Authoritarianist regimes..... - even leftist ones, they dont

[HonkMyDooser]

Take russia for instance. The king, he was oppressive, and exiled people. He oppressed them, and had social classes. The higher classes supported him, the lower classes didnt really, but kind of had to. There was barely a middle class. The revolution came along, and for a short period of time, the upper class was overthrone/blended with the lower into the middle class. The new authorities take power, and most everybody but them is put into the lower class, and oppressed five hundred times as much as they were before, but the thing is, they dont know it.

This is the cycle that revolutions work in. The Upper class is overthrown, for a short time the lower class becomes the middle class, and then the authorities take over completely and the middle class is pushed down to lower again.

This is why it wont work. Even in a government like in the book 1984, their would be a rebellion, because there would not be enough completely loyal people to men EACH AND EVERY telescreen. :).

But, the only way to break the cycle is to have the people AS THE GOVERNMENT. Not just actively participating in it, the people BEING THE GOVERNING POWER ITSELF.

What do you think?

[ComradeJunichi]

Don't you think it's odd that the people who just went through a revolution were "oppressed five-hundred times as much", but not know it? The reason they went through a revolution is because they sensed the oppression, I find it odd that they wouldn't acknowledge the "oppression multiplied by five-hundred".

This is the cycle that revolution works in: Lower class is oppressed and revolution takes place. Capitalists and other foreign powers try to destroy the newborn government. It fails so then it falls back on bourgeois media and propaganda. Then some of the "communists" engulf everysingle one of these bourgeois lies, and denounce every single revolution that has taken place.

Why are some people "communists", or even "Marxists", when they denounce every single revolution? Every single example of socialism? I mean, hell, if that's what you're doing why the hell are you a communist? It's obvious you disagree with many aspects of it. Communism with bourgeois mindset is not communism.

Everysingle member of the body of people in the government is ridiculous. Sure, you can politicize the masses to a certain extent but not everyone is going to "BE THE GOVERNMENT". Think about that one, and please explain to me how that works.

[Saint-Just]

The aim of socialism is to have society with no rulers. This is where the people do govern themselves. The method to achieve it is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Do you suggest immediate transition to a society with no governance?

In reality with have little concept of the final stage of communism and can only achieve socialism for now, so that is what we must work with. To deny these ideas you deny any progression for society and only side with the reactionaries.

[Som]

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier
if it is called `the People's Stick'." - Bakunin

Best to get rid of sticks.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from Som on 10:20 am on May 17, 2003
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier
if it is called `the People's Stick'." - Bakunin

Best to get rid of sticks.

I believe that the goal is to remove the stick from the aristocratic bourgeoisie and give it to the worker. I am, however, not a Marxist-Leninist and do not favor a vanguard-led revolution in the name of the worker. Because then, it becomes very authoritarian. The only faction that will operate in favor of the people are the people themselves, not an elitist "vanguard" party.

[black sheep.]

Quote: from HonkMyDooser on 2:06 am on May 16, 2003
Take russia for instance. The king, he was oppressive, and exiled people. He oppressed them, and had social classes. The higher classes supported him, the lower classes didnt really, but kind of had to. There was barely a middle class. The revolution came along, and for a short period of time, the upper class was overthrone/blended with the lower into the middle class. The new authorities take power, and most everybody but them is put into the lower class, and oppressed five hundred times as much as they were before, but the thing is, they dont know it.

This is the cycle that revolutions work in. The Upper class is overthrown, for a short time the lower class becomes the middle class, and then the authorities take over completely and the middle class is pushed down to lower again.

This is why it wont work. Even in a government like in the book 1984, their would be a rebellion, because there would not be enough completely loyal people to men EACH AND EVERY telescreen. :).

But, the only way to break the cycle is to have the people AS THE GOVERNMENT. Not just actively participating in it, the people BEING THE GOVERNING POWER ITSELF.

What do you think?


It is impossible to have socialism without some authoritarianism. However, I believe that less authoritarianism is better. I think the best model for a communist government is Cuba.

Fidel Castro's government allows for freedom of religion. He does not educate the people in athiesm. He allows the people to make most decisions on economic matters. He does not
imprison or execute people unless they seriously threaten the socialist state. Unlike Stalin, he does not have some paranoid complex where he believes everyone is plotting against him. He is also willing to listen to advice and take criticism. Also I believe that being a small country may help Cuba carry out socialism more effectively.

Anyways, In my view, Fidel Castro is less authoritarian than George Bush. George Bush has started wars without the approval of the United Nations or a formal decleration of War. Do you call that authoritarianism?
George Bush uses the CIA and the War against Terrorism to kill millions. George Bush has created a total atmosphere of totaltarianism and paranoia. George Bush allows for freedom of Relgion, but his policies encourage racial and relgious bigotry.
So, who is worse? George Bush or Castro?

[Blibblob]

Don't you think it's odd that the people who just went through a revolution were "oppressed five-hundred times as much", but not know it? The reason they went through a revolution is because they sensed the oppression, I find it odd that they wouldn't acknowledge the "oppression multiplied by five-hundred".

This is the cycle that revolution works in: Lower class is oppressed and revolution takes place. Capitalists and other foreign powers try to destroy the newborn government. It fails so then it falls back on bourgeois media and propaganda. Then some of the "communists" engulf everysingle one of these bourgeois lies, and denounce every single revolution that has taken place.

Why are some people "communists", or even "Marxists", when they denounce every single revolution? Every single example of socialism? I mean, hell, if that's what you're doing why the hell are you a communist? It's obvious you disagree with many aspects of it. Communism with bourgeois mindset is not communism.

Everysingle member of the body of people in the government is ridiculous. Sure, you can politicize the masses to a certain extent but not everyone is going to "BE THE GOVERNMENT". Think about that one, and please explain to me how that works.
Ok, your cycle makes sense. But what the hell is with the complaining about those who don't support the countries that make shitty examples of socialism? Those examples are terrible, why the hell would anybody want associate themselves with athoritarian governments that can hardly be called "communist"?
You don't see how people can be the government? Talk to a few real Anarchists. Maybe a true democracy?

Um, something is broken... can't post!

(Edited by Blibblob at 7:46 am on May 25, 2003)

[Nobody]

I think Tito was a pretty fine fellow. Kept the country together, stayed out of the Warsaw Pact, built the country back up, and did not rob the country blind!

[Blibblob]

I believe that the goal is to remove the stick from the aristocratic bourgeoisie and give it to the worker.
What good would that do? It would only switch roles and the cycle will happen again.


It is impossible to have socialism without some authoritarianism.
Why?

[thursday night]

“I think Tito was a pretty fine fellow. Kept the country together, stayed out of the Warsaw Pact, built the country back up, and did not rob the country blind!”

I think Tito was a pretty fine revisionist; in fact I would hardly call him a Marxist or even a socialist for that matter. Western history books tell of his personalized brand of ‘communism,’ where he allows for an upper and a lower-class. How socialist is this? I really don’t have many kind words for a socialist who allows for such revisionism and even aligns his country with imperialist NATO.

“I am, however, not a Marxist-Leninist and do not favor a vanguard-led revolution in the name of the worker. Because then, it becomes very authoritarian. The only faction that will operate in favor of the people are the people themselves, not an elitist "vanguard" party.”

“Best to get rid of sticks.”

I am, however, a Marxist-Leninist and I do favour a vanguard-led revolution in the name of the worker, the peasant and the intellectual. Please give me an example of how this people’s revolutionary party, by some cosmic monstrosity, becomes the elitist, neo-oppressor of the proletarian. If we look at Cuba we will se a Marxist-Leninist government that supports the vanguard protecting the revolution. Where is the ‘ruling clique’ here? I can give other examples, but I would assume you cannot give me an example where, in truth and reality, the vanguard becomes some sort of evil oppressor.

[Conghaileach]

I think Cuba's government may be more Maoist than Leninist, though on Red Encyclopedia they gave Castro a category of his own (Castroism, oddly enough - gotta love all these variations on Marxism).

Lenin opposed guerrillaism, for example, but this was the main form of the struggle in which Batista was overthrown and the socialist government created.

[thursday night]

I have no time, patience or any kind feelings towards Red Encyclopedia. It is revisionist, poorly written and hardly even unbiased.