways to go about it, go about it the Rationalistic way, talking about non tangible principles and motivations, and things like that in an almost mathimatical way, which is a very hard way to prove something when you are dealing with Non-Mechanical things with Free-Will like Humans, or I can go the empirical way, talking about specific examples of societies, which is also very hard, because there are very few examples and very few records on their production and waste. What is a little easier to prove is the Causes and Effects of a Capitalistic Society, the Immorality of it (assuming your basic sense of Morals is the same as mine, which is&#39;nt a long shot because Basic Morality is for the most part universal), and how a Communistic Society would eliminate those Causes and Effects and how it would fit better with human Morality. [/b]
I have been in a union, and currently supervise unionised employees. What i tend to find is that the unions best work (when dealing with managementy/labor) is defending those employees who ought not be working for the company. Wal-Mart belives a union shop will make it unable to sell products for a low price, its niche where it has benefited millions.

When I ask for proof about socialism and all it claims, it is based upon the assumption that it has to answer the same economic questions as the capitalist. It has to determine what people want, it needs to allocate labor and resources into its production and distribution. It also needs to be able to determine failure and success. This doesn&#39;t change in a socialist environment. If one is prepared to condem the capitalist way of answering these questions, then one ought to be prepared with the substitution.

Those who keep talking about councils and such miss the point (in large part). What is the information which the people will rely upon inmaking their economic determination. What will substitute for capitalist modes of production, and PROVE that it will be superior.