RC and TS

[Moskitto]

Why do all the ignorant capitalists think that all Socialists are Stalinists even though they have right in front of them the most blatant example of a Stalinist (Thine Stalin) and many other socialists who are totally different to Thine Stalin?

Is it like colourblindness (I don't know what normal people see so that might be a bad analogy.) Where you don't see the difference? Or is it more like selective hearing?

[angry]

I think it is ´cause people know Stalin was a communist (wich I don´t like that much) and they think all communists are the same..? could that be right...?

[Solzhenitsyn]

Read my sig. That's why.

[El Che]

Ur sig is an opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody`s got one.

[Anarcho]

For the record, the belief that a socialist/communist system is also an opinion.

:: resumes stiring the pot ::

[FtWfTn]

my signature is a suggestion or a statement. . . .and I think it may be selective hearing. . they believe they can come in here. .say what they want then not listen to what the rest have to say. . just so that they murmured some kind of propaganda that you'll see on a comercial some day. I've been reading past post and threads and the Capitalist say the same things over and over expecting different results. . .thats the definition of insanity!!! :shocked:

[RedCeltic]

By RC I'm assuming you mean me Mosketto. The only way I could be farther from TS is if I was a capitalist.

Thing is, Not only to I not believe in an athoriterian government... but I don't think the American government is democratic enough.

As far as socialism goes, I'm a "Luke-Warm" socialist. I believe in a gradual shift to socialism through reforms. Otherwise it will just be forcing one's will on people.

Solzhenitsyn: you have a right to your opinion, however your dead wrong.

[reagan lives]

Why do you keep insisting that all capitalists think you're all alike? Could you quote where anyone here ever said that there was no difference between you and Thine Stalin?

[angry]

Not exactly like that but every capitalist who posts here say "look at the soviet union, didn´t go that well huhh..?"
what´s up with that...?

[RedCeltic]

Exactly Angery, the only people who want to bring back the Soviet Union are Stalinists. Political inequality is not a good sacrifice for economic inequality.

You want a quote RL? Ok here's something your buddie Solz said," the ultimate outcome of the democratic socialist movement is a Soviet-style police state. "



(Edited by RedCeltic at 1:45 pm on May 10, 2002)


(Edited by RedCeltic at 1:52 pm on May 10, 2002)

[reagan lives]

I agree with Solz on that point. I think that the Soviet Union was a necessary result of the worker's revolution, and any similar movement will ultimately lead to a similar result. But that does NOT mean that I think that everyone who believes in socialism is a totalitarian in belief. You might not realize that totalitarianism will be a result of the implementation of your beliefs, but that is not the same thing as saying that you believe in totalitarianism. In other words, I think you're wrong and misguided, not evil. There's a difference between those who think that Stalin was swell, and those who advocate the institutions that allowed his existence because they haven't thought through the practical implications of what they believe.

[vox]

What about folks like me, though?

I've never supported Stalin, and I've never supported Lenin, who made those "institutions." I do, however, support Socialism From Below (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_main.htm), which is quite different from the Democratic Centralism featured in Leninsism. (I'm no Leninist.)

We could go on and discuss DeLeon and Luxemburg, but that's probably getting too deep for you.

Simply put, in order for there to be a "totalitarian" state, you need a structure which supports it. That's Leninism, according to me. If that structure isn't in place, then why do you think that "totalitarianism" will be the result? It doesn't quite seem to make sense to me, given the different structures that socialist thinkers have posited.

vox

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from reagan lives on 2:27 pm on May 10, 2002
I agree with Solz on that point. I think that the Soviet Union was a necessary result of the worker's revolution, and any similar movement will ultimately lead to a similar result. But that does NOT mean that I think that everyone who believes in socialism is a totalitarian in belief. You might not realize that totalitarianism will be a result of the implementation of your beliefs, but that is not the same thing as saying that you believe in totalitarianism. In other words, I think you're wrong and misguided, not evil. There's a difference between those who think that Stalin was swell, and those who advocate the institutions that allowed his existence because they haven't thought through the practical implications of what they believe.


You have no idea what your talking about. How can a non vanguardist group become a vanguardist one? How can a political movement that has been solidly against Soviet style government since it's foundation in 1901 become the very thing they oppose?

A group that has constantly warned that any political ideology, no matter how benificial it may seem, if implemented by force will be oppression, and wrong. Now suddenly will shift to become a police state? After opposing war for 100 fucking years?

Give me a break.

[Guest]

"How can a non vanguardist group become a vanguardist one? How can a political movement that has been solidly against Soviet style government since it's foundation in 1901 become the very thing they oppose?"

It's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? But an undeniable one. Are you saying that the soviet revolution wasn't socialist?

Look, once again, you have to understand the difference between what things are in theory and what they become in reality. Your movement can be opposed to a totalitarian state all it wants, but it will still precipitate one.

[El Che]

What we have here, is a couple of right-wing individuals, making uneducated especulations, that really amount to nothing less then lies, without even bothering to back them up with any sort of serious argument. Perhaps because they know they can not.

[Guest]

First of all, I'm only one person. Second of all, I've explained this so many times on this board that it's really starting to get irritating. We've been over and over the way in which socialism is a massive collective action problem and why that necessitates the sort of central enforcement authority that lays the groundwork for the totalitarian state. You guys just continue to ignore it. I've never heard any argument about how you plan to get around the collective action problem (vox doesn't even know what this term means), you just keep saying "well, I am opposed to a totalitarian state and therefore no totalitarian state could ever arise out of my beliefs. Stop calling me a Stalinist." I have history on my side, you have nothing but the idiot wind blowing every time you move your mouth.

[El Che]

"socialism is a massive collective action problem and why that necessitates the sort of central enforcement authority that lays the groundwork for the totalitarian state."

lol, what? This is just going to be to much fun! Please continue to destribe socialism and how all froms of socialism result in totalitarianism, but I do advise you that your in way over ur head.

[Guest]

Ho hum. Those of you who were paying attention in class the first time can lay your heads on your desks while I deal with The Che, who must have been daydreaming.

Socialism is a huge collective action problem. Collective action problems occur in situations that involve fucked up cost/benefit structures. A simple example: let's imagine that four people share an apartment. Naturally, they all like to have the kitchen clean, so they clean it regularly. However, if one of them decides to stop cleaning, the kitchen will probably still remain clean (as there are three other people to clean it). Collective action problem. There are a number of ways to solve these problems, depending on their nature and size. In the case of the four roommates, the solution would probably take the form of the "social norms" archetype, which is self-explanatory...a feeling of community and/or peer pressure would suffice to keep all roommates cleaning. Once you get much bigger than that, a stricter enforcement mechanism is the only way to ensure cooperation...and in the absence of one, disaster ensues. The Tragedy of the Commons is a good example. Environmental protection in general is another one.

Socialism is the largest-scale collective action problem ever concieved of by man. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is its groundwork. In a large society which is structured to allow everyone to benefit off of everyone else's work, there's absolutely no reason why anybody would work at all. If I don't work in a socialist system, production won't drop off in any significant way, and so my benefits remain constant as my cost goes to zero.

Such discrepancies in need and ability can only be efficiently adjudicated by a central authority. If everyone is to reap the benefits, then everyone must work. Moreover, there can be no dissent. If I live in a capitalist society and I decide that the system sucks and I'm not going to work for it, I'm allowed to do that. I'll have to live in the street or my mother's basement or something, but I have the right to not participate. In a socialist system I cannot be allowed to object to the system and yet still reap the benefits, and the only choice is to have me removed from the system altogether. Even Rousseau realized this, and he was protosocialist.

Is it becoming clear how this will lead to a totalitarian state structure?

[RedCeltic]

Without knowing the specific platfrom one group is running on everything you are saying is based on assumtions. You wan't to talk about historical fact? I'll give you historical fact. Democratic Socialists in the United States have never, and will never support a one party state.

It's the whole basis on what the movement is founded on for Christ's sakes! Just because it's never been tried without totalitiarianism is no reason to join the Stalinist WWP!

[Guest]

What assumptions? What's your point?

Once again, you guys really shouldn't be so touchy about this. You're overly paranoid about people calling you Stalinists. There have been about a half dozen threads in this forum that start with "why do all these right wingers think that all socialists are Stalinists," without any of them providing any quotes to that effect. What we do say is that a totalitarian state is the logical result of even the most altruistic attempt at socialism. That doesn't mean that we think you guys are explicitly advocating Stalinism. Relax man.

[Capitalist]

I agree with the Guest & Reagan Lives.

We have history on our side. Over and over again throughout the 20th century, every example of communism or left-sided ideals has led to complete disaster and tyranny.

You people may not be bad - but you are closedminded to the truth and refuse to see the flaws in your communist heroes.

I keep an open mind - I look at the flaws of my heroes and I look at the little good in people I consider evil tyrants. Most tyrants and dictators started off with a noble cause - yet their hatred consumed them. They turned to the dark side of the Force.

Only Stalin and Saddamm Hussein are completely the most evil men to ever lead a nation. I can not see one ounce of good in these men, like I may see in Che Guevara or Hitler (although these men became rotten through the undying hatred).

Study your heroes and villians - understand what drove them, and their weaknesses, and mistakes, and then you will begin to open your mind.

Nobody is Perfect (even Ronald Reagan).

[RedCeltic]

I resent being lectured by a worsiper of Reagan. He was just as bad as Stalin.

You don't know me enough to tell me who I am and give me advice. I may read works by Marxists, and agree with some of their ideas, however I have no heroes. I'm not a vanguardist, and believe only in a grass roots movement.

One can also be a Socialist and believe in keeping the system in check rather than scrapping the whole thing.

[El Che]

RL,

I do, for once, understand your point. And it is a valid one. I`ll give you the beneft of the doubt and pretend your actualy interested in a meaningful discussion of the subject. Meaning, that this is going to be worth my time.

Socialism seeks to acomplish many things, and Socialism is a progress. Therefore the degree to which a contry is Socialist, is the degree to which it has sucessfuly achived the goals it set its self. So, with that in mind, I advocate a sort of self awareness, self analysis and self "questioning" that is absolutly essential to Socialist states. This because its every easy to make mistakes, and before you know it things start to slide in a direction that is not intended at all. Totalitarianism is so far away from this, most necessary, type of "civic alert status" that it enssures disaster. All things must be done within the context of an open society, all reforms must be discussed, and their results analysed. If this means we have to go back and foward several times before we can advance just a little, but advance in a sustained and consolidated manner, then its worth it. That is the real difference between vanguardists and non vanguardists. Indeed it is true that dictatorship is wrong. But if I thought for one second, that a period of unlawful dictatorship, could by force, make the necessary reforms to enble contries to move into an advanced Socialism status, I do not know if I would hesitate. But, unfortunatly it just isn`t that simple, exactly because we will have to learn how to do things as we go along, like all pioniers. If we dont take care, and if we dont first tap the virgin ice before we step on it, we are going to step on thin ice that will crack under our wieght. Hence, in order for there to be socialist progress, there needs to be a frame work of democracy, and free debate and discussion around it to protect it from its self, to enssure that it does not step on thin ice. And when it does step on thin ice, then it is that frame work, which is society with no exceptions, that should, hopefuly be able to pull it back just before the ice cracks.

I dont, reagan, know how every little thing will turn out, nore the composition, guidelines and legal frame work of every little structure. You have to start somewhere and procede from there, speak especificaly of especific cases, and so on. With that in mind, take a look at your last post, see? sounds childish doesn`t it? Its not your most, in and of its self thats childish, but its the picture depicted in it that is so. Another thing that comes to the mind of any person of good sense upon reading your post, is the dept of your simplistic and indeed childish notion of a Socialist mod of production would operate. It looks like the thoughts of someone, who learn about Socialism by reading one or to cliches, and then said "hmm but wait a minute there is a problem here" and now thinks he has discovered gunpouder. Do you think Socialists stand for a society in which people are not acountable for their actions? People must be acountable for what the do or do not do, but people also have rights that should always be upheld. So if you dont want to work dont, if you want to work just a little during the whole of your life time, because you just like being lazy then do so and be so. No reagan we do not stand for forced labor either in cased you didn`t know. One of the objectives, ideals and dreams of Socialists, is a society in which EVERONE has the opportunity to develop him or her self to the up most of their potential, as far and as high as you want to go society should be their to suport you all the way. If you just want to be a drunken lazy bun then be so. Society should always allow you to live with dignaty. Always. So if you dont want to work at all, I believe that you should get enough "money" or goods to allow you to live in a dignaty that should never be striped from any man. What if everybody decides not to work? well then you just step on thin ice, but you manage to back up just as your about to fall, after you regain your composure again, you abolish "welfare" because it is simply not viable any more. Trail and error. But anyway where was I? oh yea potential... You know, people who are interested in developing them selves have nothing to fear from Socialism, that I feel confident that we can provide to all. Because culture, learing, the arts, etc.. All those thingsl, and more in the same line, for the most part only require your willingness to dedicate your self to them, unlike being wealthy. Being wealthy requires structure of Capitalism. That its to say that to enable you to become wealthy, to become of a materialy favorable position, there needs to be in place a structure that allows you to acomplish just that. So if your potentail lies there, in becoming rich, if thats what you want out of life, if thats what will motivate you to move foward, then unfortunatly for you, your potential is the only one not acomodated in a Socialist state. Because your potential is akin to a serial killers potential, and therefore harmful to others.

So yes you will and should be acounted and acountable for your actions, inside and outside the working place. You might be required to do different jobs for your society but you should not be forced. You should be able to choose your own path and follow what interests you have. Material positions should be relative your work, but there should be limits.

Along with the above, we seek to end the expropriation of labor from labor. This is crime, no different then rape, assualt, or theift. Its simply a socialy accepted crime in sick society.

I want a good world reagan, not this bullshit you heroes have created, this isn`t good enough for me or mine, so you can take it and shuv it up yur !"#!"#! where the sun dont shine. I dont want this consumerism-plastic-alienating-false-piece of crap-buybuybuy-while-we-get-rich-as-pigs-because-of-your work-and-your-stupidity-for-buying-it-good-for-nothing capitalist-society. So if you want to defend this poor excuse for social evolution, at least do a better job, because this is just insulting.

[RedCeltic]

I was a tad angery in my last post. What I truly mean however... is that I'm dedicated to humanity and not ideology. I am firstly a humaniterian... above all. I personally believe that socialist reforms are the most humane thing we could implement. That does not make me a Stalinist, nor a patriot of the USSR.

I also think I would probobly be more moderate if I had been living in another nation. I see reforms that social democrats have implemented in other nations like Canada, UK, France, etc... than maybe I would be willing to say that things in the US are pritty good.

But I wonder... Is it humaniterian to only want to help people in your own nation? We have such an abundant food resource here in the United States. So much, we pay farmers not to grow crops in order to keep the market from being flooded, and prices from falling.

It just seems obvious to me, and probobly to most leftist here, that if food was not a commodity, there would be no "Save the Children's fund"... "USA for Africa" which take donations but put out very little aide.

Well, farmers need to make a living, don't they. However it still doesn't make starvation right, now does it?

I recently attended a lecture at Albany University where I plan on attending in the fall as a Junior in the anthropology department. The lecture was heled by a Doctor of Sociology. When explaining why Social Science majors where important to the world he gave the example of the Welfare program in the United States.

He said, " It seems like a good idea to everyone, left and right, to get people off government assistance and into the workforce. However, it takes someone who knows human dynamics, and not simply economics to see the truth in this matter. People who are on welfare, are people who are underskilled. While on welfare, these people are provided with the nececities, food, shelter, helthcare etc... forced to work, these people take on underskilled jobs where the work long hours, often multiple jobs to pay high cost rents in New York City. They spend little or any time with their children, who often become "latch-key" kids, or children of the street. They work two or more jobs of low pay, no benifits, and often in unsafe conditions. So, how is it better to get people off welfare when life off of it is worse than on it?"

The political affiliation of this man is of no matter. The things he said, are spoken from experience as a man politicaly involved in the inner workings of New York City.

You have no right to tell me that what I believe in is wrong when you have no idea what I believe in, nor what has lead me to believe in what I do!

I am not a socialist because I love the idea. I am not a socialist because I grew up glewed to the TV set watching may day parades in Red Square and wishing we could show off our Nuclear warheads like they do.

I'm not a Socialist because I thing hammer and sycles are keen, or because I'm a collector of soviet memorabilia.

I'm not a socialist because I'm some teenage intelectual who has read Das Kapital 4 times and thinks Marxism is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"I'm a socialist because I believe in humanity" is what Eugene Debs said... and what I say. I think highly of him, however he was not without his flaws. He never came out with his own ideas, he was a Marxist, as I am, came to Socialism thrugh his involvement with the labor movement, as I did. However, I don't believe everything Karl Marx said was all great and wonderful. He was wrong about alot of things...

Religion being only one of them...

You tell me to be open minded, and not think of my "heroes" as not having faults. Yet I tell you the only heroes I've ever had in life are my father and my uncle John. Oh... they have their faults... but they are the only ones who molded me to be the open minded humaniterian that I am today.

So, thank you very much for your sermons Pastor Reagan Lives and Pastor Captialist. However just because I don't see eye to eye with you does not mean I am the spawn of the devil.

[El Che]

Hey reagan, remember when I talked to you about the type of socialist that tries to do what he can? labor movement, small victories etc? Well take a good look at RedCeltic coz he, and those like him, are living proof of what I said.

[RedCeltic]

Well thank you El Che, The largest threat against the populace that lives within the United States of America is the threat of false democracy. "Democracy by name, but not by nature" is what some political scientists call it around the world.

You preach about the evils of a one party system yet hide behind a two party system where both parties have very little difference.

This isn't only a left wing issue either! Far right wing groups, moderate groups, etc have noticed that in order to become a viable candidate in the United States of America you must be a Democrat or Republican.

Tell me this, how much longer must the American people suffer under the dictatorship of the Republican/Democrat government until its free?

If a one party state is totalitarianism, than what's a two party state with the same goal?

A Parliamentary Democracy is what they have in the UK

A list system Democracy is what they have in France and Germany.

A grass root's democracy is what we demand!

What we have in the US? The lowest form of democracy existing... a representative democracy.

Gentlemen, a lower form than exists in the very nation we broke away from. Now, is this civilized? I think not.

[Moskitto]

A Parliamentary Democracy is what they have in the UK

Well, technically we're an Elected Oligarchy/Constitutional Monarchy. And democracy in the UK sucks, we've got basically a one party system which controls the media, censors opponents within the party and forces through bills that people don't want.

Or course, In Russia they had the Socialist Revolutionarry Party with a lot of support who were moderately Ballist in nature, but then again, the Red Guards closed them down.


Only Stalin and Saddamm Hussein are completely the most evil men to ever lead a nation. I can not see one ounce of good in these men, like I may see in Che Guevara or Hitler

I'm interested in knowing what good you see in Pol Pot, Leopold II, Vlad the Impaller or Ghengis Khan?

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:27 pm on May 13, 2002)

[Greadius]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 11:02 am on May 12, 2002
"Democracy by name, but not by nature" is what some political scientists call it around the world. Having recieved formal political science education, I can say with absolute certainty that political scientists don't have a clue what they're talking about :biggrin:

Redceltic:"You preach about the evils of a one party system yet hide behind a two party system where both parties have very little difference."
Being the major Democrat supporter I am, I always take offense to this. But, I see where you're coming from. If you're sitting on the far-left, and look right, both of the parties look like they're occupying the same spot. Also, it makes the mistake of assuming that the parties are homogenous, which they are certainly not. In my part of Florida, it is very much an old South type of community, the Democrats here and the kind of democrat I am is much more conservative than our democratic allies up in Boston. There is huge divergence within the parties, which have no real control over who calls themself a democratic or republican. Both parties are open ended to who or what is included in their banner.

"This isn't only a left wing issue either! Far right wing groups, moderate groups, etc have noticed that in order to become a viable candidate in the United States of America you must be a Democrat or Republican." I think you have the cause and effect mixed up. In order to become the Democratic or Republican candidate you have to have proven visibility and election capability; basically you have to have the ability to win an election and mobilize. That is true for elections at any level. The 'others' really have no electoral appeal, regardless of what banner they run for office under. The vast majority of people vote split tickets, that is, for both democrats and republicans, and since neither party is homogenous in its make-up, there is a large cross-section of people who vote for the best candidate if they're Democrat or Republican. They are known as the independant moderates, who are the deciding voters in most elections. If you can convince THOSE people you're a viable candidate, you can win the election regardless of your party affiliation. Just like Jesse Ventura did in Minnesota :biggrin:

"Tell me this, how much longer must the American people suffer under the dictatorship of the Republican/Democrat government until its free?" ...uhm, all it takes is for 33% of the people to vote for something else... its really not to much to expect, is it?
Plus, isn't it kind of hard to have dictators that don't agree, bicker constantly, and compete for power?
It sounds nice, but the fact of the matter is 90%+ of Americans will vote for Republicans or Democrats... I'm not egotistical or arrogant enough to believe I know what is better for 90% of Americans than they know what is best for themselves.

"If a one party state is totalitarianism, than what's a two party state with the same goal?" Maybe I missed the meeting where the democrats decided our goal was the same as the totalitarian state. Seeing as that I'm devout supporter of personal freedoms and individual liberty, I would take great issue with those policies.

"A grass root's democracy is what we demand!" Who is 'we'?
If people were actually demanding it, we would listen... can't let those votes go to waste :biggrin:
What is 'grass root's democracy' anyway, ... it sounds nice.

"What we have in the US? The lowest form of democracy existing... a representative democracy." Once again, the vast majority of Americans disagree with you. Nature of democracy, in its lowest or highest forms, is that majority rules... on this issue the majority is in clear control.

"Gentlemen, a lower form than exists in the very nation we broke away from. Now, is this civilized? I think not." I frankly prefer it this way. And I'm well versed in different forms of democracy and European democracies. I think the biggest asset is that of divided government and Federalism, which function to protect individuals much more effectively than Parlimentary democracies. In order to bring change in America, much more consensus is needed than in other compatible nations, and I think large scale consesus should be necessary in order to active any sort of policy on a national scale.