Let's face it. The dream dies with Castro

[fashbash]

I was about to write about why Communism will never happen. Does anyone else have a little 'wobble'? Anyone else feel like we will stay wage slaves forever? I just can't help thinking that we have never been further from a revolution.

Please people. Restore my faith in the cause.

[Coggeh]

I'll start a big long threat in theory just for you mate ;) lol . it may take a while tho .

[Coggeh]

:blink:

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:07 pm
I was about to write about why Communism will never happen. Does anyone else have a little 'wobble'? Anyone else feel like we will stay wage slaves forever? I just can't help thinking that we have never been further from a revolution.

Please people. Restore my faith in the cause.
You see communism as a "dream" and a "faith", and you think that your belief in it can be restored by words on an internet forum? Well, I can try, I guess.

Firstly, to answer the title: Fidel's death will be a sad occasion, but there are plenty of Cuban politicians, both young and old, waiting to replace him. But regardless of that, do you think that "the dream dies" because of the death of one man? Communists do not believe that historical events depend on the acts of a bunch of "great men". On the contrary, history is made by the masses.

Secondly, the answer to the question that I started my post with is: no. You can sit there and seek reassuring words on the computer screen(and get even more disappointed), but the most fulfilling thing to do is to actually be active in real life. Plunge in and see actual solidarity, and you'll never again have a sad day where you just sit there and contemplate your "faith". I guarantee it.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Hey arent you the guy that posted a thread about religion a while back and than got all butt hurt when it was moved to OI? Yeah yeah, I remember! Everyone called you a douche bag and you started screaming about hitler and the jews. Good to see you again.


WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? MOVED?! MOVED?! MOVED TO FUCKING... OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES?! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

Are not we all comrades? Do we not have essentially the same aim? Then why the fuck have I been moved to this forum, and branded as an OPPOSING IDEOLOGY? Because I think it's wrong that the people on this site should be persecuted for their beliefs? Jesus H Christ!

Hitler, do you like Hitler? Cos Hitler didn't like Jews, and hey, thats a fucking religion. So if you don't like religion, you must like fucking Hitler for getting rid of 60 million religious types.

Or maybe you don't want to go so far as killing religious folk. Perhaps, like Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, you would like to see all Muslims sent back 'home'? Cos Muslims are religious y' know!

Or is it just the Christians you don't like? Is it because I'm saying it's possible to be a fuckin christian and a commie that you dont like? You bunch of hypocritical no-nothing ****s. Seriously, how many of youse fuckers even know the slightest thing about the religions of the world, how many of you even know about fucking socialism? How many of you are over fourteen? Jesus, youse lot are all fucking hypocrites. Fuck You. May Your Genitals Wither.

This post has been edited by fashbash on January 14, 2007 09:47 pm

[Enragé]

I was about to write about why Communism will never happen. Does anyone else have a little 'wobble'? Anyone else feel like we will stay wage slaves forever? I just can't help thinking that we have never been further from a revolution.

Perhaps we will?
We most certainly will if everyone goes like "ah, we cant win".

Keep on fighting comrade, if not for anything else its because we have to if we are ever to escape oppression.

The dream does not die with Castro, in fact Castro is in no way the representation of that dream. The people, the struggle for freedom in all its ways, every worker struggling against oppression, every isolated leftist in a reactionary environment holding on to their ideals, every boy or girl thinking by himself "this cant be right", every man, every woman desiring a better life for themselves and their friends and family, an end to war, an end to poverty, an end to exploitation
they are, we are the representation of the dream which is communism, the dream of freedom, equality and justice. We all feel disheartened from time to time, but this does not for even an instant do away with the righteousness of our cause.

[IcarusAngel]

Angry Samoans kicked ass.

[Severian]

Why do you think "the dream dies with Castro"? That is, where did you get the idea communism was a dream, or that it depended on any single individual?

[Question everything]

I have no doubt that the Dream was surposed to die with Lenin, Che, or the USSR. I mean this is just another thought that gets us all paranoid but it passes and all things get back to normal, like Fox gives a nearly yearly special on how we are all going to die... :( there was a time I was dumb enough to believe it, like the Y2k Bug, or when the planets aligned, there was even talk of the world ending on the 6/6 2006, but I mean it's all a joke, nothing is going to happen Raul will take his place and things will go on as usual...

[TC]

Cuban socialism doesn't need Castro to survive it is institutionalized in every level of Cuban society and the bourgeois has been totally eliminated so there is no credible class opposition or realistic chance of a counterrevolution. Keep in mind he's already been out of office for almost half a year and it changed nothing apart from the content of Cuban television. Latin American socialism is so much stronger today with Venezuela's socialist revolution moving rapidly and more and more countries breaking economic and military and political ties with the imperialists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:04 am
Cuban socialism doesn't need Castro to survive it is institutionalized in every level of Cuban society and the bourgeois has been totally eliminated so there is no credible class opposition or realistic chance of a counterrevolution.
So why does the state still exist? Thank you for justifying without a doubt the anarchist opposition to the state, TC.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+March 06, 2007 01:56 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ March 06, 2007 01:56 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 04:04 am
Cuban socialism doesn't need Castro to survive it is institutionalized in every level of Cuban society and the bourgeois has been totally eliminated so there is no credible class opposition or realistic chance of a counterrevolution.
So why does the state still exist? Thank you for justifying without a doubt the anarchist opposition to the state, TC. [/b]
;) You really expect Cuba to just dissolve the state ...... don't you ?

Think about it now ... what would happen if their was no state in Cuba to protect the workers or socialism I'd give it about 1 day ... maybe 2 before the yanks take over and restore a puppet goverment .

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Coggy+March 06, 2007 04:41 pm--> (Coggy @ March 06, 2007 04:41 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 06, 2007 01:56 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 04:04 am
Cuban socialism doesn't need Castro to survive it is institutionalized in every level of Cuban society and the bourgeois has been totally eliminated so there is no credible class opposition or realistic chance of a counterrevolution.
So why does the state still exist? Thank you for justifying without a doubt the anarchist opposition to the state, TC.
;) You really expect Cuba to just dissolve the state ...... don't you ? [/b]
Well, yes. But that point here is not what I think but rather what Marxists think.

Once there is no class opposition or chance of counter-revolution the state is supposed to "wither away".

That hasn't happened, which of course is the entire point made by anarchists in relation to the whole ridiculous theory.


Think about it now ... what would happen if their was no state in Cuba to protect the workers or socialism I'd give it about 1 day ... maybe 2 before the yanks take over and restore a puppet goverment .

The premise is false. You don't need a state in the first place, so answering your question is pointless.

[détrop]

Please people. Restore my faith in the cause.

First, you need to develop a philosophical constitution before the absurdity of existence. You need to set aside, for a moment, your ambitions and aspirations for communism, and realize that there is a good chance humans are mortal, that "God" does not exist, and that everything is pretty much meaningless. If you can dwell on this for while (I suggest reading some Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and getting a taste of existentalism), I think that you will create within yourself a sort of "last laugh" at existence, a tragic comedic attitude about things which will help you accept the worst possible case scenario, while also leaving you open to wanting to, at least, try to help the world. Right, there is no argument. Communism is the last dance for humanity. Nothing else will work and will only increase the rate of destruction of this planet.

The attitude I speak of is a bit awkward. It is as if you want to die, in a sense, and see death as a sort of release, but you don't look for death....you don't become an apathetic nihilist. You just keep this morsel in your pocket...this laugh at existence...and continue the good fight.

Do I honestly think Communism will ever be achieved? Certainly not. But I don't stop trying, and I don't consider my efforts a waste because remember....I've already accepted the absurdity of existence. I win in either case.

...and with that, detrop pushes the boulder up the hill for the eighty-third time....only to have it roll back down on top of him.

One must imagine detrop happy.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

So why does the state still exist? Thank you for justifying without a doubt the anarchist opposition to the state, TC.

TC said the bourgeoisie has been totally eliminated. That kinda implies she was talking about no class internally could threaten the workers.

External classes are going to be aggressive towards Cuba, meaning they need a state.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:07 pm
I just can't help thinking that we have never been further from a revolution.


"Not whether we achieve anarchism today, tomorrow or within 10 centuries, but that we walk toward anarchism, today, tomorrow, and always"


Please people. Restore my faith in the cause.

Faith?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by fashbash
I was about to write about why Communism will never happen.
So....why don't you just write it then? you don't have the guts to write it now?


The dream dies with Castro, Capitalism has won
it's a sad, but one dies thousands will arise....i'm sure there's still a million 'castro' out there who will surely continue the revolution,and maybe this time we will overthrow capitalism.

[ichneumon]

cuba is a MIRACLE. they have the last, best hope for humanity. what's the alterative? haiti? jamaica, mexico? some cross between a slave labor plantation and a toxic waste dump, with fenced off beaches for rich tourists?

if it comes to it, i would actually go to cuba and fight for the revolution. we need cuba.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Castro will never die dude, don't you know he's immortal?

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:00 am
Castro will never die dude, don't you know he's immortal?
History will absolve him :D

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:22 pm
cuba is a MIRACLE. they have the last, best hope for humanity. what's the alterative? haiti? jamaica, mexico? some cross between a slave labor plantation and a toxic waste dump, with fenced off beaches for rich tourists?

if it comes to it, i would actually go to cuba and fight for the revolution. we need cuba.

One and three castro has given Cuba, and most likely two as well but that will not be known until the Cubans live in freedom.

[Pilar]

Why do you think "the dream dies with Castro"? That is, where did you get the idea communism was a dream, or that it depended on any single individual?

Many people support such a view. Anti-Communism 101: Twentieth Century "Communism" is based only on personality cults: Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-II, Tito, and many others who claim to be socialist leaders: when they die, that is, when their personality is gone, what is left of that version of what they called Marxism?

I know what will happen on January 20, 2009. Another mouthpiece for capitalism will be sworn in as president of the United States. Probably a bit smarter than the current one. Maybe a bit more careful with the military. But I know it will happen.

What we need is states progressing toward a "type" of socialism is an example of one leaving and another stepping into the job, and the whole thing continues as before, and toward an improved socialism, better than the previous one, but not based on personality of the new guy/gal.

It's one of the things we are lacking. It's one of the best arguments the cappies use against us. If Chavez, let's say, spent more time improving the system that makes a transition from one leader to another, with smooth efficiency and reliability that the next will be more progressive than himself, rather than concentrate on trying to stay in office until 2075, he'd take a great step for radical forces.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:30 am

Why do you think "the dream dies with Castro"? That is, where did you get the idea communism was a dream, or that it depended on any single individual?

Many people support such a view. Anti-Communism 101: Twentieth Century "Communism" is based only on personality cults: Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-II, Tito, and many others who claim to be socialist leaders: when they die, that is, when their personality is gone, what is left of that version of what they called Marxism?

I know what will happen on January 20, 2009. Another mouthpiece for capitalism will be sworn in as president of the United States. Probably a bit smarter than the current one. Maybe a bit more careful with the military. But I know it will happen.

What we need is states progressing toward a "type" of socialism is an example of one leaving and another stepping into the job, and the whole thing continues as before, and toward an improved socialism, better than the previous one, but not based on personality of the new guy/gal.

It's one of the things we are lacking. It's one of the best arguments the cappies use against us. If Chavez, let's say, spent more time improving the system that makes a transition from one leader to another, with smooth efficiency and reliability that the next will be more progressive than himself, rather than concentrate on trying to stay in office until 2075, he'd take a great step for radical forces.
But perhaps this problem is due to, and a result of, the nature of socialism itself.

Revlefters on these boards were justifying Chavez efforts because he was popular and the people want what Chavez ids doing. Democracy=majority rule=socialism. Others argue about the positive sides of a Mao or a Stalin.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:30 am
Castro will never die dude, don't you know he's immortal?
Because He eats babies daily for breakfast :lol:


But perhaps this problem is due to, and a result of, the nature of socialism itself.

And nature of capitalism is "Freedom" and "Democarcy". Is something missing Here ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare) :unsure: and here ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panthers#COINTELPRO_and_conflict_with_law_en forcement)


Revlefters on these boards were justifying Chavez efforts because he was popular and the people want what Chavez ids doing.

We were more supporting and will support Venezula's workers and peasants. Venezula is not only Chavez.


Democracy=majority rule=socialism

No socialism is a intermediate stage between Capitalism(Class Society) and Communism(Classless Society)


Others argue about the positive sides of a Mao or a Stalin.

Just like capitalists argue about +ve sides of Bush,Clinton and other scumbags.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by g.ram+March 09, 2007 09:22 am--> (g.ram @ March 09, 2007 09:22 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 06:30 am
Castro will never die dude, don't you know he's immortal?
Because He eats babies daily for breakfast :lol:


But perhaps this problem is due to, and a result of, the nature of socialism itself.

And nature of capitalism is "Freedom" and "Democarcy". Is something missing Here ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare) :unsure:


Revlefters on these boards were justifying Chavez efforts because he was popular and the people want what Chavez ids doing.

We were more supporting and will support Venezula's workers and peasants. Venezula is not only Chavez.


Democracy=majority rule=socialism

No socialism is a intermediate stage between Capitalism(Class Society) and Communism(Classless Society)


Others argue about the positive sides of a Mao or a Stalin.

Just like capitalists argue about +ve sides of Bush,Clinton and other scumbags. [/b]
I asked, in another thread, why socialists, who claim to support even greater freedom for people than is supposedly possible in capitalism, are unable to lament the passing of the USSR. The link shows, again, that socialists are unable to even criticise efforts to stop the communists where they never even held power.

I am well aware that by supporting the workers and peasants of Venezuala, you are also supporting Chavez, just like by supporting the workers and peasants of Russia, on was supporting Stalin, ect ect

[Vargha Poralli]

I asked, in another thread, why socialists, who claim to support even greater freedom for people than is supposedly possible in capitalism, are unable to lament the passing of the USSR. The link shows, again, that socialists are unable to even criticise efforts to stop the communists where they never even held power.


USSR is not a communist/socialist state. We lament the fall of USSR because of various reasons. It is not only us who are lamenting its fall it is also commaon workers,peasants of not only Russia but also Ukraine,Belarus,Kazhakastan,Uzbekistan etc. They have lost a hell lot by its fall and gained nothing from supposed "Freedom" and "Democracy".


I am well aware that by supporting the workers and peasants of Venezuala, you are also supporting Chavez, just like by supporting the workers and peasants of Russia, on was supporting Stalin, ect ect

Stalin was long dead idiot. And not all Marxists support Stalin. Even our critic of Stalin/support of Chavez was based on events rather than Individual.

[TC]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+March 06, 2007 04:37 pm--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ March 06, 2007 04:37 pm)

So why does the state still exist? Thank you for justifying without a doubt the anarchist opposition to the state, TC.

TC said the bourgeoisie has been totally eliminated. That kinda implies she was talking about no class internally could threaten the workers.

External classes are going to be aggressive towards Cuba, meaning they need a state. [/b]
exactly.



TAT

Well, yes. But that point here is not what I think but rather what Marxists think.

Once there is no class opposition or chance of counter-revolution the state is supposed to "wither away".


Wrong TAT.

Marxists don't think that the state will "wither away" once there is no class opposition or chance of counter-revolution within the territory of the workers state, we think it will fail to meet definition of a 'state', which to Marxists is an entity which applies organized violence to defend the property of a ruling class against forces which would seize it once it has eliminated class divisions across the globe, for the simple fact that there would be no one capable of seizing workers collective property.

That is clearly not the case today in Cuba nor has it ever been anywhere in the globe.

Because while there is no bourgeois within Cuba to seize the ruling working class's property, there is an extraordinarily powerful and well armed bourgeois ninety miles off Cuba's coast.

The Cuban state is a democratic workers state where all power is in the hands of the workers assemblies, it is still however a state because while it has no need to repress an internal class enemy (apart from the US interest section's CIA operatives), it still has to organize the collective defense of the people against foreign aggressors.


If the Cuban state decided it would dissolve itself they, may as well spend their last day in office changing the road signs to english so that the American tanks will cause fewer traffic jams when they roll in later that afternoon.



The premise is false. You don't need a state in the first place, so answering your question is pointless.


What are states needed for?

The Marxist answer is to protect the property and economic system of one class against another.

Do other classes in the world exist which want to expand their economic system?

The obvious answer is yes.

So the workers do need a state, for the same reasons that capitalists need a state, to defend their class interests against the other.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:03 am

I asked, in another thread, why socialists, who claim to support even greater freedom for people than is supposedly possible in capitalism, are unable to lament the passing of the USSR. The link shows, again, that socialists are unable to even criticise efforts to stop the communists where they never even held power.


USSR is not a communist/socialist state. We lament the fall of USSR because of various reasons. It is not only us who are lamenting its fall it is also commaon workers,peasants of not only Russia but also Ukraine,Belarus,Kazhakastan,Uzbekistan etc. They have lost a hell lot by its fall and gained nothing from supposed "Freedom" and "Democracy".


I am well aware that by supporting the workers and peasants of Venezuala, you are also supporting Chavez, just like by supporting the workers and peasants of Russia, on was supporting Stalin, ect ect

Stalin was long dead idiot. And not all Marxists support Stalin. Even our critic of Stalin/support of Chavez was based on events rather than Individual.
Of course the USSR was socialist/communist. The rest? You didn't understand.