Who is in favor of bourgeois freedom? - Most of you on this

[TheButcher]

Here is a quote from Karl Marx as stated, "Ture freedom lies not in votes, but when a man receives his nourishment." The democracy Marx speaks of is not your view of freedom most of you little high schoolers preach on this site.(freedom of speech, press, etc..) True democracy is the government of the people and economic democracy with a strict centralized government. True democracy is when the fellow man has food on the table to feed him or his famliy. True democracy is where everything is under the people's(state) control. Not your freedom for a male to walk around with a dress on, not free press, not freedom of speech and all the other american (bourgeios) freedoms you can think of. True freedom is freedom form homelessness, freedom from hunger, freedom from exploitation. Most of you on this site would prefer your own personal freedom over the freedom of the working class, thats why most of you aren't communist but pathetic libertarians!

[El Che]

Seek professional help.

[peaccenicked]

There is a difference between 'true freedom' and relative freedom. Marx preferred 'true freedom' over relative freedom.
You seem to prefer no freedom at all over relative freedom. Marx supported unconditionally the democratic content of bourgeois revolutions.
If Marx was alive to day you would accuse him of being a ''libertarian''.

[TheButcher]

El che, seek more knowledge! You know nothing.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 4:02 am on Nov. 25, 2002
There is a difference between 'true freedom' and relative freedom. Marx preferred 'true freedom' over relative freedom.
You seem to prefer no freedom at all over relative freedom. Marx supported unconditionally the democratic content of bourgeois revolutions.
If Marx was alive to day you would accuse him of being a ''libertarian''.


Are you saying that Marx would prefer 'true freedom' over the freedom of the working class. LOL!!! Wow!! You are a smart one.

[El Che]

At this point I would tend to agree with Chomsky, in that one degrades one`s self by replying to certain things.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from El Che on 4:12 am on Nov. 25, 2002
At this point I would tend to agree with Chomsky, in that one degrades one`s self by replying to certain things.

I see that you are playing childish games. I degrade myself by replying to your insulting comment? I see you have no real argument but to insult me. Grow up!

(Edited by TheButcher at 4:26 am on Nov. 25, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

''Are you saying that Marx would prefer 'true freedom' over the freedom of the working class. LOL!!! Wow!! You are a smart one. ''

Relative freedom is bourgeios freedom.

True freedom is the abolition of classes.

Perhaps El che is right either that or you should pay attention to what is being said.

[canikickit]

Take El Che's advice.

[redstar2000]

"The State Knows Best"---I thought all the Hegelians were either dead or worked for conservative thinktanks (in other words, brain-dead).

Guess one got loose.

[TheButcher]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 4:33 am on Nov. 25, 2002
''Are you saying that Marx would prefer 'true freedom' over the freedom of the working class. LOL!!! Wow!! You are a smart one. ''

Relative freedom is bourgeios freedom.

True freedom is the abolition of classes.

Perhaps El che is right either that or you should pay attention to what is being said.






Sorry I didn't understand what you said, peace.

And for the rest of you, really good arguments. Upstart weaklings!

[thursday]

I think comrade Butcher brings up some fairly valid points.

In my opinion, human rights and freedom is not the often inane and worthless "free press" and whatever ever pretty words thrown around by Trotskyites and right-wingers. Freedom is indeed freedom from starvation, freedom from death by petty illness, freedom from unemployment, freedom from homelessness. Which would you Trotskyites prefer? The right to jump around screaming: "Stalin sucks, get help!" or the right to see a doctor? To have food? To not be exploited?

[bolshevik1917]

This argument is pitifull idiocy.

Who has not suggested that 'True democracy is when the fellow man has food on the table to feed him or his famliy. True democracy is where everything is under the people's(state) control.' butcher.

It appears butcher that you are intent on causing trouble, you have shown no respect for my comrades on this forum with your petty insults. You have also provided a very piss coloured argument. I suggest you rethink and come back when you have a valid point.

[bolshevik1917]

thursdays post also stinks of hypocracy, how can the defender of stalin also assume possition of the defender of 'true democracy'

such a stance is laughable!

[ThunderStrike]

i would laugh to at such a statement if i saw my idol (Trotsky) loses electorial from his adversary (Stalin) during a democratic vote proces inside the CCCP..

blame democracy..

[TheButcher]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:00 pm on Nov. 25, 2002
This argument is pitifull idiocy.

Who has not suggested that 'True democracy is when the fellow man has food on the table to feed him or his famliy. True democracy is where everything is under the people's(state) control.' butcher.

It appears butcher that you are intent on causing trouble, you have shown no respect for my comrades on this forum with your petty insults. You have also provided a very piss coloured argument. I suggest you rethink and come back when you have a valid point.


No, I suggest you rethink your argument, oh wait a minute, you don't have a fucking argument!!! You call my argument piss coloured when I gave a example of one of Marx quotes. And all you do in your argument is try to slander my argument by saying "pitifull idiocy". I have not shown any respect to your comrades? Have they shown respect for me? NO!!!! So please don't type anymore on this subject, it is clear you have no idea what I said and it is VERY clear you are ignorant.

[Som]

Heres another one of marx's quotes on freedom

"Whenever one form of freedom is rejected, freedom in general is rejected and henceforth can have only a semblance of existence, since the sphere in which absence of freedom is dominant becomes a matter of pure chance. Absence of freedom is the rule and freedom an exception, a fortuitous and arbitrary occurrence. There can, therefore, be nothing wronger than to think that when it is a question of a particular form of existence of freedom, it is a particular question. It is the general question within a particular sphere. Freedom remains freedom whether it finds expression in printer's ink, in property, in the conscience, or in a political assembly. "

Marx and engels writings were democratic in nature.

Democracy is rule by the people, its rather hard how you can twist the definition into it being some monsterous state that happens to provide its people with substinence living.

[suffianr]

TheButcher, congratulations!

You have just received the Hitler Youth Award for Blind Faith and Literal Understanding!

No hard feelings...but the working class can only feel free if the workers feel free, achieving such a condition requires that the individual shares his/her own sense of freedom with that of the collective...

Can you suggest any other easier way of achieving unity or solidarity than joining hands to work hard for the freedoms in one's life?

You need to feel free before you can persuade others to feel the same way, otherwise, it's just faking it...

[Jaha]

freedom from hunger?

freedom from homelessness?

freedom from poverty? what good is it?

WHAT GOOD IS IT TO BREATHE BUT NOT LIVE? WHAT GOOD IS IT TO NOT BE POOR BUT STILL BE A SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM? DEMOCRACY IS IMPERITIVE TO A COMMUNE, DUMBASS. OTHERWISE, IT IS FASCIST.

YOU APPEAR TO BE A FASCIST FUCKER BENT ON USING COMMUNISM AS AN EXCUSE. LIKE HITLER OR STALIN. YOU FUCKER. DO NOT RUIN OUR REPUTATIONS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HAVE POWER!!!

[thursday]

I think the post above is a fine demonstration of the anger and impossibility of Trotskyism.

[Umoja]

Democracy can only be truly achieved when the people administer themselves, and they control the wealth they produce.

The "democracy" you speak of is removing the bourgeois from the economy and placing them instead in control of administration. Marx may have started the Communist movement, but if he is against both forms of democracy, then his system is obviously ineffective.

[thursday]

Democracy can only be truly achieved when the people administer themselves, and they control the wealth they produce.

Well, since the methods of production were owned by the State in the Soviet Union you thus admit that the USSR was at least half-democratic, because the people are the State. ("The people are the party and the party is the state." )

(Edited by thursday at 10:36 pm on Nov. 25, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

Democracy is a government run by the people for the people.

You are correct that democracy is not necessarily about freedom of speech or the gay agenda or any of the examples you mentioned, however these ideals do not in any way conflict with the ideals of democracy, and therefore just happen to be embraced by those who want democracy. If a man can NOT provide food for his family, this also does not conflict with democratic ideals.

Most pushers of democracy advocate many of the things you've listed, however. This is not to say that democracy is equivalent to freedom of speech, but since democracy advocates the rule of the majority and freedom of speech is a widely celebrated freedom, one can say that they are fighting for free speech in the name of democracy.

I'm assuming from your avatar that you are in favor of a more rigid authoritarian regime. Wouldn't you think that the creation of a ruling class guarentees more freedoms to some than it does to others? If so, don't you think this would conflict with democratic as well as communistic goals for equality?

Also, why do you feel that freedom of speech is a "bourgeois" freedom? The way I see it, when properly enforced, freedom of speech gives the proletarian masses a voice to speak out against the bourgeois elite. If freedom of speech would be taken away, I would imagine there would be a ruling class regulating and controlling speech much like the bourgeoisie regulates and controls capital, which would probably lead to the same kind of exploitation that exists today in the global market. See what I'm saying?

[bolshevik1917]

New 'democracy' (funny name for a stalinist that is) asserts that he 'would laugh to at such a statement if i saw my idol (Trotsky) loses electorial from his adversary (Stalin) during a democratic vote proces inside the CCCP..'

If you are willing to debate on such a topic please start a thread on it, I will then explain and prove exactly how Stalin won that election, and his tactics used.

Butcher, you gave a quote from marx, firstly I fail to see what difference there is between this quote and most of the comrades opinions on this forum.

Secondly, basing an ideology exactly on one quote, or every word said by one or few people is blatant sectarianism. I recomend a course in dialectical materialism.

I still cant see exactly what you are trying to say in this thread, its a wonder so many people - myself included - have even bothered to reply to such an ignoramus!

[bolshevik1917]

thursday do I have do yet again refer to this stalinist economics argument to (for the hundredth time) show you that the USSR was in no way even close to socialism?!

read and learn...

"If we were to accept every single one of the exaggerated figures on industrialization in Russia, how would that prove that there was socialism in Russia? At the end of the 19th century, Russia in six years more than doubled her production of cast iron and steel, almost doubled her production of coal, naphtha. Lenin wrote at that time "The progress in the mining industry is more rapid in Russia than in Western Europe and even in North America.... In the last few years the production of cast metal has tripled." And so on and so forth. Russian industrial output under the Czar doubled between the Russo-Japanese War and the beginning of the World War. The Czar built the Trans-Siberian, for example, the longest railway in the world. But that didn't show that Russia was a "socialist community" -- it was what it was, Czarist autocracy.

Between 1932 and 1937, according to the official Stalinist statistics, the total value of the Russian heavy-industry products increased 238 per cent. That's impressive. But in the very same period, 1932-1937, heavy-industry production in Japan, a country far less endowed with population and natural resources, increased by 176 per cent. That, too, is impressive. But nobody thought of saying that this proved the existence of socialism, or, to be statistically exact, three-fourths socialism in Japan.


The Communist Manifesto over a hundred years ago went out of its way to pay tribute to the bourgeoisie which, as it said, "has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals, "but Marx and Engels didn't, therefore, call capitalist society a socialist community.


Labor productivity, in industry and agriculture, to this hour was much lower in Russia than it was in the United States, the outstanding capitalist country in the world, which, from the socialist standpoint, i.e., this capitalism of ours, is exceedingly backward. According, to Planned Economy for December, 1940, the Russian miner, in spite of the vicious speed-up system of Stakhanovism, produced less than half the tonnage of the American (370 tons as against 844). What's more, while production in an American mine was three times as large as in a comparable Russian mine, the latter uses eleven times as many technicians, twice as many miners, three times as many office workers, and twelve times as large a supervisory staff. Twelve times as large a supervisory staff! wherever you went, the dead hand of bureaucratism was all too apparent in Stalinist Russia!


According to another journal, Problems of Economy for January, 1941, agricultural labor in America exceeded the productivity of the Russian kolkhoznik: 6.7 times in the production of wheat, 7.7 times in oats, 8.1 times in sugar beets, 3.1 times in milk and 20.1 times in wool. Now, the function of technique is what? It's to economize human labor, and nothing else. Socialism must guarantee society a higher economy of time than is guaranteed by capitalism, but by capitalism at its best! Otherwise socialism represents no advance. What kind of socialism is it where the productivity of labor is so inferior to that which prevails in an advanced capitalist state?



I want to emphasize first of all that I'll not refer to Russia during or since the devastation of the country by the war. I will refer to 1939 and the years before it. It makes no difference really. As early as 1935 the Stalinists officially announced that socialism had already been established in Russia, and irrevocably at that!
At the end of the Second Five Year Plan, in 1937, the output of steel was four times as great as in 1913, the last pre-World War I year in Russia -- dairy products lower than 1913; petroleum products three times higher than 1913 -- tea was available only to one-third the extent of 1913. There was a big airplane industry non-existent in Czarist Russia, absolutely. But in 1912, Russia had 1,166,000 department stores, wholesale units and retail shops, which the consumer depends upon, while on October 1, 1937, according to Planned Economy of 1938, issue No. 2, with a population far greater, no less than 160,000,000, there were only 228,000 distribution stores and 98,000 warehouses. The plan for rolled steel was completed almost 100 per cent; they now have a big chemical industry; but the plan for the production of soap was not even 40 per cent completed.

Tea, we're talking about, not television sets! Soap! The production of machines was twenty times as high as in 1918, at the end of the Second Five-Year Plan. But wages were lower than in pre-war Russia!

Was Russia under Stalin socialist? What happened to wages, what happened to real wages -- under Stalinist rule? In other words, what was the real standard of living for the masses under Stalinism, not in terms of television sets, not in terms of radios, refrigerators, and cars. No, we're talking about ordinary standard of living. Did real wages keep pace with the growth of industrialization, which was great, with the growth of production, which had been great, with the growth of the national income, which had been great?

By Stalin's official figures or any official figures? No, they had declined! The real facts are hard to find in the official Stalinist press, which did everything to conceal and twist them out of shape. The Stalinist press for years had not published one single line officially about prices of commodities. Although hard to find though it wasn’t impossible.

According to Pravda, May 14, 1988, the average wage of workers in 1938 was 259 rubles a month. Bear that figure in mind. That's Pravda. What could the Russian worker buy with this wage? What could he do with it? Inadvertently Pravda itself told us. On April 8, 1938, it reports that food for a patient in a Moscow hospital costed 7 rubles a day, that is, 210 rubles a month. On May 17th of the same year, it says "The fee for a child in a Pioneer camp should not be more than the cost of maintenance, 250 to 350 rubles a month." Now everybody knows that hospitals and children's camps did not provide the richest variety of food, the best food. Not at all. Everybody knows that hospitals purchased in large quantities; they purchase collectively, they prepare collectively. Things were cheaper. If a hospital patient required for food 210 rubles a month, if a kid in a Pioneer camp required from 250 to 350 rubles a month for food, what could the Russian worker buy with an average wage of 259 rubles a month? That's not after the Hitler invasion; that's in 1938, after socialism had irrevocably been established in Russia.

What about inequality? At hat time there was no country in the world, bar none, were inequality was as great, as deep, as extensive as it was in Stalinist Russia. In the United States, the spread between the poorest-paid and the best-paid worker was three to one, four to one, and, in extreme cases, five to one

In Russia, according to a very objective and fair economist and statistician, Dr. Abram Bergson, in his book on The Structure of Russian Wages, in October 1934 "the earnings of the highest paid Soviet worker were more than 28.3 times the earnings of the lowest paid worker at that time." And it became much worse! In 1947, average annual wage: 7100 rubles. The Stalinist press reported all the time earnings of some workers between 10 and 15 thousand rubles a month, that is, 120 to 180 thousand a year, when the average is 7100. Typical report is in Trud, the labor paper, so-called, for January 1, 1949, which reported that three Donbas miners averaged 60 to 75 thousand rubles for the three years 1946-1948. Now if with the lowest paid the average was 7100, is it an exaggeration to assume that the lowest paid do not go over 3000?

That makes a ratio of what between the lowest paid and the highest paid? anywhere from 50 or 60 to 1! Find me a working class anywhere in the world that shows that disparity. Now if that's how it is among workers, imagine the gap between workers and the ruling class, the factory directors, the managers, the army and navy officers, the brass, the millionaire kolkhozhiks, as they called them in the Stalinist press, the bureaucrats of all varieties, Stripes, ranks, sizes and weights!"

[new democracy]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 10:48 pm on Nov. 25, 2002
New 'democracy' (funny name for a stalinist that is) asserts that he 'would laugh to at such a statement if i saw my idol (Trotsky) loses electorial from his adversary (Stalin) during a democratic vote proces inside the CCCP..'

ThunderStrike said it, not me. and if you think i am a stalinist because i posted a link to that "anti trotskyite opposition", i only posted the link because it was funny, bot because i support what i says.

(Edited by new democracy at 11:22 pm on Nov. 25, 2002)

[Umoja]

I got to admit that Stalin did accomplish many good things, but economic progress NEVER takes precedence over human life. If you get lost in the economics and forget the human race in the process then you've obviously dived to deeply into the system.

[thursday]

You are correct that democracy is not necessarily about freedom of speech or the gay agenda or any of the examples you mentioned, however these ideals do not in any way conflict with the ideals democracy, and therefore just happen to be embraced by those who want democracy.

Indeed they do not conflict, so it is entirely possible to have one without the other. (It should be noted I am not a homophobe and I find gay people to be very friendly and have a few gay friends myself. I do not however like people who judge everything from the mouth's of special interest groups).


I'm assuming from your avatar that you are in favor of a more rigid authoritarian regime. Wouldn't you think that the creation of a ruling class guarentees more freedoms to some than it does to others? If so, don't you think this would conflict with democratic as well as communistic goals for equality?

You assume correctly. First of all, I do not believe that a more authoritarian socialist state would create a "new ruling class." This Trotskyite and right-winged idea is fundamentally flawed. What you have to realize is that we are not Anarchists, or at least I hope not, and thus we do not desire the immediate and unrestrained jump straight from a capitalistic stage to a state-less and class-less society. Being Marxists we seek to achieve socialism. What you must remember about socialism is that it is not a state-less society and a state continues to exist. A state must exist at this stage to fight of the bloodthirsty hands of counterrevolutionary forces, namely from internal right-wingers and foreign imperialists. Because of this constant threat it is only logical that the new socialistic state be somewhat authoritarian. Why is it seen that because there is a state it is automatically a “new ruling class” that is seemingly just as bad as a capitalist government?

When we use the term democracy when discussing socialism we must remember we are not talking about bourgeoisie democracy but Marxist democracy; the dictatorship of the proletarian. The socialist state is the people. Why is this so hard to understand?


The way I see it, when properly enforced, freedom of speech gives the proletarian masses a voice to speak out against the bourgeois elite.

Yes, such is true in our current capitalistic society. What defines freedom of speech? Do you really think it’s possible to have a KGB (or whatever) agent inside every home just waiting for somebody to say something that can possibly taken as a negative statement towards the state? Of course not. But when you say freedom of speech (and press) do you mean the freedom to publish anti-socialist newsletters and legally work against the state? Why should this be allowed? Should we allow malcontented citizens of a socialist country to work against the state? The idea is very wrong. As for the “new ruling class” regulating “what can be said and what can’t” you must remember that this “new ruling class” is the people, and so if the people themselves are regulating isn’t this what you want? As you said:


Democracy is a government run by the people for the people.

[Xvall]

Here is a quote from Karl Marx as stated, "Ture freedom lies not in votes, but when a man receives his nourishment."

Then again, in "The Principles of Communism", this is stated:

What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.

A democratic constitution should give people their own right; to express themselves freely. It is better for the collective. This way, if there is a problem, it can be acted upon quickly and efficiently. As far as 'dissent' goes; the people should be educated enough to know not to be tricked or fooled by capitalists and fascists. If they are, then there is quite obviously some educational problem. If these dissenters are so 'wrong', then their ideas should be easilly refutable. There is no need for violent action against them.

The democracy Marx speaks of is not your view of freedom most of you little high schoolers preach on this site.(freedom of speech, press, etc..)

State where Marx claims that the democracy would not have freedom of speech, press, etc.

True democracy is the government of the people and onomic democracy with a strict centralized government.

Yes, true democracy is the government of the people. But how can the people take part of the government if it is 'strictly centralized'; surely, the people should have some imput in the countries decisions as a whole, instead of a select individuals.

True democracy is when the fellow man has food on the table to feed him or his famliy.

I agree.

True democracy is where everything is under the people's(state) control.

As I have stated; I believe that if everything is under control of the state, then the state must be under control of the people. I do not see what your obsession with the state is. Many communist revolutionaries have opposed the concept of the state.

"While the state exists, there will be no freedom. When freedom exists, there will be no state." - Vladimir Lenin

Not your freedom for a male to walk around with a dress on,

My concern is the liberation of the Working Class, and the destruction of opression, capitalistic or otherwise. I could care less about what a male wears; it's not something that I'm going to waste my time on.

not free press, not freedom of speech and all the other american (bourgeios) freedoms you can think of.

Do you live in 'America'? I can assure you that there is BARELY any free 'speech' or 'press'. In fact; restricting these things would only remind people like me of the corrupt and opressive United States regime. There is no problem with free speech; it can be productive in many instances. Idiots (racists, capitalists) should just be ignored than. I don't see why we would have to waste our time trying to prevent them from talking. I don't see what this would accomplish, other than capitalistic nations having another excuse to claim communism is an 'evil ideology'.

True freedom is freedom form homelessness, freedom from hunger, freedom from exploitation.

Correct.

Most of you on this site would prefer your own personal freedom over the freedom of the working class, thats why most of you aren't communist but pathetic libertarians!

No one here is putting their own personal freedoms ahead of the working class (other than the capitalists). I can assure you that if they were, they would not be wasting their time on this message board; trying to support and promote the cause. Communism in a way is a libertarian theory. After all, it calls for the liberation of the working class, does it not? Communism often teaches us not to replace our previous state with a 'less painful' one, but to abolish the state entirely; replacing it with a worker's society. Run by the workers, for the workers. Not by 'elected reprasentatives' or companies like the United States is. Of course, this would be a slow transition, but it is possible, and hopefully will be achieved one day.

[thursday]

Bolshevik, that article stated that the Soviet Union wasn't affected by war 1917-1939. That is incorrect. During the Stalin years the entire country was devastated by war, the First World War. Not to mention the crippling effects of the Czarist period as well as the Russian Civil War. The economic advancements made by Stalin were indeed amazing given the fact he had a huge country filled with ignorant peasants devastated by war and starvation to deal with.

This also upset me:


Socialism must guarantee society a higher economy of time than is guaranteed by capitalism, but by capitalism at its best! Otherwise socialism represents no advance. What kind of socialism is it where the productivity of labor is so inferior to that which prevails in an advanced capitalist state?

What advance does socialism give? Do I really need to list them? How about the advancement of having a doctor, the advancement of being free from exploitation? I think it was Che who once said something like: "I do not want simple dry old economic socialism, but I want a complete and revolutionary change."

[bolshevik1917]

thursday said "that article stated that the Soviet Union wasn't affected by war 1917-1939."

the evidence said

"I'll not refer to Russia during or since the devastation of the country by the war."

I wish people would read things properly!

[bolshevik1917]

Also I apologise ND, I got mixed up there.

sorry comrade

[Kehoe]

This thread asks,"Who is in favor of bourgeois freedom?" ... apparently every sonofa***** on the planet ... next question. - Karo

(Edited by Kehoe at 1:47 am on Nov. 26, 2002)

[TheButcher]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 10:47 pm on Nov. 25, 2002
Democracy is a government run by the people for the people.

You are correct that democracy is not necessarily about freedom of speech or the gay agenda or any of the examples you mentioned, however these ideals do not in any way conflict with the ideals democracy, and therefore just happen to be embraced by those who want democracy. If a man can NOT provide food for his family, this also does not conflict with democratic ideals.

Most pushers of democracy advocate many of the things you've listed, however. This is not to say that democracy is equivalent to freedom of speech, but since democracy advocates the rule of the majority and freedom of speech is a widely celebrated freedom, one can say that they are fighting for free speech in the name of democracy.

I'm assuming from your avatar that you are in favor of a more rigid authoritarian regime. Wouldn't you think that the creation of a ruling class guarentees more freedoms to some than it does to others? If so, don't you think this would conflict with democratic as well as communistic goals for equality?

Also, why do you feel that freedom of speech is a "bourgeois" freedom? The way I see it, when properly enforced, freedom of speech gives the proletarian masses a voice to speak out against the bourgeois elite. If freedom of speech would be taken away, I would imagine there would be a ruling class regulating and controlling speech much like the bourgeoisie regulates and controls capital, which would probably lead to the same kind of exploitation that exists today in the global market. See what I'm saying?



De panama, I see what you are saying and I respect it. And first of all you have the most intelligent argument and this is why I am going to reply. And thank you for not calling me a "Fucking fascist", "Dumbass" or "fucker". You seem to have maturity when you disagree with ones point of view by not insulting them.

I'm not extremely authoritarian as you probably think I am. I'm not in favor of creating a elite class with ruling government officials. But I think that a few should be elected by the people so they can rule the counrty. I beleive in strong leadership. The elected officials will have more power just because they will be the law makers of the counrty. I think it would be silly to say that elected govenment officials wouldn't have more power over the regular blue-collar worker. Of course they would. By the way I am talking about a socialist government, not a communist government. Remember that communism is the last step which I'm sure you know. In a true communist society the state would have already withered away and the stuff you have stated above I will have to agree with you on because in a true and full communist society there would be no need for a government. I'm running short on time I will respond more later.

(Edited by TheButcher at 2:27 am on Nov. 26, 2002)

[Xvall]

Although that wasn't directed at me; I must thank you explaning your views to me. I was under the impression that you were 'extremely' authoritarian, and that you did not believe in achieving the final step of the transition. Thank you for clarifying this.

[redstar2000]

Butcher, why didn't you title this thread "Who is in favor of PROLETARIAN freedom"?

Because I think you are AGAINST it...or at least that is what all your posts and your sig imply.

You "believe in strong leadership" but "not an elite class of ruling government officials". What's the difference? Once in a while we get to vote yes or no (one-party system, I presume) on the "strong leader"? Whoopie!

But, but, you'll feed and house and clothe us better than our present masters. Yeah, until it becomes inconvenient for you...if that long. Probably, what you'll hand out in really generous amounts is...PROMISES.

Promises of a higher standard-of-living, promises of more leisure, promises of a withering state and expanding freedom, blah, blah, blah.

At the risk of being labelled "a pathetic libertarian", I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR FUCKING PROMISES!

Why? Because I've heard them all before and they ALL turned out to be LIES.

Really, how DARE you suggest that we should replicate the experiences of the USSR, China, etc.? How DARE you suggest that we should recreate a "socialism" that only led back to capitalism...at an IMMENSE cost in human suffering?

As a communist, I'm only interested in the fight for communism---MORE FREEDOM of every kind for every worker. And that means from DAY ONE of the revolution...not some pie-in-the-sky crap that's always just over the horizon.

If you're in the U.S., Butcher, I think you should join the Republican Party--they think just like you. (Also, you'll get to meet LOTS of ex-stalinists.)

[Umoja]

Dang Redstar, that pretty much summed up my views.

[Jaha]

thebutcher, i suppose i should appolagize for the insults. i do not like to use that language when i post, but i hate it when people say or even imply that communism is against democracy. it was in a rage that i wrote such names.

but let all read this: without democracy, communism is nothing. without communism, democracy is nothing.

let all people govern all people. anything else is shameful.

and one more thing, to those who need clarifying: THE STATE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PEOPLE. EVER HEAR OF DICTATORSHIP, FASCISM, TOTALITARIAN STATE?

[thursday]

Redstar, get your head out of your ass.


Why? Because I've heard them all before and they ALL turned out to be LIES.

Oh you have? So you have heard everything that was said in every single leftist revolution ever? How were they lies? Would you be so kind as to elaborate with us a little?

[TheButcher]

You 'believe in strong leadership" but not an elite class of ruling government officials". Once in a while we get to vote yes or no(one-party system, i presume) on the 'strong leader"? Whoopie!

What don't you understand about what I said. I suggest you reread what I wrote because apparently once again you don't understand what I said. I'm not going to repeat myself. Without strong leadership there would be chaos.

Promises of a higher standered-of-living, promises of more leisure, promises of a withering state and expanding freedom, blah, blah, blah.

It seems you don't understand the ending phase of socialism. And I feel like I'm arguing with a 8 year old. blah, blah, blah.... Thats what little kids do. If I where you I would get rid of your immature remarks when trying to pose a argument.

At the risk of being labelled "a pathetic libertarian" , I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR FUCKING PROMISES!

WOW!!!, I didn't know I made promises to everybody. I don't care if you don't beleive me!!! You don't know me so how can you make that assumption. Have you ever met me face to face? Have you ever talked to me? Get my point?

Why? Because I've heard them all before and they ALL turned out to be LIES.

Really? You lived in stalin's russia or maybe Maoist china? And you heard there lies about this? Wow!! You must be 60 years old or older. But it seems you argue like a 12 year old that has no understanding about what I have said. LOL!!!

As a communist, I'm only interested in the fight for communism--MORE FREEDOM of every kind of worker. And that means from DAY ONE of the revolution...not some pie-in-the-sky crap that's always just over the horizon.

First of all from the sound of things you are not a communist but a democratic socialist. Your goal is a democratic society with personal liberty. My goal is to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and then after that,the withering of the state. It seems you have no idea what this concept is. So it is worthless to argue with you.

The conclusion of this argument(if you want to call it that) is that you are ingnorant to what I have said and it is very hard to argue with somebody that has no understanding of the topic of discussion. So the lesson of the day is don't argue with somebody when you don't even understand what they are saying.

[thursday]

It is quite evident to me that Redstar is a young child or teenager who believes that being a "socialist" (or whatever he has decided to call himself) is a cool thing to do, and in reality he really doesn't care about the dictatorship of the proletarian or the liberation of the people from capitalism; all he cares about is making his parents angry at him. And he can't stand the peer pressure when somebody makes a crude remark about him and Stalin (to be a Marxist is to sometimes be unpopular), so he thus discredits the Soviet Union.

[new democracy]

thursday, redstar is one of the oldest members here!!!! i remember that in another thread he actually told about his memories from the 50's!!!!! and i must say that his one of the most inteligent members on this board.

[vox]

In the USA, some slave owners were quite kind to their slaves. The slaves had enough to eat, so they were free from hunger. They all had work, so they were free from unemployment. They all had a place to live, so they were free from homelessness.

This is the kind of "freedom" the Stalinists would allow. Where Marx and Engels said that the proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains, the Stalinists simply offer chains of a different color.

But what did Marx think about freedom?

From The German Ideology:

"Only in community [has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class."

And, of course, there's the rather famous line from the Manifesto:

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

The Stalinists do not want the free development of each, nor of all, but only of the State, which, they ensure us, knows best.

Clearly, freedom in a Marxist sense is not "freedom from," by "freedom to."

Once again, the Stalinists get it wrong.

vox

[TheButcher]

This is the kind of "freedom" the Stalinists would allow. Where Marx and Engels said that the proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains, the Stalinists simply offer chains of a different color.

Well here we go again, the spread of bourgeois propaganda against the stalinist. I feel like I'm living back in the cold war with all this bullshit. How do the stalinist want to inslave there own people? You need to explain so I can argue the point.


The Stalinists do not want the free development of each, nor of all, but only of the State, which, they ensure us, knows best.

Did you not understand what I said before in my earlier post? We(stalinists) want a free society but under the effective leadership of the elected govenment officials elected by the people and which are the state. What is so bad about this?

Clearly, freedom in a Marxist sense is not "freedom from," by "freedom to."

Really? Do you think Marx would give freedom to the Jews? I think we all know that question! So in your eyes does this make marx a stalinist because he wouldn't give the jews the freedom of the rest of the working class.

Once again, the Stalinists get it wrong.


Once again you misunderstood the stalinist and you spread your false propaganda of what stalinism is.





(Edited by TheButcher at 5:52 pm on Nov. 27, 2002)

[Umoja]

Then Stalin and Marx were both wrong. Sure their planned economics worked, but Stalin wasn't elected by his people. Stalin was a dictator, dictators aren't Democracy and without full democracy a system is doomed to become opressive.

While I'm on that, what people are fit to be Communist Leaders? What type of people are fit to say their form of government is the best, and anyone who opposes it should die? Because last time I checked, people follow things willingly better then if they were forced.

Wow, I'm against Proleterian Dictatorship, oh well. I am a Democratic Socialist, because I don't plan on living to ever see a Communist society, so I may as well start to build the first steps of it, in a way that benefits all people, not just the dictator with the "Grand Vision".

[TheButcher]

but stalin wasn't elected by the people

He was elected by the congress after the death of lenin.

[Jaha]

stalin played the system like a harp.

he did not earn his position. he was given the crap job as general secretariat and used is control of the paper-pushing army to get his friends in high places and get non-supporters fired. when the congress "elected" him, trosky had no leg to stand on. if trosky was elected, all his supporters were outside of the party.

[Michael De Panama]

TheButcher:
You seem to have maturity when you disagree with ones point of view by not insulting them.

Thanks. Though I must admit I have been quite the vicious little shit in the past. Other members can testify to this.

I'm not extremely authoritarian as you probably think I am. I'm not in favor of creating a elite class with ruling government officials. But I think that a few should be elected by the people so they can rule the counrty.

So, I'm seeing what you want is a representative democracy? About how long would you say government officials should serve their terms until a re-election? Because Stalin, Mao, and other leaders pretty much assumed control until their deaths, which I see as all too similar to previous monarchial government structures.

The elected officials will have more power just because they will be the law makers of the counrty. I think it would be silly to say that elected govenment officials wouldn't have more power over the regular blue-collar worker.

I agree. However, I think the blue-collar worker would still have more power than the government official in regards to his station of employment. In regards to the proffession, and only in regards to the proffession, should one worker have more power than another. Economically, the government should hold the same power as everyone else.

Thursday:
Being Marxists we seek to achieve socialism. What you must remember about socialism is that it is not a state-less society and a state continues to exist.

Yes, I agree, but whether the state should exist as democratic or despotic is still the question. How would the structure of the socialist state be built?

When we use the term democracy when discussing socialism we must remember we are not talking about bourgeoisie democracy but Marxist democracy; the dictatorship of the proletarian.

I totally agree. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be the ruling of the majority, the working class, over the minority, the bourgeoisie, until one can no longer differentiate between bourgeois and proletarian.

In essense, this does not call for the establishment of a forced "dictatorship" in the most literal sense, but through the establishment of a democracy permitting the majority to rule over the minority. That's what democracy is all about.

What defines freedom of speech? Do you really think it’s possible to have a KGB (or whatever) agent inside every home just waiting for somebody to say something that can possibly taken as a negative statement towards the state?

Of course not. I don't think that would be practical at all, unless 1984 comes about. But the restraint of ability to openly speak out against the state in public, or to demonstrate against the government, or to just simply speak your mind at all is also a a shackle to freedom of speech. Censorship by the government will still exist, and does, even if it's not taken to the extreme circumstances you mentioned.

But when you say freedom of speech (and press) do you mean the freedom to publish anti-socialist newsletters and legally work against the state? Why should this be allowed? Should we allow malcontented citizens of a socialist country to work against the state?

Yes. I'll tell you a couple of reasons why I think this should be allowed.

Because we, as socialists, are political deviants ourselves against the capitalist society. You and me sitting here typing on this message board is an act of deviance. In a society without freedom of speech at all, you and me would be arrested or killed for this. We should therefore have sympathy towards other people speaking their minds.

Because we, as human beings, will always have opinions and thoughts. Speech is only a tool with which to express these thoughts.

Because we, as socialists, should not have anything to fear from those who oppose us. We should have enough confidence in what we stand for to know that our system is superior to whatever else might exist. If it isn't, I would sure as hell love to know why. If I'm convinced that another system is better, I'll want to switch to the other system. I don't want to join the movement for the sake of the movement as much as for the sake of the people the movement affects. If another movement proves to be better, we should yield to it. But as for right now, socialism is the only way I see towards true freedom.

As for the “new ruling class” regulating “what can be said and what can’t” you must remember that this “new ruling class” is the people, and so if the people themselves are regulating isn’t this what you want?

This is a very interesting idea. I actually imagine this form of censorship would actually hold more true to democracy than freedom of speech. Just as socialism is collectivism of economy, this would be collectivism of thought. I don't think this would work, though, as economy is something man-made, and thought is something that kind of makes man, and is not so easily manipulated. I also don't think this would be best for the people if it could work, as it would surely kill off all individuality, and create an extremely dull existance. Wouldn't you think such a way of operating would slow the progress and formation of new thoughts?

[vox]

"Well here we go again, the spread of bourgeois propaganda against the stalinist. I feel like I'm living back in the cold war with all this bullshit. How do the stalinist want to inslave there own people? You need to explain so I can argue the point."

I posted this in another thread, but it answers your concerns. From Socialism From Below by McNally:

"At that point, Stalin undertook to reshape the entire nature and direction of Russian society. This 'reshaping' had three main aspects: the elimination of all dissent; the liquidation of all forms of democracy and of working class organisation; the slashing of the living standards of the working class and the physical annihilation of millions of peasants. The purpose of these policies was to transfer economic resources from fulfilling the consumption needs of human beings to the building of a massive industrial/military complex that could compete on the same footing as western capitalism.

"The elimination of dissent began with expulsions from the Bolshevik party in 1927. Then came sweeping arrests. In the mid-1930s a wave of 'show trials' led to the slaughter of the original Bolshevik leaders of the revolution. But the most astounding and gruesome form of repression came in the slave labour camps. By 1931, two million people had found their way into these camps. By 1933, the figure was five million. In 1942 it reached a staggering 15 million.

"The destruction of the remnants of workers' democracy proceeded apace. Strikes were outlawed in 1928. After 1930 workers were no longer allowed to change jobs without state permission. Trade unions were reduced to bureaucratic playthings controlled by the state. Other democratic reforms of the revolution were buried. Access to divorce was severely curtailed. Abortion was made illegal. Homosexuality, made legal with the revolution, was once again made a criminal offence. A regime of police terror prevailed."

"Did you not understand what I said before in my earlier post? We(stalinists) want a free society but under the effective leadership of the elected govenment officials elected by the people and which are the state. What is so bad about this?"

You mean bourgeois democracy then, right? Isn't that what we have now?

"Really? Do you think Marx would give freedom to the Jews? I think we all know that question! So in your eyes does this make marx a stalinist because he wouldn't give the jews the freedom of the rest of the working class."

You will have to define this a bit more. I've already talked on this board about the "Jewish question," and also how it's dreadfully misunderstood from a philosophical standpoint. Marx, being a Jew, was not likely to enslave himself, I think.

By the way, Marx talked of the withering away of the State. You must have missed that bit.

vox

[redstar2000]

I don't have much to add to the replies of the other comrades to butcher & thursday's cynical distortions of marxism in support of their own pathetic ambitions to be the "strong leader" of the next revolution.

I will, however, "take my head out of my ass" long enough to note that whenever people "play the age card", that should RING ALARM BELLS on your bullshit detector. No one with a sound argument has to either claim great age or INSULT people simply because of their youth.

An argument stands or falls on its merits...not on the age of the arguer. Those consumed by ambition may be expected to grab for any stick to beat their opponents; but we should recognize that tactic for what it really is and what it really means. To hold entire groups of a certain age in contempt is...contemptable!

[thursday]

Wow, I'm against Proleterian Dictatorship, oh well. I am a Democratic Socialist, because I don't plan on living to ever see a Communist society,


Once again, this is Che-lives.com. Che was a Marxist. How can you be an 'Internationalist Che Admirer' when you're a "democratic socialist" and "against Proleterian Dictatorship" (not to mention you're religious, claiming to be an aspiring Quaker or something)?

[Umoja]

Because we are still like minded. I admire Che for the progress he brought to South America, but I don't worship everyone of his words and beliefs. I follow what I know is right. So, if that makes me a bad leftist not to follow leftist leaders blindly, I'm sorry... well actually I'm not.

And what's wrong with me being religious? What's that have to do with anything? Is it hurting you?

[Xvall]

If I recall; there was even a capitalist on this board that admired Che. I think that the Democratic Socialist opposes the 'dictatorship' if it were an actually 'dictatorship'; meaning one person is running the whole thing.

[Umoja]

You mean to tell me you support Dictatorship Thursday?

[Michael De Panama]

I think the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is very misleading nowdays.

The proletariat, being the majority of society, will hold the position of a dictatorship in any democracy in which socialism is enforced. Democracy, being the system of government in which the majority rule over the people, will inevitably lead to a proletarian "dictatorship" when properly executed. The proletariat will naturally overpower the bourgeoisie in any democracy that is not manipulated and exploited through money as it is in places like America. Over time, this will lead to the bourgeoisie (or rather, the bourgeois state of mind) to fade away into non-existance.

Marx termed it as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to make it sound more forcefull. He also stated that modern industrial capitalist society is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Just think of the proletarian "dictatorship" as the true democracy.

I'm a democratic Marxist myself, by the way.

[Umoja]

Socialism shouldn't be forced. Otherwise it's non-Democratic. The Boug--- I don't wanna spell it, can't be opressed because then the lower class will pretty much just take their place.

Freedom comes by choice, not by force.

[Michael De Panama]

I totally agree. But you see, the working class takes up the majority of the population. In a socialist democracy, the working class would have more political influence simply based on this. This is what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means. Either way, socialism is inevitable.

[RedRevolutionary87]

socialism doesnt have to be democratic, since the only way for socialism to come to power is by the will of the many, then it by itself is the purest democracy (spontaneus democracy) where the people get together and say hey we need to do something, none of that burocratic bullshit. i believe there should be a form of election for leadership, but without any campains and such, because that leads to misconseptions, instead people can vote for people in their community to represent their community and it goes in steps from there. as for freedom of speach....i really dont care, if sum1 is pationate enough about what they have to say they will say it whether its legal or not, putting restrictions on speach just prevents opertunists from misleading the masses. one problem is that ones freedom can restrict someone elses freedom...such as freedom of competition, and freedom of the market..ofcourse i think we all feel the same way about that and it doesnt need to be argued.

please dont mistake me for a stalinist because i am not...i dont feel a need for secrete polices and large standing armies, i believe people need to be able to represent themselves, being free is being able to tell people what you need and then recieve it, you are responsible for everything around you and it is your duty to make this place better for others. the people dont need to be policed...they can do that themselves, but they do need to be protected...because unfortunatly the mass is like a herd of cattle, and even tho the masses are more important then you or i or any single person or group...they are very stupid, and can be lead by almost anything...so certain restrictions must be placed on individuals to protect the collective, the collectives freedom is endless, the individual is the one that must make sacrifices, and rightly so, since you and i will die sooner or later, but the collective is eternal.

[Umoja]

Sans Capitalist economics, the US system of administration wouldn't be horrible under a Democratic Socialist system. This can be done if people start voting for the Green Party, because this would break the two party deadlock. So start amping people to vote for those Greens!

[RedRevolutionary87]

wtf....do you actualy mean to tell me you believe the big companies will eventualy realise the error in their ways(btw they already kno the error in their ways) and give yup their hard "earned"(stolen) money peacefully and through constitutional changes...fuk that your living in a dream...greens=petty bourgoise socialism..crumbs off the table of our owners to keep us happy if you will. you cant "vote" socialism in...it wont fukking happen, no1 will give up billions becuz they are told by the gov that they have to spread it equaly...they will buy a fuhking army and knock us the fuk out. so please understand...socialism is a revolutionary theory, not a reformist one...if you want to be a reformist go join some shit libertarian party and eat your crumbs while they feast

[Iepilei]

it seems as if the definition of democracy is a bit stretched... so I'll emphasis.

It's the ability for all people to have equal representation and voice within their government. The US is a democracy - a weak one at that. The democracy set in the US is corrupt, taken advantage of by upper-classed despots who act only in their intrests.

However, through socialism the seperation of people among class lines, determined by money, is destroyed and no one person can hold power over anyone else. Nothing will be passed through a heirarchy if regulations are in place.

[Umoja]

Yeah, Capitalism has corrupted our Democracy. The only way to have a revolution is to have the majority of people agree with it. If the majority of people want Socialism, then the Corporations would be forced to decentralize.

Logically, this works far better, because instead of theorizing, voting directly makes change that is visible. I mean, protesting is going to do anything, and their really isn't a need for Guerilla warefare, so how else is the government gonna change?

[bolshevik1917]

From the YFIS Q&A section http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp


Q. How can democracy and Socialism exist at the same time?

A. First of all, the idea that Marxism and democracy are opposites is false. The fact is that under capitalism (which is usually referred to as "democracy") there is no real democracy. Yes, you can vote every few years in the presidential and congressional elections. But look at who stands in those elections. Only those who have enough money to do so. Who finances their campaigns? The big corporations. So you do not have a REAL choice. In practice, there is democracy only for the rich and powerful - bourgeois democracy.

More important than that, the government which is elected does not really have much choice of what policies to follow. When the 3 richest people in the US have a combined wealth equal to more than 115 million ordinary Americans, they are the ones who really run the country. With their economic decisions they determine the lives of millions of ordinary people, their job prospects, their access to health care, education, etc. When the interests of these big corporations are threatened they use the government to save them. For example when the democratically elected government of Allende in Chile in 1973 decided to nationalize the copper mines and the telecomms (owned by US companies), these corporations gave millions and the CIA organized a military coup in Chile which replaced the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Allende with the military DICTATORSHIP of Pinochet.

A more recent example is the ongoing trade war between Europe and the US over bananas. Leaving aside the issue of who's right and who's wrong, the point is that the interests of banana companies in Central America are threatened. All these companies are US corporations (Chiquita, Del Monte, Fruit Co.) who have decided and chosen the governments in the region for the last 100 years. As they feel their economic interests are threatened, they use the US government to fight against decisions of the European Union. How are they able to do that? Because they have millions of dollars invested in BOTH the Democratic and the Republican parties. Government and political parties are in the last instance a tool of big business and they are the ones who determine the policies which are implemented. These parties do not exist in a vacuum but are directly funded and influenced by the billionnaires and corporations. Therefore they do not really act in the name of "law", "truth", or "justice", but in the interests of the hand that feeds them.

Under socialism on the other hand, the economic resources of the country and world would not be in private hands, but in the hands of the majority of the population who would run and control them democratically. This would be a REAL democracy where the people would have real control over their lives. They would be able to democratically elect their representatives in government, and at the same time these representatives would have real power over the economy, to really change things. These officials would be subject to immediate recall if they did not satisfactorily do the jobs they were elected for. The people would then elect someone else who they thought would do things better. Also, these elected officials would not earn any more than a skilled worker. Unlike today where the "perks" often outweigh the salary of our "elected" officials. This will get rid of careerists and make sure that the people doing the jobs are there because they want to be there, not so they can get extra benefits from the job. These elected officials would also come from all members of society - as Lenin said, "any cook should be able to be prime minister" - it would be a truly people's democracy.

A further complication to this issue is that people generally identify Marxism with the regime which existed in the Soviet Union. As you can see there was no democracy of any kind there. We say that that was NOT socialism. It was Stalinism, that is, a regime where the economy was in the hands of the state, but the citizens had no way of participating in running it. The bureaucratic caste took control over the state apparatus, and used it in their own interests. This had nothing to do with socialism and in fact, in order to come to power Stalin had first to kill hundreds of thousands of socialist and communist militants, including most of the members of the central committee of the Bolshevik Party who organized the Russian Revolution in 1917. But the bottom line is that genuine socialism and genuine Marxism are based on the ultimate democracy - workers' democracy - democracy by and for the vast majority of people. As Leon Trotsky said, "socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."




(Edited by bolshevik1917 at 9:17 am on Nov. 29, 2002)

[RedRevolutionary87]

k firstly newyouth sucks alot of trotskyist dick. secondly...well there is no secondly

tah tah

[bolshevik1917]

No, there is no firstly either. Is this the best you pitufull Stalinists can do.

You disgust me

[TheButcher]

No, there is no firstly either. Is this the best you pitufull Stalinists can do.

Oh don't worry I have new ideas and facts coming to mind to shut you trotskyist up!!!

I will start a new thread tomorrow.

[bolshevik1917]

Or do you want me to type it for you butcher? because I have seen these arguments 1000000 times before. My comrade Ted Grant was answering the sort of tripe you will find on the 'antitrot' website 40 or 50 years ago.

They have even dedicated some space on the pathetic site to encourage stalinists to sign up to the YFIS newsletter and 'make it count'

Arseholes

Pity they wont debate with us.

Anyway, I look forward to your new thread butcher, if you want i'll write my reply now....thats how predictable it is!

(Edited by bolshevik1917 at 5:39 am on Nov. 30, 2002)

[cry of the harvester]

hah! the book was right! its obvious that the followers of Marx did not fully understand the idea behind their movement.

thank you, for the reassurance.

[RedRevolutionary87]

yes there is a firstly...new youth is totally inactive in my area and just blab when i tried contacting them i didnt get a response so you kno what they are complete crap, like most of trotskies followers. and dont ever EVER call me a fucking stalinist...because im not, just because i dont liek what your group does...erm...doesnt do you dencounce me as a stalinist...you remind me of blasphemy and his outrageous acusations of people being anti semites simply because they denounced israel or zionism or said israel has no right to exist, or even stating facts agaist zionist groups at school.

[Umoja]

Why do you hardcore Marxist call everyone you don't agree with a Trotskyist?

[bolshevik1917]

They are not hardcore Marxists, just muddled up stalinist types.

Red Revolutionary, you should try full stops and cut the petty insults. If you are not a stalinist whats all this 'trotskyist' rubbish?

[RedRevolutionary87]

so wait...let me get this straight....you feel that if i dislike trotsky for one reason or another i am then a stalinist? if thats how you feel tell me now so i can stop wasting my time with you....

[bolshevik1917]

May I ask your reasons for disliking Trotsky?

[RedRevolutionary87]

i dont like his view on anarchists, and the fact he ordered the killings of many of them angers me. now i hate stalin much m uch more than trotsky but i just dont agree with trotsky on a few points...but more so i dislike trotskyists becuz every single one ive met so far thinks they are on some kind of sacred mission to help every1 realize "true marxism" becuz they think they kno everything.

[timbaly]

Everyone is entitled to these "bourgeois" freedoms, they are the rights of men. They are important freedoms, though not as important as freedom from hunger, homelessness and exploitation. However the only way to ensure freedom from homelessness, hunger and exploitation is to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Your personal freedoms ensure the freedoms of the working class as a whole. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could be against personal freedoms.

[redstar2000]

Umoja, I am a "hardcore Marxist" and I would hate to think that anyone who disagrees with me would receive only some kind of derogatory label in response.

But I agree with you--it is COMMON on this board with certain folks that if you criticize Stalin, you're a fucking trot gestapo agent & if you criticize Trotsky, then you're a fucking stalinist baby-eater.

If I knew more about computers, maybe I could set up some web sites for each side:

http://www.stalinthegoatfucker.com and
http://www.trotskysucksdonkeydicks.com

Until then, the beat goes on...and on...and on...and on...

[Emmanual Goldstein]

Yo Red, tell me when you make those sites. Stalin and Trotsky making love to barnyard animals... So that's what Orwell meant when he wrote Animal Farm!

These arguements are so fucking funny after you ate half a batch of Aunt Mary Jane's Sugar Brownies. This shit (the debate and the ganja) takes me back to my first punk show where the band sang bread and roses? Ever hear that song?

"hearts can starve as well as bodies
give us bread but give us roses"

What the fuck did Che say? I dunno it was something about him not being interested in narrow economic socialism but seeing it as a tool to eliminate alienation. If it didn't do that, Che said that it "may be a way to distribute goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life".

It's all about worker and community self management dude. The freedom from poverty is important foreal, and your "bourgeious" freedoms are just as important but you need direct democracy in the workplace and community to be socialist foreal. and without popular control over the mafuckin economics how can you ever ensure that everybody gets their economic rights fulfilled.

you gotta think about that shit Butcher. What the fuck anyway? Who the fuck do you think you are giving your self such a fucking sociopathic name? Smoke the buddha! Make some friends! And for god's sake GET LAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your continued existence makes me sad