to all libertarian communists!

[yuriandropov]

i posted this under 'quick question for the stalinists', but i will post my basic point on here so you libertarian communists can read it.

a quote from nikita kruschev (general secratary of CPSU 1953-1964), 'if you go so far on the left, you will get out on the right!'

this is saying, if you go so far with liberty, you get anarchy. and anarchy is completely right wing. capitalists advocate no economic government control, anarchists advocate no government control at all! if there was no government, the greedy would find some way of rising to the top of the social ladder and making more money. if there was no money, they would find something to get. then they would pass that on to there offsping and we would be in the same place as we were with capitalism, division of class. certain men are naturally greedy and will find a way to get more than there fellow man (it is human nature to better yourself, it has taken 1000's of years of evolution, it will take 1000's more to change).
judging from the political compass test, most of you are libertarian communists. what i say to you is, that form of government cannot exist for 100's maybe 1000's of years. any attempt to rush it, would destroy the movement for good. the only goal we could realistically aim for within the next 200-300 years would be classless socialism.
the more liberties you allow, the more people take. communsim must be implemented slowly.
by all means keep to the left! but don't stray too far, or you could find yourself agreeing with capitalist policies!

[Hayduke]

http://infoshop.org/graphics/09.gif

So Anarchy is Capitalism eh ?
Yeh Capitalism calims that the gonverment may not have any power in any form at least if not nessacery.
" Lies Lies Lies "

YOu are saying that people will always try to get more then others
I agree, but do you really think that in a anarchist society there will be a change to gain power ? People will just overtrowh forms of power again.

Its nice to see you try to blame our side of communism instead of hearing the endless arguments on stalinism, but try again cause im not convinced my ideas are close to capitalism.

[Edelweiss]

http://www.che-lives.com/Archive/afaq/

[Nateddi]

I can understand how "moderate-socialist / extreme libertarain" can cause this, but people with a high leftist economic rating will not, because the economy is not free, only social / personal issues which don't effect it (drug control, abortion, religious freedom, etc).

[yuriandropov]

that is true about the economic rating. but how do you expect to have such a liberal society and such an authoritarian economy. you either lives by laws, or you don't.
economic and social issues IMO, go hand in hand. look at USA, it is a failry liberal society with a liberal economy. no look at china, an authoritarian society with an authriatarian economy.
the government can't just say, were not going to let you own land, but we are going to let you take drugs. it is not consistent. in the early stages of communism, you have to be consistent. look at gorbachev, he tried to liberalise the society and keep the communist economy, he failed because it is impossible. like i said, the more liberties you give, the more people take. if you give people the right to have sex with the person of the same sex, what happens when someone who wants to own land comes along and says, 'whats worse, having relations with the same sex or owning land?' what will you do? you can't silence this person because your liberal society has free press. what happens when all the religios nuts start rallying around this capitalist? your government is in crisis, what do you do? send in tanks? the army has lost faith in you, they don't like your liberal ways and then all of a sudden, your liberal communist government has been brought down! why? because you went to fast.

[yuriandropov]

still awaiting responces to my theory of what would happen in a 'liberal communist' society.

[Nateddi]

Nazi germany had a liberal economy in an authoritarian society.

When workers own industry, what does that have to do with abortion laws? What does that have to do with the death penalty? What does that have to do with the drug war?

The economic and personal issues have nothing to do with each other. In my opinion, personal issues should be decided in a community-based democratic matter. People in a district would vote on their abortion/drug policy, etc etc. That has nothign to do whatsoever with free exploitation / free market.

I am not a libertarian communist. I sympathize the idea of a one-party state, because a communist society won't function at its best with capitalist parties around. I am more for economic democracy rather than political kind. I am though, *slightly* libertarian on drug control (I don't believe pot users are criminals); and I don't take a side on abortion (both arguments are strong, although I am more pro-choise), it should be a local (state) law. I am completely opposed to an authoritarian state controling speech and keepign political prisoners (after stability is established).

(Edited by Nateddi at 9:12 pm on May 24, 2002)

[Nateddi]

Remember what we are fighting for. If we want to liberate people from capitalist exploitation, we should atleast give them freedoms in the next society. Not market freedoms, but freedom of choise, privacy (not to be confused with property), speech, etc.

If we want to make people free who are victims of capitalism, we don't want to make them victims of an authoritarian state.

[Michael De Panama]

First off, I do not defend libertarian communism.

However, I certainly do oppose your brand of fascist rightwing communism.

The quote you gave is not saying that if you go too deep into communism, you get anarchy. The quote is saying that if you go too deep into communism, you get fascism. Anarchy is a completely leftist ideology. Fascism is the rightwing evil that he speaks of.

if you give people the right to have sex with the person of the same sex, what happens when someone who wants to own land comes along and says, 'whats worse, having relations with the same sex or owning land?' what will you do?

Regardless of the answer, this is a very rightwing thing to say. Kruschev was talking about people like you. From my knowledge of Krushchev, his goal was to get rid of the Stalinist system. He was most likely speaking of the Stalinist system, and of little proletarian fascists like yourself.

However, if someone were to ask this, I would kindly answer, "I feel that the sense of ownership over something that, in reality, doesn't actually belong to anyone is a whole lot worse than showing love to another person, who happens to be of the same sex. However, if the majority of the people decide otherwise, then that is what should be decided. But I honestly doubt they will. Because once land ownership comes about, the ownership of the people themselves by others will come about." You need to be more secure with your beliefs, Yuri.

[yuriandropov]

nazi germany's economy was not liberal. it was kept under very strict state control. in fact, the people who owned the industries in nazi germany, were high ranking nazi officials. the nazi manifesto was very anti-capitalist but hitler made a deal with all the major industrial owners and betrayed his election promises.
anyway, like i said, not everyone is going to agree on government policies. who is to decide what is worse, owning land, or killing an un-born child? this is why you need an populist communist government to speak on behalf of the people. what do you do if you pass a law making abortion legal, then some man says 'killing children is not as bad as owning land, so i want to own land!' what do you do then? some people, even socialists, may think he has a point. so what happens? this man could twist peoples minds like yeltsin did in '91 to the russian people. he could twis there mind into thinking your government was wrong and if they think your wrong on social issues, they may think your economy is wrong! and then all of a sudden, your out of power!
i am all for democracy. but democratic centralism must come first to secure the revolution and to secute prosperity for the working class. those are the two most important things. then we can start giving back democracy. sacrifices must be made after the revolution, if democracy is one, then so be it. but as soon as the communist party is secure, democracy will flourish and true democacy aswell. not bourgeois democacy, but peoples democracy which is basically super democracy.

[Michael De Panama]

This is my response to your comment in "Quick Question For Stalinists". I'm posting it twice because you posted your stupid accusations twice.


Quote: from Michael De Panama on 6:48 pm on May 24, 2002
The reason you find it harder arguing with me is because you don't really understand my political ideology, and therefore make silly assumptions.

What capitalist ideals do I advocate?

I am not a libertarian communist. I do not advocate anarchy.

And, by the way, anarchy is opposed to capitalism. Anarchy is a leftist movement. The anarchist is also in favor of a classless society, he just has different ideas about how to achieve it.

But I don't agree that a government-free society would ever work. I'm not an anarchist. I am in favor of democracy. I don't want a society absent of government, I want a society to control their government, regardless of wealth. This is why I am a communist.

'be careful you don't go too far on the left, because you will come out on the right!'

I totally agree. But aren't I the softcore leftist, and you are the hardcore leftist? You said so yourself. I'm sure that this quote was in reference to Stalin. You are the one who supports Stalin. You are the proletarian fascist. You are the one who wants totalitarianism. I am the one who wants democracy. Democracy is leftist. It's not hardcore leftism like your hardcore fascist integration into communism, but I don't want to be fucking "hardcore". You are the one who came out on the right.

[Nateddi]

Yes Yuri, that is what I meant by "economic democracy" (super democracy, people's democracy, non-bourgeois democracy).

Although Nazi germany's economy was probably not liberal, it was very right wing (economically). The government suppressed leftist parties, labor unions, etc. The government was fascist, it had a right-wign economy preserved with state power (read my sig). Perhaps not liberal, but right-wing economically.

Killing babies (embryos) is murder is an opinion. There should be democracy to vote on such a social policy. If the people vote pro-choise, it won't deminish communism in any way.

Yuri: are you banned from other forums? You should have posted this thread in "Theory", can you post in other forums?

[yuriandropov]

no, i can only post in this one.

[Nateddi]

I still don't understand why. You have been exiled as a typical capitalist. Even Imperial Power can post in Chit Chat.

[yuriandropov]

its because of my alleged 'anit-semitism' and 'stalinsim'. even though i'm not either of them!

i do agree with your point on peoples democracy. i just think it needs time. peoples democracy comes after dictatroship of prolaterat and democratic centralism.

[Michael De Panama]

its because of my alleged 'anit-semitism' and 'stalinsim'. even though i'm not either of them!

:Rolls eyes:

You even admitted that you were an anti-semite. And you are constantly defending Stalinism.

[yuriandropov]

i may have called myself an anti-semite as i there is no other word for someone who dislike jewish culture and religion. i have repeatedly said i am not prejudice against the jewish race.
about stalinism, i agree that stalin ws the right man at the right time. i would (and so would most of you probobly) be speaking german now if it wasn't for him. i agree with elements of stalinism but i am not a stalinist. anyway, since when has it been a crime to be a stalinist? just because it is a different form of communism doesn't mean its worse than your kind. what you fail to realise is that stalinists want the same goals you do. they are just more realistic, they think it will take time and have different ideas about getting it.
i personally think all stalinists should be allowed in the commie club and that i should be allowed to post anywhere also.

[Michael De Panama]

It's not a crime on this board to be a Stalinist, necessarily, but all rightwingers are stuffed into this forum. It just so happens that Stalinist sympathy is very rightwing.

I personally think that stuffing the Stalinists onto this message board is causing a great deal of chaos.

[Nateddi]

I wouldn't mind having stalinists have access to the whole forum. This is the only one where we debate. The theory forum is useless if the only people who use it are libertarian leftists. We need discussions among the leftists since this isn't a hippy only forum. You might as well restrict CheG for his revolutionary, anti-democratic transition beliefs. Just let all leftists visit the whole forum. It will also be interesting with people like Yuri to offer a different perspective, and add some diversity and flavour to the leftist-only forums.

[Moskitto]

I didn't think Imperial Power could post in Chit Chat anymore. He used to be able to though.

[joseph K]

in reply to yuriandropovs analysis of anarchy; I agree it human nature to try and better ones self, or basiscally to pursue happiness, but only under capitalism is it assumed by an indoctrinated society that this is done by gaining social status and possessions. If we reached a state of anarchy, with its implications of secure and equal order- without rulers, surely we'd have evolved beyond capitalism, "bettered ourselves" as a whole species?

Is this overly idealistic?

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Yuri, I think I understand what you are saying but you seem to be wording it wrongly.

You dislike the jewish culture and religion because of your communist beliefs but you don't hate jewish people.

[yuriandropov]

exactly!

[komsomol]

I am a Liberal Communist, however I call myself Liberal not because I am extremely Liberal (i am moderate), but because I want to destinguish myself from the authoritarians who in effect redefined Communism. The extreme authoritarians are guilty of coming out on the right, Stalin has been accused of being a fascist, not that Yuri Andropov was like that, he paved the way for the openess of the years ahead with his good friend and supporter Gorbachev, who unfortunatlet let things slip away into the hands of people who had lost faith in the Communist ideology.Listen my friend is it not true that full communism, when the state has "withered away" would leave no authority, Anarchism.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 8:23 pm on May 26, 2002
exactly!


Then whats wrong with everybody? I'm pretty sure Yuri isn't Hitler reborn.

[guerrillaradio]

Yuri - I don't get it. I'm as anti-religious as you, but why do you single out Judaism???

And, back to the point in hand: Anarchy is a combination of communism and capitalism. It is not extremely right-wing, neither is it extremely left-wing.

The opposite of fascism is not communism, it is anarchy.
The opposite of communism is not capitalism, it is neo-liberalism.

[Fires of History]

Yuri said, "if you give people the right to have sex with the person of the same sex, what happens when someone who wants to own land comes along and says, 'whats worse, having relations with the same sex or owning land?' what will you do?"

What will I do? I'll beat the shit out of them for such a fascist view of homosexuality. What's worse!? Please! Damn you're a thoughtslave. Did you have a little too much bible crammed down your throat for such a fucked up view of homosexuality?

Also, you don't have to give people the "right" to have sex with people of the same sex, it will happen either way and has all throughout history. Gay rights is about stopping the societal and legal persecution of a natural activity. Damn you are a fascist.

Also, you're understanding of Anarchy is unique to you. Which is my way of saying that you're wrong.

(Edited by Fires of History at 1:25 pm on May 27, 2002)

[El Che]

"if you give people the right to have sex with the person of the same sex, what happens when someone who wants to own land comes along and says, 'whats worse, having relations with the same sex or owning land?' what will you do?"

lol, I still cant believe this guy is for real.

[yuriandropov]

guerillaradio, i appreciate you trying to understand why i hate judaism so much rather than just calling me a fascist but i have made it clear so many times. look at all the threads were i have posted my many reasons why.
FOH, for a start, i was giving you an example, not my personal opinion. i have never read the bible but i do come from a country (USSR) were homosexuality was banned. lenin made it legal but the popular thought was to ban it again. being the kind of man lenin was, he put the descision of the people before his own personal opinion.
IMO, homosexuals have been notorious enemies of communism in the past. ever since it was banned in soviet union. also, your beloved che hated homosexuality! i would like to see your responce to that (directed at el che more than foh).
anyway foh, your view isn't very democratic. just because someone doesn't agree with you, you 'beat the shit out of them?'. a very stalinist way of doing things. what if it, like it was in USSR, is the popular descision to ban homosexuality?
you even call homosexuality a 'naturul activity' what?? since when is having sex with another man naturul? it serves no purpose to nature, it only serves a purpose to the individual.
and also, you say 'whats worse', well as your such a liberal, one could say, 'who are you to decide whats worse?'. you can't be an authoritarian and a liberal at the same time. i have made it clear i am more of an authoritarian communist but you have to be consistent. you can't just be mr liberal and then switch to mr stalin when it suits you. kruschev and gorbachev found that out the hard way.

(Edited by yuriandropov at 2:11 pm on May 27, 2002)

[El Che]

What is it that you direct at me? Is it that homosexuals are notorious enemies of communism? Or maybe its your proposition that a ban on homosexuality be subjected to popular vote?

My answer to you is are you serious? Did you just get out of a time warp directly from the middle ages or something? How can you expect me to taken your arguments seriously? Do I have to explain to you that certain things are above popular vote, things like human rights. While democracy is supreme value, somethings are above democracy, in that they are above what the majority thinks of them. Democracy is one of the things that is above democracy, understand? The question of a ban on homosexuality is above democracy, you dont put something like that in question, just like you dont put democracy its self in question. Its not that you can`t put those and other things in question, you can effectivly do this, but there is a concensus on these issues in civilized societies. Fundamental rights are consagrated on something call a constitution. Now in a civilized society, in a mentaly sane and democraticaly funtional society, fundamental human rights are defended regardless of what the majority thinks or says or does. If a party, representing the majority, where to pass law banning homosexuality that law would be decleared unconstitutional due to the fact that it violates the human right of a homosexual person to presue his own sexuality in whatever way he wants to.
Its disturbing that you dont recognise the most basic foundations of modern societies and humanitarian values. Its time to embrace the XX century yuri.

[Fires of History]

El Che is quite correct, nothing to add.

Also, Yuri, you seem to have a very narrow view of democracy. What about the rights of the minority? And, what does someone's personal sexual habits have to do with anything? How is it the state's- or society's- business who someone decides to have a personal relationship with?

As to your other questions, it's not even worth going into with you if you think homosexuality is wrong in some way. You're a homophobe. You ask, "Since when is having sex with another man naturul?" Obviously you have no conception of what it means to be homosexual. It is natural because it is what the homosexual naturally feels attracted to. Imagine feeling as attracted to the same sex as you feel towards the opposite sex, and then being persecuted for that. Fun huh?

And if you're going to be so silly as to base you're idea of social freedom on what is "natural," remember all the other things that are not natural that you take for granted every day. Plastics, antibiotics, cars, etc, etc...going into space isn't natural either, but you don't seem to have a big problem with these things now do you?

Also, when I said, "What's worse?" I was quoting you dumbass.

[Michael De Panama]

Ah, the fabulous Yuri.

IMO, homosexuals have been notorious enemies of communism in the past. ever since it was banned in soviet union. also, your beloved che hated homosexuality! i would like to see your responce to that (directed at el che more than foh).

Oh yes. The act of two people of the same gender having sexual intercourse within the privacy of their own homes is definitely a major threat to the structure of a government.

I don't really buy this, "Che hated homosexuals" argument, as I have never read anything that says so. If you could find me something supporting your argument, I'd love to read it. But I doubt that Che was an intolerant fool. If he was, I will remind you that I am not his duplicate. I love the man, but nobody's perfect.

you even call homosexuality a 'naturul activity' what?? since when is having sex with another man naturul? it serves no purpose to nature, it only serves a purpose to the individual.

Well, I can't really answer as to WHEN it was natural, but I can tell you when it became unnatural: When the Bible was first written. Before that, Rome and Greece were filled with homosexual behavior. And I thought you were anti-religion, hmm?

It's natural because it is a natural attraction that two people have. You and me are naturally attracted to females. I like females with nice legs. You might be a breast man. Who knows? But some people are attracted to men. These people might be women, or homosexuals. Who gives a fuck? It isn't your business who fucks who, so get your little neo-fascist nose out of it.

[yuriandropov]

michael de paname, about che hating homosexuals, this was quite common knowledge although i couldn't quote a source were he says it.
homosexuality, naturul? that is ridiculous. it is naturul for man and women to engage in intercourse because it is used to create life. two members of the same sex engaging in intercourse does not benefit nature, it creates nothing. our naturul physical make up is designed for intercourse with the opposite sex, not the same.
yes homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. but so have murderers and thiefs, that doesn't make it right does it? (and no i'm not comparing a homosexual to a murderer, its just an example).
i am not a homophobe. if someone wants to do that sort of thing in there own home, thats fine, but its when people glorify it in the media that it annoys me. when men dress up as women just to be different, that annoys me. when homosexuality is flaunted in front of my face, that annoys me.
the ban on homosexuality in USSR was not really saying, you can't be gay. it was just saying if you are going to be gay, do it in the privacy of your own home.

[Nateddi]

Homosexuality is not natural, I agree with that. However homosexuals can't help being attracted to the same sex. Its a deformity, or a mutation, or some genetic trait, I am not sure. They don't choose to be homosexual just like we don't choose to be heterosexuals, it is just how we are.

The bottom line is that the state has no right saying what is right and what is wrong, on personal issues that is. It is a waste of resources to go after people simply for being a minority.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Nateddi on 8:24 pm on May 27, 2002
Homosexuality is not natural...its a deformity, or a mutation

What, do you want an apology or something?? Either you're a fascist, or you need to phrase yourself better...


IMO, homosexuals have been notorious enemies of communism in the past.

As is homophobia, surely?? Inequality??

[Nateddi]

guerrillaradio,

I don't consider homosexuality to be natural, my point was that government has no right controlling these kinds of things.

Did I say it was evil or even wrong? NO! How am I a fascist?

[yuriandropov]

as i have said many times, just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean you think your better than them.
i think public acts of homosexuality should be banned. it should be kept in the bedroom. i wouldn't say don't be gay, i would just say, if you are, keep it private, or risk prosecution.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Nice avatar Nateddi.

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Mac OS Revolutionary on 10:05 pm on May 27, 2002
Nice avatar Nateddi.

Thanks Mac,

Compliment me here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=18&topic=118)

(Edited by Nateddi at 11:27 pm on May 27, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

homosexuality, naturul? that is ridiculous. it is naturul for man and women to engage in intercourse because it is used to create life. two members of the same sex engaging in intercourse does not benefit nature, it creates nothing. our naturul physical make up is designed for intercourse with the opposite sex, not the same.

That's a load of bullshit. I'm sure most non-virgins on this board don't have children. Sex isn't simply an act to procreate. When two people have sex just out of the animal desire, is that not natural? What's not natural is to retrain someone from doing what they want with their own body.

i think public acts of homosexuality should be banned. it should be kept in the bedroom. i wouldn't say don't be gay, i would just say, if you are, keep it private, or risk prosecution.

In other words, "don't be gay". Because I'm sure that if you outlawed homosexuality in general, people who happen to be homosexuals would only be arrested if it was made public. There's no distinction between outlawing homosexuality or outlawing "public" homosexuality. None. No difference at all. Because the law itself is public. Therefore, either way you would be banning public homosexuality.

Unless you're talking about two people having sex on the street or something, to which, I will inform you, it is already a crime. In fact, it is a crime for two people to have heterosexual intercourse on the streets. To single out who can fuck who is disgusting. You are no one to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with another consenting person. The government is no one to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with another consenting person.

i am not a homophobe. if someone wants to do that sort of thing in there own home, thats fine, but its when people glorify it in the media that it annoys me. when men dress up as women just to be different, that annoys me. when homosexuality is flaunted in front of my face, that annoys me.

Sorry to break it to you, but nobody gives a flying fuck about whether or not you get "annoyed". You don't have the right not to be annoyed. You never will have that right. You don't deserve that right. If I am forfeiting that right, letting you and the rest of the intolerant assholes in the world preach their anti-semetic homophobic garbage everywhere freely, I think I have made enough of a sacrifice to show you that to live without laws protecting us from being annoyed is quite possible.

[guerrillaradio]

as i have said many times, just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean you think your better than them.

Well unless you have a low self-esteem and you don't like yourself, then yes it does mean that actually. To be quite honest, I've tried to be rational. I've tried to understand. But at the end of the day, I have no time for homophobic anti-semites. I'm disgusted. Leftists, supposedly representing the politics of freedom, are now telling me how homosexuality is "unnatural...a genetic mutation" and how homosexuals "shouldn't be allowed to practise in public..and are notorious enemies of Communism".

And onto Yuri and Nateddi's point about what is "natural". Is it natural to possess an irrational hatred of a certain race and culture?? what the fuck is natural?? Well, natural is to live in caves around fires, eating wild boars. The truth is we've evolved. We're now responsible human beings, and I say fuck (not literally, of course) anyone who tries to get in the way of me having sex with someone of the same gender.

[lenin]

after reading the thread i would agree with most of what leonid said. i agree that homsexuals are usually notorious enemies of communism. the reason being that (like it or not) communism has to start off authoritarian in order to survive. authoritarian usually means swapping such 'socialist' ideals as internationalism, gay rights and feminism for nationalism, anti-semitism and persecution of minorities.
and homeosexual being naturul? down right ridiculous! if we were meant to have sex with the same sex, there would be a result at the end of it, like there is with child birth. IMO homosexuality is down right sick when you think about it. but as long as it goes on behind close doors, it wouldn't be a problem.

[Nateddi]

Jews are not the enemy of communism, homosexuals are not the enemy of communism. The bourgeois is the only enemy of communism. Gays and Jews have been persecuted in capitalism due to the personal preferences of the employer, they are the proletariat, just as well as straight atheists or straight christians are.

After the revolution, a country must focus on silencing and eliminating the bourgeois, not oppressing minorities (who are effected by capitalism the greatest)! This is completely rediculous.

[lenin]

nateddi, the world marx lived in, in 1848 has changed a lot! the world just isn't bourgeoisie and prolateriat anymore. i would like it to be this way, but it is not. communsim isn't just an economic system. it is a social system. the fact of the matter is every communist nation that has been set up has gone down the same authoritarian road (the right road IMO). because communism isn't 'liberal', many of its enemies are not just class enemies or economic enemies. many of its enemies are social enemies. jews have never been treated well under communist governments so the naturul jewish reaction would be to be wary of communism, the same goes for gays. as communists, we could try to assure these groups that communism does not = anti-semitism, but most wouldn't listen, its like trying to convince a capitalist. you can't change history, you can't change the fact that jews and gays have been persecuted under communism and you can't change the fact that many gays and jews, becuase of this, will be future enemies of communism.

[Reuben]

i agree that jew s and gays were deeply persecuted under communist regimes but How do you explain the fact that here in britain the communist party is still disproportionately jewish. Furthermore jews have been been perseucted by borgoir regimes much longer than by commmunist regimes. Here in Britain, where most of us jews are descended from pre-1917 russian refugees, there was actually a mass exodus back to russia.

Finnally it is not very fair to simply say that because jews and gays have been victimised under communism. we will treat them as enemies, without reference to what any of them feel as individuals

[lenin]

ha ha ha, the good old british communist party. i went to one of there meetings once and lets just say, they didn't take to my political views!
CPGB are NOT communist but are neo-liberals in disguise. from what i know, the closest thing to a communist party that has a chance of power is the socialist labour party run by arthur scargill. he is a good man. national revolutionary faction are national bolshevik but drift a little too far right on certain issues. socialist alliance is shit! they are only just a bit further left than the labour party!
to be perfectly honest, the best chance you have of chnging things in this country is to join the labour party and do it legitimatly like ken livingstone (although he was kicked out). there isn't going to be a revolution in england just yet because things aren't gong that badly for the prolateriat. new labour is trying to make everybody middle class which, is basically the nearest thing you will get to sociaism in western europe.

[El Che]

"the reason being that (like it or not) communism has to start off authoritarian in order to survive. authoritarian usually means swapping such 'socialist' ideals as internationalism, gay rights and feminism for nationalism, anti-semitism and persecution of minorities."

So let me get this straight, you defend a fascist goverment along with nationalism, institutional anti-semitism and a general policy of persecution of minorities!? What the fok? Your a bloody lunatic, and may god help us all if people like you ever get into power.

[lenin]

i don't defend a fascist goverment. fascism is capitalism, i don't defend that. i don't defend persecution of minoritis but i would definatly defend suspicion of minorities. i would defend nationalism or patriotism because after a communist coup, it is vital for the contry to be united. promoting patriotism with anti-semitic feelings like stalin did is a good way to do this.

[Michael De Panama]

Fuck you, Lenin.

[lenin]

great argument michael de panama! leonid has warned me about you too! you really know how to argue don't you.

[Michael De Panama]

Certainly. Read the new thread I opened up. :)

[Fabi]

i suppose impotent men shouldnt allowed to have sex or to marry: THEY DONT REPRODUCE

i suppose women who dont get their period anymore shouldnt be allowed to have sex and should be forced to divorce: THEY DONT REPRODUCE


homosexuality is perfectly natural. what does it do? what is there positive that it does?
it makes homosexuals happy and lets them lead a fullfilled life: IF THEY ARE HAPPY AND HEALTHY THEY WILL WORK AND SUPPORT THE ECONOMY

masturbation doesnt lead to children. should it be outlawed? NO, IT IS NATURAL: PEOPLE ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY MORE STABLE WHEN THEY MASTURBATE. also the sperm quality gets better if you masturbate once in a while (i suppose that doesn apply to women, but that is not my point)


suppressed (or oppressed) homosexuality and other needs similar lead to psychological problems. a person with problems wont be able to do good in a society. so HAPPY (in lack of a better word) homosexuals are more likely to be FOR the system that LET THEM BE HAPPY and will be more likely to work within that system.

that only to contradict you.... my god... arent you all proud of me that i am so reasonable and didnt say FUCK YOU a single time? gee, i am so proud of myself...... ;) ;)

[Nateddi]

All men are created equal.

If you are Jewish, you are no less a communist than if you are not Jewish. Same thing with homosexuality. Face it comrades, about 10% of the world is homosexual. It may not seem as the natural thing to be, however homosexuals cannot help being attracted to males, similarly how heterosexuals cannot help being attracted to females. Homosexuality is something you are born with, you cannot control it, you cannot change habits, you cannot adapt to it. Either you are gay or you are not. Gay people are no less human, and are no enemies of communism.

Anyone who helps or is the bourgeois is an enemy to communism. Gays, Jews, and other minorities that you want to oppress are already oppressed under capitalism. How are they more of an enemy to communism than any other "normal" person???

Marxism is for everyone, its not for the "perfect" humans only, we are all different, we all have a right to not be prosecuted simply for who we are.

Enough said.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Not all jews are money grubbing bourgeois. Most people think because a few jews are wealthy all jews are wealthy opressors.

It's the same with communists. Just because Stalin was a Totalitarian dictator it doesn't mean all communists are.

[lenin]

ok, with this next comment you are going to think i am worse than hitler, but let me explain my reasons before you jump straight in.
if i was head of the communist party in russia, i wouldn't let jews join. not because i don't necessarily like jews, but because of the way they were treated in USSR. i would naturully think that they would be out for revenge. in UK or USA communist party, no problem, anyone could join, but not in russia. the divide between jews and communists has gone too far!
we all like to think that we are all equal but lets face it, we are not, or we are, but only few people think like that! we have treated each other disgracefully in the past 2000 years and in some cases, there is no chance of reconsilliation! one of these cases is jews and russian communists. another example would be a pro-slave trade party (stupid example i know!), they wouldn't let blacks join would they. because they would fear sabotage.
again, don't take my comments as anti-semitic bullshit. i'm just giving you the facts.