Is revolution moraly wrong? - Should we force are opinions o

[Invader Zim]

I am more socialist than comunist, I believe that people should choose their government and that it is wrong to force communism on people like the soviots did, threatening war with those countries that did not comply.
Personally i am in favour of a democratic approach to socialism, this way you create a free state, morraly justified for its rule and with what i believe are fair opinions of government. I believe that this is the only way that communism/socialism/marcsism ect are going to survive the new centuary.

[redstar2000]

Seems to be a bit of confusion in your post, AK47, but maybe this will help:

1. Revolution is an act of successful insurrection against the capitalist class--a minority of the whole population.

2. Imposing "communism" or "socialism" on the people of ANOTHER country at gunpoint...doesn't work anyway.

:cool:

[Umoja]

AK sounds like a Democratic Socialist!!! Whoo-Hooo!

I agree with you one hundred percent. Revolutions generally produce opressors, The Zapatistas say that as a Revolutionary Movement, it isn't their purpose to create a New Democracy, it's the job of all people to choose a New Government.

[Xvall]

Should we force our views on people? We are not doing that. We are doing the exact oppsite. We are defending ourselves from the enforcement of capitalism.

[BOZG]

A revolution doesn't mean forcing your views upon people. It is the overthrowing of the old conservative society. Sub Marcos did say that the Zapatistas were not there to take power but to exercise it but they still hope to overthrow the old system.

Edit: I just realised that this post doesn't really make sense but I'll leave it here anyway.

(Edited by BornOfZapatasGuns at 9:51 pm on Dec. 13, 2002)

[chamo]

we are not forcing views or politics on anyone, we are shielding ourselves form views dictated upon us from our own current governments. the soviets did not force views upon anyone in russia, a revolution was needed to break away from the tsarist dictatorship and the bolsheviks did this which was what the people wanted, power to the peasents.

[BOZG]

A quick question, who decides what is morally wrong or morally right?

[chamo]

good question but i think that you decide yourself whether you are morally correct or morally opposed to a revolution

[BOZG]

Morality does not exist. Neither does right or wrong. You just have to do what you see fit.

[Lardlad95]

If it's a minority then why is it right?

Second Defending your self from Capitalism? Thats the lamest response ever

[chamo]

it is a minority because of the power that capitalism has created for itself, the brainwashing of the american government and the fall of the soviet union. that's why we have beomce a minority but we feel what the bolshviks of the october revolution felt, that a power has become to monopolising and dictatorite and is, to ourselves, not a correct form of economic strategy and democracy. we feel that people in the majority are so because of greed, ignorance, and brainwashing and it is our desire to change this and upset the dictatorship of capitalism

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Marxism is democracy, "Marx" is spelled M-A-R-X.
We have already established that forcing a system on someone is wrong. That is why the currently enstated system which has been forced upon the proletariat will be brought down. A new system, free of oppression will be enstated in order to liberate the workers from capitalism.

Umoja, what exactly is this 'Democratic Socialism' you speak of and how does it differ from traditional Marxism-Leninism?

[Blackberry]

Quote: from AK47 on 6:36 pm on Dec. 13, 2002
I am more socialist than comunist, I believe that people should choose their government and that it is wrong to force communism on people like the soviots did, threatening war with those countries that did not comply.
Personally i am in favour of a democratic approach to socialism, this way you create a free state, morraly justified for its rule and with what i believe are fair opinions of government. I believe that this is the only way that communism/socialism/marcsism ect are going to survive the new centuary.


Revolution is not threatening people to comply. A successful revolution will need the MAJORITY of the masses to overthrow a government in the world today.

The MINORITY (ie. capitalist) will not matter, since they are the oppressors.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 12:42 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Umoja, what exactly is this 'Democratic Socialism' you speak of and how does it differ from traditional Marxism-Leninism?


It's a very watered down version of socialism. You could call it 'soft capitalism'.

[Umoja]

Democratic Socialism believes that only through Democracy can Socialism be reached, and that a violent revolution doesn't necessarily have to lead up to a change in society. Democratic Socialism also doesn't seek to provide the answers to a Utopia but rather a pratical answer to current problems, and slowly lead along the Socialization of society.

It's the main form of Socialism practiced in the United States, if IIRC. The SP-USA is the prime Democratic Socialist Party in the world, even though many Greens I've met also considered themselves Democratic Socialist.

[Pete]

I used to be this "Democratic Socialist" that you just described comrade. But then I realized that the masses are already too brainwashed by the Democratic Elite which rules over the Democratic World. They legitamize the Revolution which thier rule will create. The Red Black and Green Banners will hang everywhere (:D). Morality is relative.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 5:40 am on Dec. 14, 2002
I used to be this "Democratic Socialist" that you just described comrade. But then I realized that the masses are already too brainwashed by the Democratic Elite which rules over the Democratic World. They legitamize the Revolution which thier rule will create. The Red Black and Green Banners will hang everywhere (:D). Morality is relative.

Give me direct democracy over reprsentative democracy any day. :cool:

[nz revolution]

"red black and green instead of gang bandanas"

revolution morally wrong? this is bollocks M-16.

is capitalism not forced upon us?

as Neutral Nation said, you do need a majority.

I seriously hope you don't wear Che t shirts or anything slightly suggestive of revolutionary politics

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Like I said earlier, Capitalism has been forced upon us by a revolution.
Communism will liberate the oppressed with a revolution.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!

[Umoja]

But if everyone agrees with something you don't need a Revolution. Knowledge is Action. Mohammad the Prophet said "The Ink of the Scholar is more blessed then the Blood of the Martyr." If everyone agrees with a common principle then change will happen. Revolutions generally force people to accept a certain mindset.... Only group I can think of that isn't like that is the Zapatistas.

[BOZG]

Democratic Socialism believes that only through Democracy can Socialism be reached,

Democracy doesn't exist so how can how socialism be reached through a non existing theory. The whole point of a revolution is to fight for democracy and equality.

[Lefty]

hmmm...the recurring theme i see in this thread is "its not bad because the majority will always agree with us when we overthrow the fascist capitalist pigs! Hoo-hah!" Think about what you are saying. Does anyone know Bush's current approval rating? I believe it is somewhere around 65-70%. It's hard to get 65-70 people in a room of 100 people to agree on whether they like themselves, much less whether they approve of Bush. My conclusion: The majority of the people that we seek to "liberate" would be less happy "liberated" and living under something where they couldn't aspire to riches, rather than being poor, but able to look in magazines and look at what they could, conceivably, be. We are the vast minority. Look at what is happening to Cuba. As the U.S.A. pumps propaganda of riches and wealth available in the U.S. into cuba, people there are getting into flimsy rafts to to paddle across about 100 miles of shark-infested water with no nautical experience to get a shot at these "riches." People are stupid and petty, and are willing to be humiliated daily for a measly paycheck. Unless we can get them to not give a fuck about money and whatever the hell else the U.S.A promises them, and offer them something better, a revolution will never work. It may occur, but people will be unhappy, and it will fall apart very soon after it occurs.

[redstar2000]

"People are stupid and petty"

That is the way people APPEAR to be in periods of reaction...like THIS ONE.

Will this ALWAYS be the case? There have been quite a few periods in history when people STOPPED being "stupid and petty" and STARTED being "smart and serious."

In other words, revolution NOW would be idiotic...revolution when the massive majority of the people demand it is OBVIOUS.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 2:01 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Victorcommie on 12:42 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Umoja, what exactly is this 'Democratic Socialism' you speak of and how does it differ from traditional Marxism-Leninism?


It's a very watered down version of socialism. You could call it 'soft capitalism'.


hahahahaahah FUCK YOU

I'm not a cappie and don't insult me and my fellow Dem. Socialists by calling us cappies.

All you muthafuckas do is bullshit...talk talk atalk talk talk

thats it

"The Revolution will come...we are gonna get those cappie bastards"

be realistic

everyonce in a while muthafuckas will do shit

like them kats in Nepal

but I don't see you fighting with them.

Democratic socialsits have gotten officials elected on the state level

I'm willing to bet that that is more than you have done.

Put down that Toy AK-47 you hae next to your computer and wake the fuck up.

[BOZG]

So what if you've got officials elected? What have they done since they got there? The majority of them just become centrists. All you have to do is look at the Labour party in Britain.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 9:16 pm on Dec. 14, 2002
So what if you've got officials elected? What have they done since they got there? The majority of them just become centrists. All you have to do is look at the Labour party in Britain.

Minimum wage
social security
Labor unions

all ideas of socialist political parties

guess which was the major party when these got inforced in the US.

atleast we are realistic

if we can't get elected we still try and help people

what the fuck have you Communists done?
Not a damn thing...oh wait

THE USSR big fuckin deal.

All they did was give teh left a bad name.
Bread lines another great commie invention.

You guys aren't helping anyone. But if you ever do come to power the only thing you will care about is helping yourselves

as soon as a Communist coup takes power they become dictatorial and forget the people.

[redstar2000]

"Democratic socialism = soft capitalism"

Good one! I agree. :cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:29 pm on Dec. 14, 2002
"Democratic socialism = soft capitalism"

Good one! I agree. :cool:

I reiterate: FUCK YOU

and FUCK YOU and YOU and FUCK YOU TOO

[Corvus Corax]

Greed usually gets in the way of a revolution, and when a revolution does work, the leaders become greedy and forget the reason they revolted in the first place. And don't forget the most brainwashed people of them all... The military!!! The chance of getting a non-greedy majority to fight against the whole military are extremely slim, for now at least. Maybe a revolution through politics...

[Lefty]

Right now, people seem pretty content with having their rights taken away. Hmm... This is confusing indeed.

And I agree with LL entirely. Geez, just because we don't want to force change upon the population doesn't mean we are capitalists.

[Pete]

I do not want to force my self upon the people but I do not believe that a democratically elected group of people will change the world in the same way a revolution would. We have to wait until the majority is on side then the Revolution will come bys its self.

[redstar2000]

Historically, the problem with "democratic socialism" is that it has been rarely democratic and NOT socialist at all. Recognizing this, most "democratic socialist" parties have dropped the word "socialist" from their names--they long ago abandoned any pretense of actually being "for" socialism.

The results are not so bad where they've worked--primarily in the Scandanavian countries. They've probably succeeded in creating a "soft capitalism"--sometimes called "capitalism with a human face"--as well as anyone EVER will.

I suppose that someone who wanted to be a kind of secular Mother Theresa--"I just want to help people--would be well advised to choose one of the "democratic socialist" groups. Depending on what country you happen to be in, you MIGHT indeed help people...A LITTLE.

The communist project--you remember, smashing the capitalist state apparatus, liquidating the capitalist class, total emancipation of the working class--well, that's just for kids sitting at a keyboard with an AK47 by their sides. :cheesy:

The "realists" say it will NEVER happen...and it certainly won't if THEY have any say in the matter.

But the kids at their keyboards...well, we'll see what happens when THEY stand up. :cool:

[Pete]

I know how to shoot a C-7 when the time comes. Until then I am a kid at a computer. How do you think we will fit into the society? By being like everyone else all the 'kids at a computer' who do nothing useful. Just with our communication source minimized:D

[truthaddict11]

so much animosity in this thread, anyhow i concider myself a democratic socialist.

[truthaddict11]

for all the dem socialist haters go here
http://sp-usa.org/whoweare.html

[canikickit]

I fucking love democratic socialism. I would rather soft capitalism to hard capitalism any, and every day of the month. I love everyone.

[Umoja]

Well... Apparently the Cavalry has arrived with good tidings but seriously, most Commies sit on their asses, and talk about how Communism isn't what the Soviet Union was, but that's about it. Like the CP-USA doesn't really do anything but talk. The Socialist-Party gets stuff done, even though Socialist are migrating in droves towards the Green Party, nearly everyone I've talked to considers themself a Democratic Socialist.... But this thread is about Revolution not the Green Party.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 9:08 pm on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 2:01 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Victorcommie on 12:42 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Umoja, what exactly is this 'Democratic Socialism' you speak of and how does it differ from traditional Marxism-Leninism?


It's a very watered down version of socialism. You could call it 'soft capitalism'.


hahahahaahah FUCK YOU

I'm not a cappie and don't insult me and my fellow Dem. Socialists by calling us cappies.

All you muthafuckas do is bullshit...talk talk atalk talk talk

thats it

"The Revolution will come...we are gonna get those cappie bastards"

be realistic

everyonce in a while muthafuckas will do shit

like them kats in Nepal

but I don't see you fighting with them.

Democratic socialsits have gotten officials elected on the state level

I'm willing to bet that that is more than you have done.

Put down that Toy AK-47 you hae next to your computer and wake the fuck up.


OK. Now that you've learned how to spell 'fuck', try not to use it in every sentence.

[BOZG]

Revolutions generally force people to accept a certain mindset.... Only group I can think of that isn't like that is the Zapatistas.

I thought of another one. The anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. They never set out to force anything upon the people. The workers organised themselves without being forced to do so. One of the reasons why the anarchists fell was because they refused to take power and control people.

[Umoja]

Anarchy isn't going to work anytime soon, and isn't desirable any way. It would make manufacturing big expensive modern shiny things, much harder then it should be.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:01 am on Dec. 15, 2002
Historically, the problem with "democratic socialism" is that it has been rarely democratic and NOT socialist at all. Recognizing this, most "democratic socialist" parties have dropped the word "socialist" from their names--they long ago abandoned any pretense of actually being "for" socialism.

The results are not so bad where they've worked--primarily in the Scandanavian countries. They've probably succeeded in creating a "soft capitalism"--sometimes called "capitalism with a human face"--as well as anyone EVER will.

I suppose that someone who wanted to be a kind of secular Mother Theresa--"I just want to help people--would be well advised to choose one of the "democratic socialist" groups. Depending on what country you happen to be in, you MIGHT indeed help people...A LITTLE.

The communist project--you remember, smashing the capitalist state apparatus, liquidating the capitalist class, total emancipation of the working class--well, that's just for kids sitting at a keyboard with an AK47 by their sides. :cheesy:

The "realists" say it will NEVER happen...and it certainly won't if THEY have any say in the matter.

But the kids at their keyboards...well, we'll see what happens when THEY stand up. :cool:


If I knew that teh revolution wouldnt create another USSR I would fight but communist fuck shit up to much

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 4:03 am on Dec. 15, 2002
for all the dem socialist haters go here
http://sp-usa.org/whoweare.html



already been there I'm joining the party when i turn 15

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 5:47 am on Dec. 15, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 9:08 pm on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 2:01 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Victorcommie on 12:42 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Umoja, what exactly is this 'Democratic Socialism' you speak of and how does it differ from traditional Marxism-Leninism?


It's a very watered down version of socialism. You could call it 'soft capitalism'.


hahahahaahah FUCK YOU

I'm not a cappie and don't insult me and my fellow Dem. Socialists by calling us cappies.

All you muthafuckas do is bullshit...talk talk atalk talk talk

thats it

"The Revolution will come...we are gonna get those cappie bastards"

be realistic

everyonce in a while muthafuckas will do shit

like them kats in Nepal

but I don't see you fighting with them.

Democratic socialsits have gotten officials elected on the state level

I'm willing to bet that that is more than you have done.

Put down that Toy AK-47 you hae next to your computer and wake the fuck up.


OK. Now that you've learned how to spell 'fuck', try not to use it in every sentence.


I used it twice by itselfI used mufuckas also

Now maybe we could get to the topic of you acting like you are really gonna do shit about capitalism?

How many Corporations have you bombed so far?

How many regimes have you toppled?

How many officials have you assasinated

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 1:44 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from AK47 on 6:36 pm on Dec. 13, 2002
I am more socialist than comunist, I believe that people should choose their government and that it is wrong to force communism on people like the soviots did, threatening war with those countries that did not comply.
Personally i am in favour of a democratic approach to socialism, this way you create a free state, morraly justified for its rule and with what i believe are fair opinions of government. I believe that this is the only way that communism/socialism/marcsism ect are going to survive the new centuary.


Revolution is not threatening people to comply. A successful revolution will need the MAJORITY of the masses to overthrow a government in the world today.

The MINORITY (ie. capitalist) will not matter, since they are the oppressors.

Then how do you explain what happened in Afganistan, The majority of the people were not involved in "revolution/coup" it was the americans who organised and carried out that userping of power/revolution/coup/glorios victory for "freedom" ect or what ever the american propagander machine desides to call it next.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 9:08 pm on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 2:01 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Victorcommie on 12:42 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Umoja, what exactly is this 'Democratic Socialism' you speak of and how does it differ from traditional Marxism-Leninism?


It's a very watered down version of socialism. You could call it 'soft capitalism'.


hahahahaahah FUCK YOU

I'm not a cappie and don't insult me and my fellow Dem. Socialists by calling us cappies.

All you muthafuckas do is bullshit...talk talk atalk talk talk

thats it

"The Revolution will come...we are gonna get those cappie bastards"

be realistic

everyonce in a while muthafuckas will do shit

like them kats in Nepal

but I don't see you fighting with them.

Democratic socialsits have gotten officials elected on the state level

I'm willing to bet that that is more than you have done.

Put down that Toy AK-47 you hae next to your computer and wake the fuck up.

You really are stupid, i bet you are the only person ever to fail an I.Q test. So until you say somthing sencble shut the fuck up!!. In the USA with the current popular opinion a leftist polotition would be unilectable even on village coincil level never mind state level! You really do have shit for brains if you believe your own bull shit.

[Invader Zim]

"I used it twice by itselfI used mufuckas also

Now maybe we could get to the topic of you acting like you are really gonna do shit about capitalism?

How many Corporations have you bombed so far?

How many regimes have you toppled?

How many officials have you assasinated"

The whole point of democratic socialism is to stop that kind terrorism. Thats just the kind of thing that will stop a leftist party ever becoming electable in the furtur.

[redstar2000]

"so much animosity in this thread"

Yes, that's what happens when matters get SERIOUS. Those who accept "the rules of the game" of capitalist "democracy" become livid with rage when it is pointed out that such "inside the box" activity has NEVER even approached the real goal...the emancipation of the working class.

If the "democratic socialists" had lived in the days of slavery, they would have energetically campaigned for...velcro chains!

And of COURSE, they always want to know OUR achievements...because our track record is pretty meagre: 80 days in Paris in 1871, 3 years in Petrograd and Moscow 1917-20, and 3 years or so around Barcelona from 1935-38. Admittedly, not much so far.

The difference: we TRIED to win the game! We LOST but we TRIED to WIN. We will TRY to WIN the next game. We will KEEP TRYING to WIN because we WILL NOT ACCEPT wage slavery and capitalism. If it takes 50 years or 50 centuries, WE WILL KEEP TRYING.

The "democratic socialist" wants a spot in the cabinet as Secretary of Human Services and a plan for discounts on prescription medicines for seniors. Whoopie!

Two different goals; two different mind-sets; two different ways of looking at things; and a LOT of animosity.

For some reason, "democratic socialists" really HATE communists--which means, of course, they would hate Che if he were alive today--whereas communists rather feel pity for "democratic socialists"...people who mean well but are as totally unequipped to struggle agaiinst capitalism and imperialism as someone with a bow & arrow trying to "fight" a tank!

If you want an EASY road, pick "democratic socialism". The reason it's EASY is because you'll never win anything that seriously threatens the capitalist class...and often you may win NOTHING AT ALL!

If you want to win it ALL, pick communism or anarcho-syndicalism (either one will work)...and you may spend your whole life and win nothing; but if you do win, you've won your LIBERATION FROM CAPITALISM!

Not a tough choice for me (or Che). How about YOU?

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from AK47 on 7:51 pm on Dec. 15, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 9:08 pm on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 2:01 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from Victorcommie on 12:42 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Umoja, what exactly is this 'Democratic Socialism' you speak of and how does it differ from traditional Marxism-Leninism?


It's a very watered down version of socialism. You could call it 'soft capitalism'.


hahahahaahah FUCK YOU

I'm not a cappie and don't insult me and my fellow Dem. Socialists by calling us cappies.

All you muthafuckas do is bullshit...talk talk atalk talk talk

thats it

"The Revolution will come...we are gonna get those cappie bastards"

be realistic

everyonce in a while muthafuckas will do shit

like them kats in Nepal

but I don't see you fighting with them.

Democratic socialsits have gotten officials elected on the state level

I'm willing to bet that that is more than you have done.

Put down that Toy AK-47 you hae next to your computer and wake the fuck up.

You really are stupid, i bet you are the only person ever to fail an I.Q test. So until you say somthing sencble shut the fuck up!!. In the USA with the current popular opinion a leftist polotition would be unilectable even on village coincil level never mind state level! You really do have shit for brains if you believe your own bull shit.


I never said currently

these officials were elected in the seventies and eighties

not to mention things are more liberal in the north

and as far as the assasination thing I was asking a question i don't encourage these things

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 8:13 pm on Dec. 15, 2002
"so much animosity in this thread"

Yes, that's what happens when matters get SERIOUS. Those who accept "the rules of the game" of capitalist "democracy" become livid with rage when it is pointed out that such "inside the box" activity has NEVER even approached the real goal...the emancipation of the working class.

If the "democratic socialists" had lived in the days of slavery, they would have energetically campaigned for...velcro chains!

And of COURSE, they always want to know OUR achievements...because our track record is pretty meagre: 80 days in Paris in 1871, 3 years in Petrograd and Moscow 1917-20, and 3 years or so around Barcelona from 1935-38. Admittedly, not much so far.

The difference: we TRIED to win the game! We LOST but we TRIED to WIN. We will TRY to WIN the next game. We will KEEP TRYING to WIN because we WILL NOT ACCEPT wage slavery and capitalism. If it takes 50 years or 50 centuries, WE WILL KEEP TRYING.

The "democratic socialist" wants a spot in the cabinet as Secretary of Human Services and a plan for discounts on prescription medicines for seniors. Whoopie!

Two different goals; two different mind-sets; two different ways of looking at things; and a LOT of animosity.

For some reason, "democratic socialists" really HATE communists--which means, of course, they would hate Che if he were alive today--whereas communists rather feel pity for "democratic socialists"...people who mean well but are as totally unequipped to struggle agaiinst capitalism and imperialism as someone with a bow & arrow trying to "fight" a tank!

If you want an EASY road, pick "democratic socialism". The reason it's EASY is because you'll never win anything that seriously threatens the capitalist class...and often you may win NOTHING AT ALL!

If you want to win it ALL, pick communism or anarcho-syndicalism (either one will work)...and you may spend your whole life and win nothing; but if you do win, you've won your LIBERATION FROM CAPITALISM!

Not a tough choice for me (or Che). How about YOU?

:cool:


First off I don't hate communist

second democratic socialsits want to make the US socialist ie, getting presidents elected not just small officials.

also I doubt you understand Democratic Socialism...we aren't looking for small things

we do what we can whjile still keeping our eyes on the prize.

You guys look for the ending but you don't do shit in the mean time.

If people are being paid slave wages would you just let them wait until teh "revolution" came?

or would yo help them if you could?

You guys are letting things pass you buy.

Do shit in the meantime, don't just ***** at us.

We are unequiped? What the fuck have you won? If you are better equiped then why is Bush still in office

Why is the average worker making 400 times less than the average ceo?

You guys try to win the war without winning the battles.

If you win the battles you will win the war.

Dream and plan for the future, live in the present kid.

If you can help people but you still havne't gotten control atleast you have made somewhat of a difference.

Obviously you don't really care about the people or you would do what ever you could..

All you communists could be helping us get workers better pay instead you act so damn stubborn

If you waste your life planning without taking action you will see life pass you by.

[truthaddict11]

this is from sp-usa

contrast to the Democratic and Republican parties, the Socialist Party has an underlying philosophy that is both coherent and radical. It is coherent in the sense that members of the Socialist Party differ on details, but are united on certain fundamental principles. It is radical in the sense that all members of the Socialist Party recognize the need for fundamental change in our society. Socialists believe that the problems facing America and the world, such as environmental despoliation, the systematic waste of public resources for private profit, persistent unemployment concentrated among women and racial minorities, and the maldistribution of wealth, power, and income, are not mere aberrations of the capitalist system - they are the capitalist system.

This is why Socialists are not impressed by political appeals based on the personal qualities or "charisma" of any individual politician. Socialists believe that it is the system - and the institutions which make up that system - that must be changed. Socialists differ fundamentally from liberals in this regard. Socialists critically support liberal reform measures (such as increases in the minimum wage) not as ends in themselves, but as guideposts pointing to the need for a fundamental transformation of our society.
Membership in the Socialist Party implies a clear agreement with and commitment to the fundamental points of the party's statement of principles, Socialism As Radical Democracy. There are many different points of view within the Socialist Party, but all of them are in agreement with these basic points of democratic socialism


Socialists seek a society in which the production and distribution of goods and services is based on public need instead of private profit. We believe that the use of profitability as the overriding criterion for the production and distribution of goods and services usually leads to decisions which harm the public welfare. This is especially true where irreplaceable natural resources are concerned.
The Extension Of Democracy From Politics To The Economy

Socialists believe that in order for political democracy to work well in a post-industrial society, it must be complemented by economic democracy. Socialists feel that unless at least "the commanding heights of the economy" are socially owned and democratically controlled, those corporations will use their enormous political and economic clout to circumvent and block political democracy. Accordingly, Socialists support such institutions as consumer cooperatives, workers' collectives and worker/consumer participation in the management of governmentally-owned industry, as steps toward a society in which political democracy is reinforced and strengthened by economic democracy. Socialists are also strong supporters of democratic planning in the economy and government.

Socialists believe that all those who earn their incomes through work - whether by hand or brain - have a common interest in transforming our economic system from capitalism to socialism, and that working people around the world have more in common with each other than with their national rulers.

Socialists don't simply function within their own party, in isolation from the outside world. On the contrary, most Socialists are deeply involved in other, larger movements and it is from those movements that many new Socialist Party members are recruited.

[Umoja]

Thinking about how stuff should happen is only going to disconnect you from reality and how things actually play out. Besides, Revolutions in Communism haven't worked so far, so I have little faith in them.

[BOZG]

And "democratic" socialism has been very successful?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 12:16 am on Dec. 16, 2002
And "democratic" socialism has been very successful?

we've done more to help people than communists have

[Pete]

How have the democratic socialist helped the people? I know in Canada we have a few provincal governments run by the NDP and about 11 MP's from that party, but really what have they done to help the people? They make few moves towards socialism in the provinces they govern, and are unable to hold power for long. The Conservatives which often replace them undue all the progress immediately. Hello Ontario Healthcare/energy/education systems. Democratic socialism is just that. It is democratic and therefore temporary solution to a permanent problem.

[nz revolution]

This thread is fuckin funny, we have 14 year olds calling people kids and saying "us workers"

bloody reformists, read reform or revolution from Rosa Luxemburg.

we had a dem.soc party here, who fuckin collaborated with the Labour Govt. to bring about anti-worker laws, social democracy is dead, a stinking rotting corpse.

who sent the boys off to die in the mud n slime in WW1? The communists? FUCK OFF. The Social Democrats did, working with the fuckin capitalist class. Thats all I see them doing, working with the enemy.

reforms and more reforms, trying to make capitalism a bit more nicer for tomorrow

get a life...

[MJM]

The capitalist reformers (social democrat/Labour parties)are a result of the marxist movement. Once Marx showed the true colours of capitalism around 100 years back the shit hit the fan. The people saw that socialism/communism was not utopian when viewed from a marxist perspective. Without the work of the communists the minimum wage, statutory holidays, sick leave etc. would never have come around.
Even faster was the reform once comrade Lenin lead the revolution, there was a collective shitting of the pants in the capitalist class, then suddenly they cared for the workers interests.(?)

The class division and balance of proleteriat has moved internationally. Now you have most of the upper and middle class in the western world- the vast majority of the proleteriat is spread through the 3rd world. The numbers are still the same but the base of capitalism has spread.
Fuedal countries have evolved to capitalism- as predicted in marxist theory.
We now have imperialism of capital ie. sweatshops and the mistreatment of the 3rd world.

A quick and easy look at what capitalist reformism can give us is the unemployment benefit system. Whereby we the workers subsidise our own competitors through our taxes. Would any capitalist do this to his competition?

Marxism moves through 3 phases in order to get what we all want- equality and freedom.
Socialism, communism and anarchism are the phases.
If you're not a marxist socialist you're either utopian or a capitalist reformer who thinks they're a socialist like hillary clinton and the current prime minister of my country.
Simple as that, capitalist reform moves nowhere and the burden is still carried by the working classes.

[nz revolution]

Right on MJM.

Sorry for sounding shitty in my last post, bad day so far, had a herbal tea so I have calmed down a bit.

One thing I cant get out of my head is "but capitalism is so dynamic". Telecom in our country got $75,000 to promote cable internet connections. Because no one is using it. Why, you may ask? because it is about $50 to $75 per month. Prices won't go down though, because they can still make the same amount of money from less people, than more people at a lower price.

FUCK CAPITALIST ECONOMICS.

another tea is needed I think...

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from nz revolution on 4:42 am on Dec. 16, 2002
This thread is fuckin funny, we have 14 year olds calling people kids and saying "us workers"

bloody reformists, read reform or revolution from Rosa Luxemburg.

we had a dem.soc party here, who fuckin collaborated with the Labour Govt. to bring about anti-worker laws, social democracy is dead, a stinking rotting corpse.

who sent the boys off to die in the mud n slime in WW1? The communists? FUCK OFF. The Social Democrats did, working with the fuckin capitalist class. Thats all I see them doing, working with the enemy.

reforms and more reforms, trying to make capitalism a bit more nicer for tomorrow

get a life...

Sorry to break it to you but im not 14, i also know that communism had it's chance. It sent it's "boys" to be massacered in WW2 now it's D.Socialism's chance to solve the world's problems. Also in WW1 only one country in that war was even left wing, the soviot union,
A COMMUNIST NATION, not a democratic socialist party.

So before you tell us all to go get a life why dont you fuack off and get an eduation, then i may listen to you preaching about the good of the extream communist policys.

[truthaddict11]

what about all the labor activists opposed to ww1? the socialist party of the us , a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST party opposed the war

[nz revolution]

Excuse me loser, the SU pulled out of WW1 because it was imperialist which your democratic parties supported.

I wasnt referring to you as the 14 y.o it was Lardlad, not that age means much.

Ya one party didnt support the war.

WW1 was imperialist, WW2 for the SU was self defence, you need the education...

[Umoja]

Socialist Party in the United States is Democratic Socialist, and they have been opposed not only to Capitalism but also to the USSR.

Social Democrats are different from Democratic Socialist though. Social Democrats would be the Democratic Nation Convention Party, ideally.

[MJM]

AK47


Sorry to break it to you but im not 14, i also know that communism had it's chance. It sent it's "boys" to be massacered in WW2 now it's D.Socialism's chance to solve the world's problems. Also in WW1 only one country in that war was even left wing, the soviot union,
A COMMUNIST NATION, not a democratic socialist party.


Complete bullshit I'm afraid.
Firstly the Nazis started WW2 and the rest of the capitalist countries were quite happy to leave Hitler to destroy the USSR, it was only once he started west that they got involved.
WW1 was ended in a large part due to the formation of the USSR.


truthaddict11


what about all the labor activists opposed to ww1? the socialist party of the us , a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST party opposed the war

One Democratic socialist party.
ALL THE MARXIST PARTIES!
Whether or not they oppossed the war is irrelevant, what did they do to stop it happening?
The Marxist saw, and still see to this day, the way to stop all war is to take power away from those who cause it and give it to those who end up fighting them.

Umoja
It's called the third way and is hardly a new stance.


(Edited by MJM at 4:36 pm on Dec. 17, 2002)

[nz revolution]

Anyone else care to argue with the New Zealand comrades?

[Pete]

Comrade NZ, I do not wish to argue with against you, just to spread some more historical facts.

"Firstly the Nazis started WW2 and the rest of the capitalist countries were quite happy to leave Hitler to destroy the USSR, it was only once he started west that they got involved.
WW1 was ended in a large part due to the formation of the USSR. "

1. Hitler turned EAST only after he had annexed most of France and lost the Battle of Britian. The West, although wanted the two 'evils' to kill each other off, did attempt to weaken the Nazi's military force in the East. The raid a Dieppe, and eventually, after the downfall of Mussolini, the battles up Italy and at Normandy.

2. World War 1 ended because of American entry in to the war overwhelmed the Germans (although the Americans had notably less cautous troops). The Russian Empire had virtually lost the war after the Battle of Tannedenburg, so it was not a big difference that they did in fact sue for peace a year earlier. If everything was to go as it 'should have' France would have been economically crushed by the German Empire's demands for reparations at the end of the war. America would have most likely supported Germany if they saw that that was the way to get ahead.

Just to clear up a bit of historical facts:)

[chris2]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 9:16 pm on Dec. 14, 2002
So what if you've got officials elected? What have they done since they got there? The majority of them just become centrists. All you have to do is look at the Labour party in Britain.

I would like to point out to you dumb arse is that are labour gov. is more right wing and conservitive than the Conservitive party. Rather like hitler was a member of a national socialist party which just happened facist!! (you cant be british or you would know this, your stupidity shows you are...let me think...American!!!)

[BOZG]

1) I'm from Ireland
2) The Labour party are not more right wing than the conservatives
3) I said they were more centrist because there are still centre left members in the party. The leadership maybe be completely right but that doesn't mean the rest of the party is aswell.
4) When you're calling someone dumb, it helps when you can spell.

[nz revolution]

listen here fat boy, this is not a forum to come and abuse people, he is from Ireland.

Go look at the Labour Party website, says Democratic Socialist party...

Hey newcomer why dont you dismiss everyone as Americans HAHAHHA

[Invader Zim]

I would like to take this moment to agree with this guy chris, the labour party is now called new labour. They basically stole the role of the tory party but they still have there old motto. They are triators to there own origional beliefs. So BOFG and NZ Revolution learn some basic polotics please. You should read a newspaper if you have no common sence, if you do then work out for me how a Hugley capatalist country is run effectivley by A "Democratic Socialist party..."(left wing party + capatalist country = political suicide) and survive 2 elections with more seats in the commons than any other party for about 70 years.

Sorry to do this again but more stupidity from BOZG :- "The leadership maybe be completely right but that doesn't mean the rest of the party is aswell."
In 1846 Peel was the head of a political party. He didnt have the support of his party because he had a different political status to his party. He got thrown out of office by his own back benchers. The same happened with Lloid George. Sorry for boring you with more history but i find it hard to see you guys insulting your own inteligence. If you want any comfermation about the Labour party's political status ask Moskkito he is English and has a good knolage of this subbject.


More innacuracy again im afraid:-
"Complete bullshit I'm afraid.
Firstly the Nazis started WW2 and the rest of the capitalist countries were quite happy to leave Hitler to destroy the USSR, it was only once he started west that they got involved.
WW1 was ended in a large part due to the formation of the USSR. "
Yes the nazies did start world war2 but you should read up a bit more on your history. the problem :- "the rest of the capitalist countries were quite happy to leave Hitler to destroy the USSR" but hitler was at war with Britain + France (capatalist countries) before Hitler invaded Russia by about 1 year. Please read some facts first it just makes you look a bit daft thats all.

In future make some decent arguments please, and back them up with reliable facts.

PS:- I find it really insulting when people insult others spelling, im dyslexic so i cant spell like chris but you cant construct a sensble argument. I may be dyslexic but your in no position to insult me because i simpley prove all of your arguments to be baseless. So who's at the biggest disadvantage a rather pathetic moron who's arguments result in insults to others about their spelling, or a person who can actually construct a case on a serious issue?


(Edited by AK47 at 7:27 pm on Dec. 17, 2002)

[Pete]

We should all try to stay on topic instead of flaming each other. I bet if we wait here long enough this thread will be back at the original debate. Whether revolution is moral. Just like canikit's 'circle' theory says.

Morals are Relative.

[nz revolution]

Ok so I wont hassle the spelling.

Where are your facts?

Thats what my history teacher told me. That the Allies left the CCCP and Nazi Germany to scrap til the death.

Fighting? Wasnt really the full scale battles the Russians had to contend to.

Only in Africa, Italy, the high seas and in the air.

As I have said many times, Russia put up with 9/10ths of the kraut army and at least 3/4s

Read more bourgeoise history? I have read a lot more than you ever will. Now its a matter of overriding it with the truth.

You are insulting your "intelligence"

At war with France? France fell in weeks, maybe even days. Cant remember exactly. Remember Dunkirk? No footage of the evacuation was allowed to be shown or people would have been so demoralised, they would have done the Germans a favour and killed themselves. (sorry for the dark humour)

They say they are democratic socialists but are frauds.

Makes us look daft. Man Im falling off my seat here LAUGHING.

Everyone knows they were at war. Batlle of Britain, the war in the air. Even though the losses were high, it was a lot easier to let the Ruskis do the ground work.

Im sure you will find MJM's statement was accurate, instead of your incoherant nonsense.

no hard feelings people, didnt mean to call you a loser.

About the education, I may not have a phD in history like you, but I know basic history, went to school for the whole thing (13 years) and did all right.

There is plenty of "base" in our arguments, where is yours?

I care nothing for Lloyd George, he is scum, worthless scum.

Because he is english I should ask him, he probably does know a lot. but that is not the point, I could ask a yank and he/she probably wouldnt know shit.

peace y'all

[MJM]

Sorry to break it to you but im not 14, i also know that communism had it's chance. It sent it's "boys" to be massacered in WW2 now it's D.Socialism's chance to solve the world's problems. Also in WW1 only one country in that war was even left wing, the soviot union,
A COMMUNIST NATION, not a democratic socialist party.

Here is the original issue above.
Not an ounce of truth.
Try and wriggle out of this one with some snide remarks and irrellevant attacks if you want, but you can't deny it has no base in reality.

[BOZG]

The issue of the where the labour party stands is debatable. It's not black and white. As for the back benchers not throwing Blair and his cabinet out, that means fuck all. The party could be split in half and it could be a stalemate. Do you know the ideology of every single member of the Labour party?
My post to chris2 was not an attempt to say I'm smarter than you because I can spell. Sorry if it was taken like that. But when someone comes along starts accusing you of being american because you don't agree with him and then starts saying your dumb would you not get pissed off?

[Pete]

The Liberal Party of Canada. They are the governing party. Jean Chretien says he is retiring in 2004 (the last possible date for him calling an election). So we have the Cabniet, a bunch of back benchers, and the PM Chretien on one side of caucus and Paul Martin and the rest of the back benchers onthe other. It is completely inneffective because the majority government is acting like a minority amongst themselves. Atleast be happy you do not have that. (well atleast Kyoto was signed as promised)

[El Che]

You got [email protected] post

(Edited by El Che at 1:49 am on Dec. 19, 2002)

[nz revolution]

Where is this mysterious AK?

El Che what does your post mean?

[Invader Zim]

So are you people trying to deny that in both world war's that the people in charge of the allies were dem socialists. Well they were not the U.K was not the U.S.A was not france was not, australia was not and russia was not (with the exception of russia) they were all capatalist so were is your argument.

But back to the point all i am saying is that the major revolutions have all ended in big wars that do not eventually help the people but oppress them even more than before.

[nz revolution]

of course they were capitalist nations with a dashing of imperialism.

The DemSocs supported the Great War, I have said this many times.

They may not have been in power but they still betrayed the Working Class.

[Invader Zim]

Jesus Christ!! Yes the dem socalists did support the war but so did stalin a COMMUNIST and just about every political party when Germany invaded France, Britain's greatest allie at the time. I dont know about the USA, the Dem Socialists may have been part of the movement for war, but to be honist if they had or had not it would not have made a difference.

How could the Dem Socialists betray the working classes exactly. No majority, no power no support from the people them selves. It makes it a little difficult to help the people in these conditions!!

[Larissa]

Revolution is morally necessary.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

We must educate the people.

They can than make a choise between socialism and captalism. Does the majority choose socialism, then they pressurize the government. Or the government changes voluntarly or it refuses and the anger of the people unchains a revolution.

That's my theory in short.

[komsomol]

An innsurection of the Proletariat is the forcing of the majority's will on the bourgeoisie (minority), THAT is democracy, democracy is another form of repression. It is much more quick and more likely to succede than Social Democracy, which, by its use of Parliamentary democracy cannot suceed as the underlying layers of government (ie civil service) aren't democratically elected, which could mean that they refuse to carry out the tasks of the representatives of the majority, AND parliamentary democracy often works so slow that any SD government attempting to reform Capitalism is undermined by the bourgeoisie that it is trying to expell.

[Invader Zim]

the bourgeoisie were the french middle classes of the 17-19th century, who only got any pover during the revolution. However it was a republic that was set up after the republic not a democracy that was set up, so how can this reflect on democracy.

But i do not support the current democracy's of the world. I agree they are all like the one in U.S.A where it's so obviously corrupt.

Ps is this the same bourgeoisie, because there has been more than one, the sweedish have some as well i think?

[The Feral Underclass]

I bring this topic back up, because there seems to be an voer abundance of these "democractic socialists" or more "soft capitalists" as they have been described on the board at the moment.

It is also one of the biggest questions which face us when I discuss revolutionary politics with people. The question is an objective one, not about how you actually change society but what you want that change to be.

Those who believe in revolution want to actually end exploitation, which the ruling class will not allow without a fight, and those who do not want revolution wish not to destroy exploition but make those who are exploited more comfortable in their exploiation.

Exploiation is the act of using someone who doesnt have a choice, or does not believe they have a choice to gain something for yourself. The bosses exploit the workers to gain profit because the workers who starve otherwise. Reovlutionaries, communists and anarchists want to end that because they see it as fundamentally wrong. The problem is the ruling class, the bosses are not going to allow us to do that with out a fight.

SO rather than revolution is desirable to us, it is inevitable, if we want to end exploitation. If you dont want to end exploitation, keep voting for the labour party, or any party, because to a revolutionary, if they want to maintain exploitation, there really is no difference.

Exploitation or no exploitation. Thats the choice!

[Invader Zim]

OMG why did you drag this ancient topic up from the mud again?

And its true I did used to think of my self as a democratic socialist, however over time these views have mutated to being more "agressive".

Dont get me wrong, I still believe in absolute democracy, and would not be opposed to a socialist government elected by the people, rather than a bloody revolution, and I still think that revolution is not vital to a progressive socialist movement. However I am no longer opposed to revolution in a general sense as I was before. I have come to realise that some places actually need revolution as democracy is impossible, and the other way round.

Those who believe in revolution want to actually end exploitation, which the ruling class will not allow without a fight, and those who do not want revolution wish not to destroy exploition but make those who are exploited more comfortable in their exploiation.

Incorrect, the former ruling class, the aristocracy were eliminated without revolution in some cases, and were in others. The middle classes overthrew the aristocracy, and collected their heads in France. In the UK however the aristocracy were simply politically and socialy phased out of power. I see no logical reason why that should not reoccur, but with the working classes at the helm. In fact if we look at therefoms over the period of the last 200 years (whether given from threat of force or simply because pro-working class elements engineered them) the UK has become steadily more pro-working class, allowing more freedoms that would be thought imaginable. If this trend continues a leftwing government is inevitable. From that point a socialist government is inevitable.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:16 PM
OMG why did you drag this ancient topic up from the mud again?
I brought back up because I went through the link when I saw you reviewing it in the online list. And for the reasons I stated.


In the UK however the aristocracy were simply politically and socialy phased out of power.

And the civil war was for....

The reduction of the kings power actually. The king refused to hand down power until he was forcibly removed. The phasing out you talk about happened there after when parliment reduced the powers of the king. To be specific, the king was no logner allowed to set taxes and the army was the army of the country rather than of the king. Agreed, after this period there was relative peace in the transition of power from the royal family to the bourgeoisie, but that relative peaceful transition would not have come had the english civil war not have happened. Or at least until some other king was ousted by some other parlimentarian. Those in power dont like to give it up easily.


I see no logical reason why that should not reoccur, but with the working classes at the helm.

The ruling class simply wont let them. Just like 'King Charles I' wouldnt, neither will the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair etc etc etc Why would they? Because the mass of people tell them they are wrong. Pah! The whole current system is geared to make people believe that fundamental change is inherently wrong. These bosses believe it infatically, and will use everything in their powers to defend their right to power and wealth. Pretty logical to me.


In fact if we look at therefoms over the period of the last 200 years (whether given from threat of force or simply because pro-working class elements engineered them) the UK has become steadily more pro-working class allowing more freedoms that would be thought imaginable.

The working class have become more comfortable in their exploitation, and many of them are free to buy more things, but that does not mean they are any more free from exploitation. And thats the point isnt it.


If this trend continues a leftwing government is inevitable. From that point a socialist government is inevitable.

The Labour government are trying everything in their powers to eradicate the working class by making them all lower middle to middle class. There is no talk of class in british politics anymore. There is no talk of politics in british poilitics anymore. Blair is a pragamist, not an ideologist. The trend you are talking about is making people more comfortable in their lives. What government is going to come thats going to make any difference to that. None! They cant end exploitation through "legal" means because as history proves.l Those in power dont like to give it up...not without a fight anyway.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 4 2004, 03:33 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 4 2004, 03:33 PM)
Enigm[email protected] 4 2004, 05:16 PM
OMG why did you drag this ancient topic up from the mud again?
I brought back up because I went through the link when I saw you reviewing it in the online list. And for the reasons I stated.


In the UK however the aristocracy were simply politically and socialy phased out of power.

And the civil war was for....

The reduction of the kings power actually. The king refused to hand down power until he was forcibly removed. The phasing out you talk about happened there after when parliment reduced the powers of the king. To be specific, the king was no logner allowed to set taxes and the army was the army of the country rather than of the king. Agreed, after this period there was relative peace in the transition of power from the royal family to the bourgeoisie, but that relative peaceful transition would not have come had the english civil war not have happened. Or at least until some other king was ousted by some other parlimentarian. Those in power dont like to give it up easily.


I see no logical reason why that should not reoccur, but with the working classes at the helm.

The ruling class simply wont let them. Just like 'King Charles I' wouldnt, neither will the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair etc etc etc Why would they? Because the mass of people tell them they are wrong. Pah! The whole current system is geared to make people believe that fundamental change is inherently wrong. These bosses believe it infatically, and will use everything in their powers to defend their right to power and wealth. Pretty logical to me.


In fact if we look at therefoms over the period of the last 200 years (whether given from threat of force or simply because pro-working class elements engineered them) the UK has become steadily more pro-working class allowing more freedoms that would be thought imaginable.

The working class have become more comfortable in their exploitation, and many of them are free to buy more things, but that does not mean they are any more free from exploitation. And thats the point isnt it.


If this trend continues a leftwing government is inevitable. From that point a socialist government is inevitable.

The Labour government are trying everything in their powers to eradicate the working class by making them all lower middle to middle class. There is no talk of class in british politics anymore. There is no talk of politics in british poilitics anymore. Blair is a pragamist, not an ideologist. The trend you are talking about is making people more comfortable in their lives. What government is going to come thats going to make any difference to that. None! They cant end exploitation through "legal" means because as history proves.l Those in power dont like to give it up...not without a fight anyway. [/b]
I brought back up because I went through the link when I saw you reviewing it in the online list. And for the reasons I stated.

LOL I thought it was quite a coincidence that I was reading this thread over a year after I last posted in it, and then suddenly it gets dragged back up.

And the civil war was for....

Nothing, because the aristocracy was restored.

The king refused to hand down power until he was forcibly removed.

and then after cromwell died, his son was put in power with possibly more power than his father had ever had. Not to mention that cromwell declared himself king in all but name, he even planned on making his son the next "protector of the relm". I see his coup as no different from that of Henry's when Richard III was "removed" from power. They just assasinated him after he was defeated, not as "exciting" as a public beheading, but certainly just as effective. Yet the aristocracy still remained, as powerful as ever.

The phasing out you talk about happened there after when parliment reduced the powers of the king.

Indeed, that is the real death of the British aristicracy, the civil war was most certainly not.

But that relative peaceful transition would not have come had the english civil war not have happened.

I disagree, I believe that the transition of power was inevitable, especially as you go towards the 1700-1800's when we had fat slobs for kings with no interest in ruling, and insane kings, who had to have their duties "handled". As such I blieve that we would certainly have had the transition of power.

Those in power dont like to give it up easily.

No, but usually they have little choise in the matter, however some of them had odd beliefs, some of them actually had sympathy for the peasants they ruled, and made certain reforms.

Just like 'King Charles I' wouldnt, neither will the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair etc etc etc Why would they?

Or just like the Prince regent did, or Just like his father did, or Just like Victoria did? Or just l;ike the arisocratic Duke of Wellington did? You know its interesting, but it was he who granted Catholic emancipation.

of Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair etc etc etc Why would they? Because the mass of people tell them they are wrong.

Well now the working class has significantly larger leaverage with which to pressurise the governments of the day, and speed up the transition, the vote, in order to actually attain power the parties must make attractive proposals to the people. This creates competition, to get the greatest number of votes, so obviously the governments will have to continually become more "liberal", until eventually a socailist government must arise.

Take the conservative party of 1839 (alright technically they weren't conservatives yet, but the transition was under way), and compair it to today, and you can see my point.

The whole current system is geared to make people believe that fundamental change is inherently wrong.

Indeed, however change still occurs on a long term scale, and given time, will completely alter the face of UK politics. Its taken nearly 200 years to convert the tory party into the centre-right wing party it is today. In that time we have not had a single revolution. Imagine what the situation will be like in 50 years time.

These bosses believe it infatically, and will use everything in their powers to defend their right to power and wealth.

As they always have done, however all they achive is to delay progress not halt it.

and many of them are free to buy more things, but that does not mean they are any more free from exploitation.

Indeed, however if you compair the exploitation of today to early victorian Britain, then the change is most dramatic, and most pleasing. Like I said give it another 50 years...


The Labour government are trying everything in their powers to eradicate the working class by making them all lower middle to middle class. There is no talk of class in british politics anymore.

Considering the change in industry in britian, the office worker (placed in the middle class bracket) is becoming the predominant job, and so as you say the working class is being removed. However one must remember that the office workers ,are still workers, and as such are as exploited as any factory worker, though the explotation is just not as obvious. I predict that the office worker will be the new working class. Tony Blair can try all he likes, but he will never be able to eradicate the working class, because the working class is whoever is being exploited by the employer.

At least thats how I see it.

They cant end exploitation through "legal" means because as history proves

I disagree, I think that history shows a trend, which suggests that exploitation can not continue, at least not in this system.

Those in power dont like to give it up...not without a fight anyway.

Indeed, but I think that the fight is going to be in the voting booths rather than the streats.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:43 PM
Nothing, because the aristocracy was restored.

Irrelevant....


and then after cromwell died, his son was put in power with possibly more power than his father had ever had.

Bollox! Plain and simple. All Kings and Queens through out history, dating right back to the medievil monarchs ruled by divine right. When Charles II was restored to the throne, it was not because people believed that was the case, it was because it was traditionally acceptable. Much as it is now. The monarch was viewed, after the fiasco of Cromwell, to be an acceptble head of state. At this point however, the idea that the King or Queen had divine right over the nation was completely scraped. The King had no particular authority over parliment and could not set taxes or declare wars. Granted, the power that he had was more than the Queen has now, but not vastly, and the only reason that happened was because the authority of the monarch was expressly challanged and forcibly removed. When Charles was reinstated he accepted that he would not be an absolute monarch and would share power with parliment.

Any historian when talking about the period leading up to Charles I execution will say that the period was a fundamental time for change in all aspects of British culture. Politics, religion, societal structure.


I see his coup as no different from that of Henry's when Richard III was "removed" from power.

Odd! Henry was a member of the royal family and maintained the divine right rule once he removed another member of the royal family. The two events in history are no where near comparable. This palace intrigue and family back stabbing is not at all the same as a fundamental shift in understanding of how society is, and should be governed. The civil war removed the centuries old concept of rule by divine right and altered the way England was goverened. It set a precendent for change. Henry removed one absolute monarch to proclaim himself as an absolute monarch.



Yet the aristocracy still remained, as powerful as ever.

Of course it would. Henry wanted to be King. He did not want to change the political structure of society. Why would henry reduce the royal families political power when the purpose of him removing Richard was so that he could maintain it for himself?


as you go towards the 1700-1800's when we had fat slobs for kings with no interest in ruling, and insane kings, who had to have their duties "handled".

You mean unlike King Charles II :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 4 2004, 06:17 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 4 2004, 06:17 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 07:43 PM
Nothing, because the aristocracy was restored.

Irrelevant....


and then after cromwell died, his son was put in power with possibly more power than his father had ever had.

Bollox! Plain and simple. All Kings and Queens through out history, dating right back to the medievil monarchs ruled by divine right. When Charles II was restored to the throne, it was not because people believed that was the case, it was because it was traditionally acceptable. Much as it is now. The monarch was viewed, after the fiasco of Cromwell, to be an acceptble head of state. At this point however, the idea that the King or Queen had divine right over the nation was completely scraped. The King had no particular authority over parliment and could not set taxes or declare wars. Granted, the power that he had was more than the Queen has now, but not vastly, and the only reason that happened was because the authority of the monarch was expressly challanged and forcibly removed. When Charles was reinstated he accepted that he would not be an absolute monarch and would share power with parliment.

Any historian when talking about the period leading up to Charles I execution will say that the period was a fundamental time for change in all aspects of British culture. Politics, religion, societal structure.


I see his coup as no different from that of Henry's when Richard III was "removed" from power.

Odd! Henry was a member of the royal family and maintained the divine right rule once he removed another member of the royal family. The two events in history are no where near comparable. This palace intrigue and family back stabbing is not at all the same as a fundamental shift in understanding of how society is, and should be governed. The civil war removed the centuries old concept of rule by divine right and altered the way England was goverened. It set a precendent for change. Henry removed one absolute monarch to proclaim himself as an absolute monarch.



Yet the aristocracy still remained, as powerful as ever.

Of course it would. Henry wanted to be King. He did not want to change the political structure of society. Why would henry reduce the royal families political power when the purpose of him removing Richard was so that he could maintain it for himself?


as you go towards the 1700-1800's when we had fat slobs for kings with no interest in ruling, and insane kings, who had to have their duties "handled".

You mean unlike King Charles II :rolleyes: [/b]
Irrelevant....

Ahh, please elaborate, how is the restoration of the monarchy irrelevant, considering that we are discussing (among other things) the power of the monarchy before and after the English civil war, I would have though that it was of paramount relevance. As it shows that the long term result of the civil war was nothing.


Bollox! Plain and simple.

really?

Charles I (1625-49)
Oliver Cromwell (1649-58)
Richard Cromwell (1658-59)
Charles II (1660-85)

I fail to see what I said was anyway untrue.

All Kings and Queens through out history, dating right back to the medievil monarchs ruled by divine right.

Indeed, however, Cromwell was not a monarch as such, though his time in power certainly resembles it.

When Charles II was restored to the throne, it was not because people believed that was the case, it was because it was traditionally acceptable.

Actually its because the army officals on the council demanded Richard Cromwells dismissal, and he was forced to disolve the Protectorate, and was soon kicked out by the officers (all members of the aristocracy) of the army. The son of Charles I, Charles II was then invited to rule the country by the aristocracy.

At this point however, the idea that the King or Queen had divine right over the nation was completely scraped.

Conceeded. However the King is just the head of the aristocracy, the aristocracy still controlled the country, rather than the middle classes. That transition as I said earlier was to come around the time of Robert Peel and Lord Wellington.

When Charles was reinstated he accepted that he would not be an absolute monarch and would share power with parliment.

Indeed, but he then went back and broke his word and had the judges who signed his fathers death warrents publically executed as traitors. Which was expressly forbiden by those who reinstated him. Not to mention that he began creating a new alliance with France against the Dutch. This was because he told the French he would convert britain to catholasism. If he retained verly little power, the french would never have agreed.

Henry was a member of the royal family and maintained the divine right rule once he removed another member of the royal family.

Actually Bolingbroke, though a cousin of Richard, was arguably not actually in line for the throne. I cant remember the details. But Richards Grandfather had many children. Richards father, and John of Gaunt being two of them. Richards father being older than John of Gaunt asended the throne. However Richard never had any chidren, nor did his brother, so the title went to his cousins. It went to Bolingbroke because he was the one who murdered Richard, however their were other cosins who had just as much claim, if not more claim to the thrown, so the divine right of kings issue is very faulty on this one. The murder of Richard is actually thought to be the begining of the war of the roses.

The two events in history are no where near comparable.

I disagree, for reasons already stated.

He did not want to change the political structure of society. Why would henry reduce the royal families political power when the purpose of him removing Richard was so that he could maintain it for himself?

the same can be said of Cromwell, especially when one considers that he actually instated his son as his successor.

You mean unlike King Charles II

the differance being Charles actually was supposed to be quite smart and formulated policy, The Prince regent, most certaily was not and did not, he was as stupid as they come, apparently.

As interesting as this discussion is becoming, perhaps you could go share your views on a couple of issue's that were unfortunatly missed in your last post, I would be most interested to here your idea's.

[The Feral Underclass]

I learnt along time ago that debating with you is not only irritating, it is unavoidably pointless. So I attempt not to do it.

Thanks for your points, interesting as they may seem, Ill leave it there.

Thanks!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2004, 07:22 PM
I learnt along time ago that debating with you is not only irritating, it is unavoidably pointless. So I attempt not to do it.

Thanks for your points, interesting as they may seem, Ill leave it there.

Thanks!
Then why did you bring up this long dead argument?

Well whatever.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not to start a flame war, but it wasnt actually direct at you. But to people in general.

[Samantha]

How have the democratic socialist helped the people? I know in Canada we have a few provincal governments run by the NDP and about 11 MP's from that party, but really what have they done to help the people? They make few moves towards socialism in the provinces they govern, and are unable to hold power for long. The Conservatives which often replace them undue all the progress immediately. Hello Ontario Healthcare/energy/education systems. Democratic socialism is just that. It is democratic and therefore temporary solution to a permanent problem.

Wow, what is the permanent problem and temporary? Have you ever been sick in you life and turned away by any doctor within Ontario?! Have you had to pay a penny for medical attention besides in taxes? Democratic Socialism works and to a very LOW extent works in Canada and other foreign nations. It isn't perfect and to say that the NDP is the party of your choice?! FUCK! Do you remember Bob Rae and the messed up recession he had in the early 90's?! That bastard was NDP, and the MAIN reason why the NDP government will not be the majority government in the near future. That is what happens when people say they are "socialists" just to get votes. It is was all PROPAGANDA! Mr. Welfare, giving it to people who don't need it! That is not socialism! Why? The people who really needed it lived and died in the gutter. NDP BAD! I don't know how old you are, but clearly it is evident that you don't know enough about our political history.