Why i dont post here

[Kez]

Coz there are so many ignorant comments brought on by dickheads such as
"Cuba is HELL" or somethin to that extent

well, wud u know? have you been there?

and other shit comments

fuckin wankers the lot of you

comrade kamo

<cue smart arse comments fomr dickheads>

[Capitalist]

If anyone is the "fucking wanker", it is you

Why don't you answer the question first?!

Do you live or have you ever lived under a Communistic Form of Government like Cuba?

Do you know from experience that Communism is the best form of government?

[Capitalist]

Put your 4 Star Communist Ranking to the Test of a 3 Star Capitalist Ranking!

You don't post here because you can't debate with facts - only with opinion and insults.

Come On Traveesh! - You have entered the "No Spin Zone" of Malte's Che Guevara Website. Put your ideology to the test of truth!

[Communist Dominion]

I sit here and am amused, he has come up with a fair point , maybe incorrect delivery but still fair, you get all your information from the media (however corrupted it is) and others get it first hand, you talk of facts but have none that can be proven, you are ignorant, you just think that you must be right because the US allways knows the truth.! (sarcasim el maxo)

[Nateddi]

I see capitalist is an O'Reilly worshiper.

I honestly hope someone blows up Fox news and hanges Rupert Murdoch. If anyone is lying to the public its them. They spin everything out of control in their "Fair and Balanced" coverage.

[Guest]

oh yes, very intelligent comment.

let's kill some more for the sake of ideology.

retard, violence is not the answer, once I again I say to you that I am a che admirer, but what I do not believe in is in his methodes of purging cuba by shooting everyone so that they cannot come back to revolt.

[IzmSchism]

who cares if a post is an insult to your headspace, let it go bro, your cries are falling on deaf ears. the whole reason i joined this forum was to get a clearer perception of ideas and events and theories and others opinions, and if some of those opinions are full of hate and ignorance, whatever, by not having you participate we lose another voice, another perspective, so be hateful of what you choose to pay attention to, but it aint the win win situation.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Guest on 2:09 am on April 13, 2002
oh yes, very intelligent comment.

let's kill some more for the sake of ideology.

retard, violence is not the answer, once I again I say to you that I am a che admirer, but what I do not believe in is in his methodes of purging cuba by shooting everyone so that they cannot come back to revolt.


I was joking. It was just me showing off my feelings about Fox News. Nobody here can or wants to seriously do anything to a big media giant.

[Guest]

hehehe, your sarcasme just won't stop does it?

It's like saying that nobody here wants to shake Che's hand if he was still alive

[Communist Dominion]

Well fox news is crappy, who would be angrey if it um "stopped broadcasting"?

[PunkRawker677]

Capitalist,

I have spent a total of two years in cuba, in a couple trips. because of the fact that you can only visit for 2 weeks if just to visit family, and 2 months for family emergencies, it is very hard 'to live' there. I do not want to live in cuba, not because it is worse that the U.S. but because my family is in the U.S. and i cannot get up and leave the people i love. personaly, i am not a commmunist, i am a socialist (and yes, there is a difference) and i consider cuba a hybrid of the two. They are not a pure communist society, nor a pure socialist society. I do not really believe that "communism" or "socialism" is the problem in cuba but rather the authoritorian state, that is what needs to go. Cuba needs democracy, and shortly after - freedom of speech and media.

this is just my two cents. Cuba has its problems, as does every other country. I dont hate the U.S. goverment, or the U.S. people, rather i disagree with many, or most of its actions, and laws.

[RedCeltic]

Personaly I don't post here much because all the arguments posed by the Capitalists are geared to communism ( or rather what they view as communism)

And they seem to have no interest in the Democratic Socialist perspective on things.

For a Democratic Socialsit perspective I quote the "Principles" section of SP-USA

Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.

Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under Communist states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.

People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people.

[Anarcho]

and what is it to be replaced by? A company that will only tell the truth, even if it goes against your dogma, or a company that tells what you want it to say?

I've never been to Cuba, although I've talked to some people from there at work. They say that Cuba isn't bad, but here is better. Here they are free to speak against the government, and won't go to jail for doing so.

There are many many many many things wrong in the US, but there are things just as bad in Cuba, Vietnam, UK, France, etc.

To focus on just one aspect of one venue is blind.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 11:53 pm on April 12, 2002
Personaly I don't post here much because all the arguments posed by the Capitalists are geared to communism ( or rather what they view as communism)

And they seem to have no interest in the Democratic Socialist perspective on things.


It's an often frustrating thing for people to be talking past each other. While most anti-socialists I know probably think along those lines, I think you're not hearing what is being argued. I'm going to demonstrate that the ultimate outcome of the democratic socialist movement is a Soviet-style police state. I offer this argument only in the spirit of mutually dignified debate as you have set the tone.



For a Democratic Socialsit perspective I quote the "Principles" section of SP-USA

Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

Nothing objectionable about socialism's aim: a good society. What man can be against that? The devil is in the details. Just how do you propose to hurdle the difficulties of distribution of finished products? It seems to me that centralized planning is the only way. You can't produce everything in a single area. And who will control the distibution? The elected officials can't all be economists. The government through an elitist bureaucracy of experts advising the elected officials. Also a the people cannot control the economy without being given specific tasks. This is paradox because in effect, people will have even less control over their choice of a profession than in a capitalist worsecase scenario. In the absence of finacial incentives, people will still have preferences for jobs that are physhically easy or in a pleasant atmosphere. Someone is going to have to tell people what to do--after all, we can't all be managers and someone has to do dirty work. Who is going to do that? A centralized bureaucracy through expert examiners none of which the people will have in their control.



The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.

Who gets to decide what benefits all of humanity? It's not self-evident otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Elected officials acting in unison with a rigid political orthodoxy. Who decides what is plundering the earth and what isn't? Elitist experts who will probably abuse their position. Also this implies radical consumption restrictions i.e. lower standard of living. While voluntary restriction of consumption is not at all a bad thing, you're trying to establish a different politico-economic order. How do you intend to market mandatory lower standard of living to the large middle class in developed countries?



Under capitalist and "Communist" states, people have little control over fundamental areas of their lives. The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position. Under Communist states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.

While it may true that capitalism sometimes produces injustice on the individual level, democratic socialism is likely to be much worse as I will try to demonstrate. Also I should take issue with the notion that the military will become expendable. The revolution is not going to affect the whole world at once. The budding socialist world order will need a military to defend against capitalists, counter-revolutionaries or conqueor the rest of the world if need be. In the mean time, some of its production capacity will have to be diverted to the army. Whose going to control it?



People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations.

Ahh, the point of socialism -- to perfect humanity. Any ideas on how to carry this out? Violent revolution? What about people who may not particularly care for radical social change like me? Who's going to lead the masses against counter-revolution and reaction? Fanatical avant-guard movement leaders, that's who.



The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people.

A crucial problem that I have with socialism is that it has no real way to deal with dissenters without appeals to government violence or coercion. If the masses must have understanding for socialism to work then its not clear how that can be resolved in respect to being given control of their lives and communities. Are dissenters to be educated out of their preferences by government coercion or just terrorised until they are broken? Are children going to be taught a uniform socio-political orthodoxy even against the wishes of the family or local community? Who gets to decide what gets taught? Political theorists directly or advising the government, but beholden to no one. If Socialism requires participation how do you treat the apathetic? Agitprop campaigns or just lock 'em up? Again who's task is it to prepare these things?

In the end, democratic socialism must rely on a rigid politcal orthodoxy, centralized planning by elitist experts and abusive appeals to violence to regulate society. What other ideology requires that mix? Democratic Socialism's estranged sister movement - Soviet-style Socialism. Which is why the run of the mill capitalist is right to bring up the spectre of the USSR. For us anti-marxists, Democratic Socialism = Soviet-style police state.
[/quote]

[RedCeltic]

Socialist Strategy

Socialist Feminism

Socialist feminism confronts the common root of sexism, racism, and classism: the determination of a life of oppression or privilege based on accidents of birth or circumstances. Socialist feminism is an inclusive way of creating social change. We value synthesis and cooperation rather than conflict and competition. We work against the exploitation of women who live with lower wages, inferior working conditions and subordination in the home and in politics. Socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and determine their own sexual orientation. Women's independent organizations and caucuses are essential to full liberation, both before and after the transformation to socialism. Women will define their own liberation.

Liberation of Oppressed Groups

Bigotry and discrimination help the ruling class divide, exploit, and abuse workers here and in the Third World. The Socialist Party works to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. We recognize the right of self-defense in the face of attacks; we also support non-violent direct action in combating oppression.

People of color, lesbians and gays, and other oppressed groups need independent organization to fight oppression. Racism will not be eliminated merely by eliminating capitalism.

International Solidarity & Peace

People around the world have more in common with each other than with their rulers. We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert resources from constructive social projects. Militarism also concentrates even greater power in the hands of the few, the powerful and the violent. We align with no nation, but only with working people throughout the world.

Internal Democracy

Socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The Socialist Party is democratic, with its structure and practices visible and accessible to all members. We reject dogma and promote internal debate. The Socialist Party is a "multi-tendency" organization. We orient ourselves around our principles and develop a common program, but our members have various underlying philosophies and views of the world. Solidarity within the party comes from the ability of those with divergent views on some issues to engage in a collective struggle towards social revolution. We strive to develop feminist practice within the party.

Cultural Freedom

Art is an integral part of daily life. It should not be treated as just a commodity produced by the activity of an elite group. Socialists work to create opportunities for participation in art and cultural activities. We work for the restoration and preservation of the history and culture of working people, women, and oppressed minorities.

The Personal as Political

Living under domination and struggling against it exact a personal toll. Socialists regard the distortion of personal life and interpersonal relations under capitalism as a political matter. Socialism must ultimately improve life; this cannot be accomplished by demanding that personal lives be sacrificed for the movement. We cherish the right of personal privacy and the enrichment of culture through diversity.

Electoral Action

Socialists participate in the electoral process to present socialist alternatives. The Socialist Party does not divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change. While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce those changes, which constitute socialism, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control.
By participating in local government, socialists can support movements of working people and make improvements that illustrate the potential of public ownership. We support electoral action independent of the capitalist-controlled two-party system.

Democratic Revolution From Below

No oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organized efforts to overthrow its oppressors. A society based on radical democracy, with power exercised through people's organizations, requires a socialist transformation from below. People's organizations cannot be created by legislation, nor can they spring into being only on the eve of a revolution.

They can grow only in the course of popular struggles, especially those of women, labor, and minority groups. The Socialist Party works to build these organizations democratically.

The process of struggle profoundly shapes the ends achieved. Our tactics in the struggle for radical democratic change reflect our ultimate goal of a society founded on principles of egalitarian, non-exploitative and non-violent relations among all people and between all peoples.

To be free we must create new patterns for our lives and live in new ways in the midst of a society that does not understand and is often hostile to new, better modes of life. Our aim is the creation of a new social order, a society in which the commanding value is the infinite preciousness of every woman, man and child.

[Fires of History]

Right on RedCeltic!

It's easy for capie$ to target Stalin, Marx, even Cuba.

But they get itchy when you start talking about labor rights, environmental protection, government without special interest lobbying, etc.

It's so much more fun to make slippery-slope arguments of the opposition. To marginalize the call for equality, justice, and representation in government. Much more fun to belittle the movement to the far left while ignoring the large one in the middle.

[Guest]

>Communist Dominion
>Compañero * * * *
>Well fox news is crappy, who would be angrey if it
>um "stopped broadcasting"? *

Did you really think about your answer before posting it?
I kinda doubt it and will not elaborate.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Quote: from Fires of History on 3:42 pm on April 13, 2002
Right on RedCeltic!

It's easy for capie$ to target Stalin, Marx, even Cuba.

But they get itchy when you start talking about labor rights, environmental protection, government without special interest lobbying, etc.


It's funny that you praise a socialist post like RedCeltic's which is just a massive appeal to specialized interests of all sorts. The only government that totally eleminates special interests is hereditary monarchy. I like labor rights - if you don't like your wages, job or working conditions then you have the right to vote with your feet. Do socialists promise these things? (Hint: look at the "What happens to workers who refuse to work" thread.)


It's so much more fun to make slippery-slope arguments of the opposition. To marginalize the call for equality, justice, and representation in government. Much more fun to belittle the movement to the far left while ignoring the large one in the middle.

Did you even read my relply to RedCeltic? I pointed out that Democratic Socialism in the end is the same as Soviet-style police states. So no, cappies aren't using the fallacy of the undistributed middle. What's even more fun is when socialists are pressed for details they wrap themselves in the cloak of "the oppressed" and reply with even more glittering generalities.

RedCeltic: What does that have to do with my post. I wanted details on how it's to all be executed. Since you posted this I'll go a head and respond to the central points.

Socialist Feminism

Feminism, even by some progressivist standards, is a movement drifting into severe psychosis. Gaia worship. Mythical matriarchal civilizations. Bizzare scientific theories (Newtonian physics are anti-feminist). Even more bizarre legal theories. Dworkin and MacKinnon. Riotgrrrl. Will socialists force them at least conform to the dictates of reasonable debate? If so, how is that compatible with the last line? What about women who prefer more traditional arrangements? What about the woefully inadequate single parent family which breeds criminals and thugs? What's the deal with the term "socialist feminism" when women are to define the terms of there own liberation (i-feminism etc.)?

Liberation of Oppressed Groups

Question: What is the only group in America that it is legally permissiable to discriminate against based on color and sex? White males. Where do they fit in to your fantastic movement. Does my right to self-defense include the ability to shoot leftist race rioters who threaten my life (LA, Crown Heights Pogrom)? Will the freedom to associate freely even exist for religious groups, social and politcal groups who reject gays, women or others?

International Solidarity and Peace

How are you going to get people in line with the Socialist revolution without violence in the first place? How do you deal with reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries? If the truth Marxism is self-evident, then why the focus on militant collective thought?

Internal Democracy

No, socialism and self-rule are contraindicated. While it's very thoughtful of the Socialist Party to include the right to debate if you're a party member, if you read carefully it's an implicit admission that Socialists highly desire a one party state. They talk about debate within the party members not in within government. Also Socialism is indeed dogmatic because members are must at least adhere to most tenets of Marxism. It resolves nothing about dealing with anti-socialists. What if the people elect a man who is rather inclined to take a wrecking ball to the socialist world order? Can people even form opposing political parties in a socialist society?

Cultural Freedom

So art, history, and culture are to be dominated by the Socialist Party. People can already participate in art now: Just go buy paint, musical instruments or a camera and create your life away. Why do people need approval from socialists to do these things? What about art that blastphemes the socialist world order?

The Personal as Political

Now private life is a political matter subject to the whims of our socialist benefactors? After all politics is about is getting your way with others. How is that freedom? If I'm wrong then the statement is just too vague to impart any meaning to me. Will the right of personal privacy be extended to people who promulegate competitive worldviews? It's not clear how last two lines can be reconciled with "liberation of oppressed groups." It appears that cultural diversity means that people will be allowed to celebrate ethnic culture as long as they don't take their ethnicity seriously. Who wants an ethnicity reduced to folk dance and ethnic food? Is that real diversity?

Electoral Action

Nothing earthshaking here just a historical question.
What happened to Allande (sp?) when he wrecked the Chilean [not Argentine] economy, began arbitrary arrests of landowners and cracked down on demonstrators? The socialist government supported his abuses and he was ousted by Augusto Pinochet and the army. So much for the peaceful birth of socialism. There will be threats to socialism from other quarters. How do you propose to deal with those?

Democratic Revolution from Below

Here we go! Socialism reveals some of its true colors. If no 'people's organizations' can be created through legislation are they then created by elitist Marxist theorists? The part about peaceful struggle is hopelessly naive or misleading. If capitalists' are as evil as you say then wouldn't they be apt to kill you off as well? If that's the case then totally peaceful social revolution is unobtainable and the socialists are liable to be just as violent or more so because of their fanaticism. I'm sorry, it flies in the face of reality to suggest that socialists can live a socialist lifestyle in a capitalist society. Where are the worker owned factories that I can apply to? Socialism requires a command economy. The rest of the paragraph is absolutely elitist drivel. After all, the people are just too stupid to realize that socialism is superior so we just use our newly won monopoly of violence and taxation to force them into correct belief or liquidate those that oppose.


(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 11:05 am on April 14, 2002)

[RedCeltic]

Ok Solzhenitsyn, your no idiot so I dignify your posts with a response…


I'm going to demonstrate that the ultimate outcome of the democratic socialist movement is a Soviet-style police state.

If you will look at the history of the Democratic Socialist movement in the US you will see that Democratic Socialists have never supported the Soviet Style police state. During the cold war democratic socialists found themselves at odds with both sides… on one side you had economic inequality and oppression and on the other side you had political inequality and oppression. Democratic Socialism on the other hand will be voted in democratically and with the very real possibility of being voted out democratically. It is the people’s choice and if they choose not to have democratic socialism as current standings in the US, than we shall campaign through democratically and through grass roots to help for further understanding of it’s crucial need.


Furthermore, because be believe in changing the system democratically, the core of our policies are reforms of the current system.


Nothing objectionable about socialism's aim: a good society. What man can be against that? The devil is in the details. Just how do you propose to hurdle the difficulties of distribution of finished products? It seems to me that centralized planning is the only way. You can't produce everything in a single area. And who will control the distribution? The elected officials can't all be economists. The government through an elitist bureaucracy of experts advising the elected officials. Also a the people cannot control the economy without being given specific tasks. This is paradox because in effect, people will have even less control over their choice of a profession than in a capitalist worse case scenario. In the absence of financial incentives, people will still have preferences for jobs that are physically easy or in a pleasant atmosphere. Someone is going to have to tell people what to do--after all, we can't all be managers and someone has to do dirty work. Who is going to do that? A centralized bureaucracy through expert examiners none of which the people will have in their control.

Again you describe Soviet style communism. The Socialist Party ( yes I’m a member) stands for worker control of all industry through the democratic organization of the workplace, for the social ownership of the means of production and distribution, and for international solidarity among working people.

We support the right of any number of interested workers in a workplace to form a union and bargain with their employer, with no limits on the subjects upon which employees and unions may bargain with employers. We call for recognizing a union based on cards signed. We call for the democratic control of all unions by their membership, and independent of employer domination and influence.
We support efforts to organize all workers, particularly workers in the service industries, enlisted personnel in the Armed Forces, and the difficult to organize (including students, home workers, homeless people, prison inmates, and the unemployed). We support militant, united labor action including secondary strikes and boycotts. We support the right of first-time and part-time workers to full benefits. We call for the repeal of all repressive labor legislation such as the Hatch Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, the Landrum-Griffin Act, and all the so-called "right-to-work" laws.

We call for workplaces free from discrimination and harassment based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual preference, or physical or mental disability. We support the right of workers to hold shop meetings on company premises, elect their immediate supervisors, and administer health and safety programs through the formation of shop councils. We call for full disclosure of corporate plans to close and relocate plants, a punitive tax on runaway industry, and compensation for the workers and communities affected by plant closings.
We support the right of workers, consumers, and communities to information on plant safety, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, and the quality of goods and services. We call for the international organization of labor as the only way of combating the exploitation of workers in a global economy based on the transnational corporation. We call for international labor standards, including the unrestrained right to organize labor unions and a 30 hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation, and one year parental leave for new parents at no loss of seniority. We support the use of secondary boycotts, hot cargo agreements, and sympathy strikes to defend workers' rights worldwide. We support the right of all workers to organize irrespective of job titles and responsibilities, citizenship status, method of payment, or sector of the economy where employed.

Who gets to decide what benefits all of humanity? It's not self-evident otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Elected officials acting in unison with a rigid political orthodoxy. Who decides what is plundering the earth and what isn't? Elitist experts who will probably abuse their position. Also this implies radical consumption restrictions i.e. lower standard of living. While voluntary restriction of consumption is not at all a bad thing, you're trying to establish a different politico-economic order. How do you intend to market mandatory lower standard of living to the large middle class in developed countries?
The mechanisms in capitalism that oppress and alienate humans are the same mechanisms that destroy the environment.
Therefore we call for public ownership and democratic control of all our natural resources in order to conserve resources, preserve our wilderness areas, and restore environmental quality.
We call for placing financial responsibility on private companies for cleaning up their own toxic wastes.
We call for requiring manufacturers to contribute to research and development of new technologies for cleaning up and preventing future toxic wastes.
We oppose any policies that encourage corporations to place local municipal landfills, toxic waste disposal sites, or incinerators in minority communities.
We call for legal action against any U.S. corporation that violates any U.S. environmental laws in the operation of facilities overseas.
And, it’s not only the US that has constantly neglected environmental issues, the USSR was notoriously bad on the environment.

While it may true that capitalism sometimes produces injustice on the individual level, democratic socialism is likely to be much worse as I will try to demonstrate. Also I should take issue with the notion that the military will become expendable. The revolution is not going to affect the whole world at once. The budding socialist world order will need a military to defend against capitalists, counter-revolutionaries or conqueror the rest of the world if need be. In the mean time, some of its production capacity will have to be diverted to the army. Whose going to control it?
As this “Revolution” would take place democratically within the instituted governing body of the United States, there is no fear of “Counter-Revolutionaries” for as this democratic revolution works from the ground up through grass roots organizations, and transforms the government through reforms “armed resistance” doesn’t come into play here. The nation that has the largest military force is the nation that is currently the largest super power in the world, and the nation we plan on implementing these changes to. We do not wish to do away with a military force altogether, we wish to reduce it by 50%. Keeping no military at all would be insane, but keeping a military force as large as we currently have diverts much needed funds and is wholly unnecessary for a non antagonistic nation. (which is our aim).

Ahh, the point of socialism -- to perfect humanity. Any ideas on how to carry this out? Violent revolution? What about people who may not particularly care for radical social change like me? Who's going to lead the masses against counter-revolution and reaction? Fanatical avant-guard movement leaders, that's who.
Again… it is a democratically elected “revolution” fought by education with pickets, rallies, and elections, such as we have been doing since 1901. You may say… well then if you have been fighting for these changes for 100 years and have not succeeded yet than why are you still trying the same tactics? Because we firmly believe that when ready the country will see the value and move to democratic socialism. If most people are not ready to vote for radical revolutionary changes, than they simply don’t come about. And if most people want to do away with them, than your ‘counter-revolutionaries’ are elected in.

A crucial problem that I have with socialism is that it has no real way to deal with dissenters without appeals to government violence or coercion. If the masses must have understanding for socialism to work then its not clear how that can be resolved in respect to being given control of their lives and communities. Are dissenters to be educated out of their preferences by government coercion or just terrorized until they are broken? Are children going to be taught a uniform socio-political orthodoxy even against the wishes of the family or local community? Who gets to decide what gets taught? Political theorists directly or advising the government, but beholden to no one. If Socialism requires participation how do you treat the apathetic? Agitprop campaigns or just lock 'em up? Again who's task is it to prepare these things?

In the end, democratic socialism must rely on a rigid political orthodoxy, centralized planning by elitist experts and abusive appeals to violence to regulate society. What other ideology requires that mix? Democratic Socialism's estranged sister movement - Soviet-style Socialism. Which is why the run of the mill capitalist is right to bring up the specter of the USSR. For us anti-marxists, Democratic Socialism = Soviet-style police state.
what I said was, “The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people.”
In no way does violence, nor brainwashing come into play here. This is a grass roots movement that educates as it has always done through the distribution of printed material, (and nowadays electronic media as we are dong now) through running for political office party members gain the chance to further put forward our voice and call for democratic socialism. This is a call for party members to petition the government through grass roots/democratic means for radical changes. It is a call of support by, and to other political organizations who share similar ideals (such as the Green party) and in no way resembles what you said above.
I’ll address what you said about my second post later.

[Solzhenitsyn]

RedCeltic:

I apologize for sounding a bit polemical at times. I certainly have nothing against you personally. I'm also afraid that my messages weren't quite clear. I mixed arguments against the final outcome of Socialist policies with aguments dealing with their implementation. Your response is fair enough even though I still wish to debate these things with you.

I've also read nowhere in your posts about agricultural policies (I'm an agronomist by trade). What's the Democratic Socialist perspective? Collectivization or land reform? What about emerging chemical and genetic technologies?

[RedCeltic]

We support agricultural worker cooperatives, and oppose large corporate factory farms that lower food quality, cause profound damage to the environment, push farmers off the land, cruelly treat animals, and wreck small town culture.

We call for a farm price support system that guarantees farmers a return on the full cost of production.

We call for low-cost loans, grants, and technical help to farmers including help to shift farm production from non-essentials to staple foods and fibers. We encourage the reintroduction of hemp farming.

We support the right of farmers and farm workers to organize unions for good wages, housing, and working conditions (including the right to be protected from pesticides).

We support the right of farmers and farm workers to be included in negotiating contracts with canneries as well as growers.

We support land use planning to protect farmland from suburban sprawl.

We encourage plant diversity, and oppose the creating, patenting, and licensing of life forms.

We call for the labeling of artificially genetically altered food, and the banning of genetically altered seeds to make them sterile.

We call for the democratic control of agricultural research and the complete testing of agricultural products.

We support inspections of domestic and imported agricultural products to make sure they meet US standards for food safety, and environmental and worker protection.

We call for country-of-origin labeling on agricultural products.

We call for the reassessment of all international trade negotiations in light of workers', farmers', consumers', and environmental interests.

We call for the production of agriculturally produced and environmentally sound alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on petroleum.

We support research toward the elimination of the use of pesticides.

[RedCeltic]

I apologize for sounding a bit polemical at times. I certainly have nothing against you personally.

Oh... and nothing against you Lad... ah... tis the devil of politics.. :)