Should the US give the Pope such a presidential welcome? [Archive]

Dejavu

16th April 2008, 18:18

Well considering Bush is an Evangelical and Evangelicals are usually hostile toward the Catholic Church I find this a bit interesting but not all that surprising.
On the one hand the Pope is the leader and top diplomat from a recognized independent country ( Vatican City) and a customary reception would be applicable to all nations' representatives. In this sense its no different than the Queen of England or Premier of China visiting.

But its not as if the Pope will speak from government pulpits. He'll be participating in specifically Catholic functions in the U.S. which I deem completely legitimate.

Dr Mindbender

16th April 2008, 19:18

Dr Mindbender

16th April 2008, 19:19

Well, Fidel had no problem greeting Pope John Paul II when he came to Cuba.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/pope/bio/papal/link.pope.castro.jpg

Perhaps he was just trying to humour Cuba's predominate roman catholic lobby?

Demogorgon

16th April 2008, 20:15

What does this entail?

It means he has Diplomatic status equivalent to a foreign Head Of State. Diplomacy still follows the old nineteenth century rules by and large, so that means the red carpet has to be rolled out for the pope and so on.

The ruling classes like their little games.

Bud Struggle

16th April 2008, 20:39

The thing which gets me is Bush supposedly advocates democracy so why he is rushing to greet a head of theocratic state who was never elected?

By that logic he should also be welcoming with open arms the leadership of Iran.

Bush welcomes your Queen, doesn't he and the king of Saudi Arabia, etc.?

Also, the Pope IS elected--but the College of Cardinals.

Dr Mindbender

16th April 2008, 20:48

Bush welcomes your Queen, doesn't he and the king of Saudi Arabia, etc.?
Well, I've never once espoused that the UK is a bona fide democracy in the first place.

I mean, they never gave the Irish people a referendum to give them a say before they decided to split the island in 2.

Also, the Pope IS elected--but the College of Cardinals.
Which means what in the context of secular democracy?

Fuck all I'm guessing?

RGacky3

16th April 2008, 22:29

Perhaps he was just trying to humour Cuba's predominate roman catholic lobby?

We got a detective here .... :)

Of coarse, and thats what bush is doing, playing politics, so why the hell not, its his job.

Faux Real

16th April 2008, 23:33

These two awful excuses for human beings deserve each other's welcome.

Robert

16th April 2008, 23:48

The reception is evidence of a plot between the Dope and the Pope to indoctrinate Americans in the tenets of Catholicism. (Bush's Methodist pastor feels particularly betrayed in this.)

It is also hypocritical as noted, for the Vatican is much farther along in its development of nuclear weapons than Iran.

Reports that the Swiss Guard is preparing a ground war against Albania, however, seem far-fetched. To me.

Bud Struggle

16th April 2008, 23:51

These two awful excuses for human beings deserve each other's welcome.

Oh, it could be worse:

http://www.drben.net/files/China/Source_Materials/China_Politics/Communism/Mao_Zedong/Stalin_junto_a_Mao_Zedong-Th2.jpg

:D

RGacky3

17th April 2008, 00:41

Compare Stalins track record to the Vaticans track record, Stalin's not such a bad guy :P, plus he only lasted a couple decades, Catholic terror went on for centuries. but then again, for just being one guy, Stalin did a lot, then again so did many of the popes.

RHIZOMES

17th April 2008, 01:30

Because the Pope is the head of a 400-acre "state".

Robert

17th April 2008, 02:42

Catholic terror went on for centuries.

What's the highest number of murders committed by the worst pope in history? Double it. What's the result?

Since we're talking "centuries of Catholic terror," take the highest number of murders committed by all Popes combined that you can fairly document. Now double it. What's the result?

Compare that result to the numbers who starved to death, just in Ukraine in, say, 1932-33. What's the result?

Sentinel

17th April 2008, 07:48

The ruling classes like their little games.

Those games will be done with the next time we have a proletarian revolution. We saw how ugly it was when the USSR upheld them (all the medals and shit). Also, speaking of revolutions, I hope that a future proletarian society puts Ratzinger on trial for crimes against humanity if he enters it's territory, rather than welcoming him.

Well, Fidel had no problem greeting Pope John Paul II when he came to Cuba.And I hold that he made an error in that gesture, as well as his general lenient approach to religion. You may now wonder if I support Castro. I support the Cuban Revolution as the social model Latin American workers prefer, against US Imperialism. I believe that while Castro has too much influence, it is still the people's revolution -- and not Castro's, like bourgeois press claims.

If the Cuban people wants to welcome Ratzinger, I can only point my finger and say explain it's wrong. I can't somehow 'officially' condemn them, however. :rolleyes:

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 20:15

And I hold that he made an error in that gesture, as well as his general lenient approach to religion. You may now wonder if I support Castro. I support the Cuban Revolution as the social model Latin American workers prefer, against US Imperialism. I believe that while Castro has too much influence, it is still the people's revolution -- and not Castro's, like bourgeois press claims.

If the Cuban people wants to welcome Ratzinger, I can only point my finger and say explain it's wrong. I can't somehow 'officially' condemn them, however. :rolleyes:

Well, since J-P II was instrumental in causing the downfall of Eastern Block Communism, I could see how Fidel would want to tread lightly on the subject. :D Seriously, a HEAD OF STATE is a HEAD OF STATE--no matter how big or small the country. And Fidel has a MAJOR Catholic population, no matter if he likes it or not.

I'm going to Cuba in a couple of weeks--I don't travel as I used to me and the old lady with back pack staying with the locals (kids are a royal pain in that area :rolleyes:) I have to do "the boat pulling into Havana Harbor with the Gringo that buys cigars" thing, but I will try to get out into the hinterlands of at least Havana and try to give an honest report on what I see. I will try not to be too bias.

TomK--RevLeft's Man in Havana! :laugh:

Unicorn

17th April 2008, 20:38

The Vatican has a long tradition of conspiring with the CIA. John Paul II worked to destabilize Poland and restore capitalism in the 1980s. Not surprising that the Americans are giving the current Pope such a warm welcome. Although FYI, in the 19th century Americans were anti-Catholic and racist against Irishmen and other immigrants from Catholic countries.

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 21:13

The Vatican has a long tradition of conspiring with the CIA.

No actually the other way round. The CIA on occasion got information from the Vatican. The Vatican has no need of any information the CIA has to offer

John Paul II worked to destabilize Poland and restore capitalism in the 1980s.

And I suppose all that "science" is contained in Marx's Das Kapital. :D

Not surprising that the Americans are giving the current Pope such a warm welcome.

The Soviet Union is ancient history to most people outside of RevLeft.

Although FYI, in the 19th century Americans were anti-Catholic and racist against Irishmen and other immigrants from Catholic countries.

True. Then the Catholics took over.

Robert

17th April 2008, 21:59

a long tradition of conspiring with the CIA.

Yes. One of many overlooked findings of the Warren Commission was that 3 guys in red robes and matching beanies were seen fleeing the grassy knoll seconds after Kennedy was shot in '63. I'm not saying they actually pulled the trigger on the second gun. But ... well, you fill in the blanks.

Pirate turtle the 11th

17th April 2008, 22:07

What's the highest number of murders committed by the worst pope in history? Double it. What's the result?

Since we're talking "centuries of Catholic terror," take the highest number of murders committed by all Popes combined that you can fairly document. Now double it. What's the result?

Compare that result to the numbers who starved to death, just in Ukraine in, say, 1932-33. What's the result?

Can i count those killed by aids due to the "condoms are evil because i say so" bullshit the church has being sprewing out

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 22:23

Can i count those killed by aids due to the "condoms are evil because i say so" bullshit the church has being sprewing out

And you don't like the Church for the people you perceive to be killed by it--I would think you would be equally offended by the Communists. Yet you continue to believe.

Communism is a religion.

Unicorn

17th April 2008, 22:33

No actually the other way round. The CIA on occasion got information from the Vatican. The Vatican has no need of any information the CIA has to offer

And I suppose all that "science" is contained in Marx's Das Kapital. :D
John Paul II visited Poland numerous times and supported the Solidarity movement. He played a crucial role in the restoration of capitalism there. In fact, Andropov concluded that he was elected as the Pope because of a CIA conspiracy.

Green Dragon

17th April 2008, 22:39

John Paul II visited Poland numerous times and supported the Solidarity movement. He played a crucial role in the restoration of capitalism there. In fact, Andropov concluded that he was elected as the Pope because of a CIA conspiracy.

Yes. The Left does seem to turn to conspiracy theories to explain away why developments and facts do not seem to conform to their other theories.

Unicorn

17th April 2008, 22:47

Yes. The Left does seem to turn to conspiracy theories to explain away why developments and facts do not seem to conform to their other theories.
Andropov was the chief of the KGB at the time and later the General Secretary of the CPSU. He was a highly intelligent man and the leader of a superpower. Considering the numerous successes and accurate intelligence the KGB had during the Cold War your characterization of him as a conspiracy theorist is ridiculous.

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 22:58

John Paul II visited Poland numerous times and supported the Solidarity movement. He played a crucial role in the restoration of capitalism there. In fact, Andropov concluded that he was elected as the Pope because of a CIA conspiracy.

Well, I don't know of a CIA "conspiracy. I think Karol Cardinal Wojtyla might have bee itching to give the Soviet Union a try and the Church let him have a go at them.

FWIW: I don't think the Vatican really cares or does much with the CIA. The Vatican does stuff on it's own in it's own way.

I'm pretty certain of that.

Sky

18th April 2008, 00:36

The Vatican propaganda forces actively oppose communism. The Vatican’s social doctrines support private property, the class division of society, class inequality, and so on. New developments in the Vatican’s activities do not signify the rejection of the traditional anticommunist line in its ideology. This can be seen from the statements of some Vatican leaders, attacks against “atheistic communism” in the encyclical Ecclesiam suam of Pope Paul IV, Cardinal Ottaviani’s announcement in 1965 on retaining in force the anticommunist decree of 1949, and so forth.

The Vatican’s hostility toward communism made it, after World War II, an ally of the more aggressive imperialist circles of the USA and other capitalist states in their struggle against the forces of democracy and socialism. The Vatican welcomed the plans for the formation of the NATO aggressive military bloc. In 1949 a decree was issued excommunicating communists from the church and all those who collaborated with them or read the communist press. The Vatican and its agents endeavored to prevent the spread of socialist revolutions in the people’s democracies. Its leaders came out against measures by any authority of a people’s democracy that would hurt the economic positions of the Catholic Church. For example, the Vatican protested the Czech government against the secularization of church lands in Czechoslovakia, and many persons suffered repressions in the form of excommunication in Romania in 1951 and Poland in 1953. In 1949 a decree was issued condemning patriotic Czech priests and activist laymen who refused to follow the proimperialist course of the Vatican. The Vatican supported the counterrevolutionary revolt in 1956 in Hungary, in which Cardinal Mindszenty took an active part. The Vatican launched a campaign of slander against Russia. In the western areas of Russia, the Vatican agents among the reactionary Catholic clergy and traitors to their homeland endeavored to hamper the rebuilding of the national economy.

Dust Bunnies

18th April 2008, 02:28

I am a Catholic, and I think it is not extreme with the welcoming. The Vatican is a city-state. I will admit our history hasn't been the best... but its useful for anyone to be nice to the Pope even though he looks like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars.

Robert

18th April 2008, 04:41

Can i count those killed by aidsSure, go ahead, if you honestly think that telling people not to have premarital sex with multiple partners is the moral equivalent as shooting them or starving them.

Also, I don't know how you are going to prove how many died as a result of church policy and how many died because they couldn't or wouldn't wear condoms anyway, but if you think it helps, sure, go ahead.

Also, you should in fairness to me back out of the resulting number those who were saved from death by AIDS for following the church's prohibitions.

I grant you all that and you still lose. By tens of millions. Isn't it just remotely possible that Stalin starved and murdered more than any one pope you can name, or even all the popes combined?

The Vatican’s hostility toward communism

Gee, I can't imagine why a church wouldn't be more enthusiastic in their support of state-sponsored murder and religious persecution.

Dust Bunnies

18th April 2008, 11:24

I don't blame Pope John Paul II for trying to stop what was called "Communism" and "Socialism". I don't think destabilizing countries to join a mass murdering country that wasn't even Communist is a good thing.

Faux Real

18th April 2008, 11:26

You admire him for turning the other way while Latin American Archbishops and their supporters were being mowed down by American-backed paramiltaries? Some Catholic you are.

careyprice31

18th April 2008, 13:56

Forgive me for insulting the rats, but I think Ratzinger is a good name for him. because he is a rat.

the catholic church has condemned more people to suffering and death than yes even stalin.

For example they want to go to africa and take away the condoms, while africa has the highest population of people affected by aids, and without caring that many of those societies are patriarchal, where many women are not allowed to say no to sex and where some even practice "dry sex" where a woman shoves things into her vagina to dry it out before sex, a act that many doctors believe increases risk of infection because a penis can easily tear little cuts in a dry vagina that isnt lubricated.

Fuck the whole catholic church for its beliefs and sexism not allowing women to become priests and so on, they cause lots of pain to billions of people through the centuries, I bet alot of people would want to hurt him and think you cause me pain you come over here I'll show you some fucking pain !!

luxemburg89

18th April 2008, 14:16

Pope Benedict has had an unprecedented reception from President Bush, but is it right for the leader of the Catholic Church to get such a special welcome?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

Well I hate religion as most of you well know, and I hate this particular Pope more than any other religious lunatic in the world, except maybe Bush. However, yes he should get such a presidential reception because he is not just head of the Nazi Part...I mean Catholic church, he is the head of state of the Vatican City. He is therefore a world political leader so it makes sense he is treated in this way. The real question is should he be the head of state anywhere? And the answer is NO.

RGacky3

18th April 2008, 18:03

Bud Struggle

18th April 2008, 19:42

I am extremely offended by so-called "Communists," who use communism as the church uses christianity.

But then you have the Communists that say--"it's a science!" Then when you point out all the failing of the Marxist predictions, they say, "but all those innocent people suffering under bourgoise oppression!" and then when you mention all those people that died under Communist dictatorships, you get, "it's a science!"

Really.

ID has a thousand times more science than Marxism. Just let Communism run through a first rate inductive emperical examinination and then see what you get.

Whatever it is: it ain't science.

Robert

18th April 2008, 21:10

Bud Struggle

18th April 2008, 21:22

"All those people who died under communist ...."

TomK, you presumably have noticed that, on this board, when you offer such an observation, the communist's response is simply: "there has never been a communist regime, so no one has ever died under communism." Mao, Stalin, Ho, Pol Pot, Dear Leader, Great Leader, none were communists.None.

So forget trying to have honest debate on these issues. Just have fun.

Cordially,

RTG

Yes indeed, and muchly noted.

No one is a Communist unless they fit a particular argument being discussed on a particular thread at a particular time on RevLeft. Then they are the living SOUL of Communism. Then in a flash, they are gone.

In last debate there were some Communists seen in Spain in 1934. Finding REAL Communists is kind of like hunting the Dodo bird.

Good observation, RTG.:thumbup:

And fun is being had. Samesuch enjoyment to you.

Cordially,

Tom

Sky

18th April 2008, 22:03

Gee, I can't imagine why a church wouldn't be more enthusiastic in their support of state-sponsored murder and religious persecution.
The allegation that there has been religious persecution in the socialist countries is groundless. Under socialism, there is freedom of religion as well as the freedom to disseminate atheistic literature. The claim of "state-sponsored murder" demonstrates profound ignorance. While there has been a moratorium on capital punishment in Cuba for some years now, United States courts routinely hand out death sentences. There are a staggering 3500 prisoners awaiting execution in the United States.

Demogorgon

18th April 2008, 22:15

And you don't like the Church for the people you perceive to be killed by it--I would think you would be equally offended by the Communists. Yet you continue to believe.

Communism is a religion.
Communism isn't a religion. The same way that Liberalism, Social Democracy, Conservatism etc are not religions. Though you could make a VERY good case that parties like the Communist Party Of The Soviet Union acted much like a state religion.

People who criticise Christianity for killings in the name of Christianity (from the crusades to condoms) are as wrong as those who blame Communism for what happened in the Soviet Union and so on. I am VERY tolerant of religion. It would be nice if religious people could return the favour by being tolerant of Communism. Many already are of course. Indeed the majority of Communists I know are probably good little Catholics when I think about it. And the local nuns often come and give as coffee and sandwiches when we man our stalls. But there is still a lot of mutual intolerance. I would like to see that barrier come down completely and stop the bigotry between the two. Obviously we have our disagreements but there is no reason for antagonism.

Robert

18th April 2008, 22:45

There are a staggering 3500 prisoners awaiting execution in the United States. __________________While I support your complaint that too many are executed, you fail to realize that these prisoners are not on death row in the USA for having criticized George Bush or having circulated pro-socialist newspapers, or worse, for just being related to a critic of George Bush. (Cf. prisoners in North Korea.) Or for having posted on a commie website. We'd all be in prison under the Chinese system. Convicts on death row in the USA were convicted, invariably, of murder with aggravating circumstances such as killing a child under 6, a police officer in the line of duty, a shopkeeper in the course of a robbery, and so on. Granted, some may be factually innocent, and so I support the moratorium you describe. But ...

Go read the Gulag Archipelago and then tell me more about the fairness of communist legal systems and the disparities between those murdered by the state here and in any communist regime you want to mention. Or read any of a number of accounts from refugees of North Korea.

Yeah, yeah, I know about your ace in the hole: "those aren't real communists," right?

As for this:

The allegation that there has been religious persecution in the socialist countries is groundless.

Has been? If you cannot admit that The People's Republic of China is or ever was socialist, then further dialog is pointless, if it ever had a point. Religious persecution has been rampant in China since the revolution and it continues with only slight and superficial abatement.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/047/2002/en

freakazoid

18th April 2008, 22:50

Yeah, yeah, I know about your ace in the hole: "those aren't real communists," right?

Are you saying that they are?

Sky

18th April 2008, 23:06

Religious persecution has been rampant in China since the revolution and it continues with only slight and superficial abatement.

This is groundless. There are tens of thousands of churches, mosques and Buddhist and Taoist temples in China with hundreds of thousands of priests. There exists in China complete religious freedom for all traditional faiths.

Convicts on death row in the USA were convicted, invariably, of murder with aggravating circumstances such as killing a child under 6, a police officer in the line of duty, a shopkeeper in the course of a robbery, and so on.

The same applies to China. Death sentences are handed down not for political reasons but for various crimes against persons and property.

Go read the Gulag Archipelago

Prison in Soviet Russia was no different from similar institutions found in capitalist countries or even during the Tsarist autocracy. This attempt by bourgeois propagandists to portray the "Gulag" as something peculiar is very disingenuous.

The conditions described in the Gulag Archipelago do not account for the legal system in Russia from the 1950s up to the beginning of the 1990s. I can select just as many prison diaries from people languishing in capitalist jails, such as those by Nehru, etc.

Robert

18th April 2008, 23:31

This is groundless.I have Amnesty International telling me it's not "groundless," and you telling me it is. I wonder what to do ... I'm so conflicted.

At least you appear to be acknowledging that the USSR was and the PRC is "socialist." It's a start, I guess.

As to the "numbers of churches," I didn't claim that there are no churches in China. I've actually been inside of one. Your point was that the notion of religious persecution in socialist countries is a "myth," I think you said. Think about Tibetan monks and please be a little more candid.

Last point: you can get the death penalty for bribery and corruption in China. You cannot in the USA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18911849/

RGacky3

19th April 2008, 05:27

The allegation that there has been religious persecution in the socialist countries is groundless. Under socialism, there is freedom of religion as well as the freedom to disseminate atheistic literature.

Its not at all groundless, hundreds of people in the USSR were locked up for religious reasons.

TomK, you presumably have noticed that, on this board, when you offer such an observation, the communist's response is simply: "there has never been a communist regime, so no one has ever died under communism." Mao, Stalin, Ho, Pol Pot, Dear Leader, Great Leader, none were communists.None.

So forget trying to have honest debate on these issues. Just have fun.

So you are saying they were? That in under their regiems the people controlled the production and the economy democratically? Because thats what I advocate. You can call them whatever you want, it does'nt change the facts of what they did, how their societies were run, and how they were not even remotely communistic.

Robert

19th April 2008, 16:40

So you are saying they were? That in under their regiems the people controlled the production and the economy democratically? Because thats what I advocate. You can call them whatever you want, it does'nt change the facts of what they did, how their societies were run, and how they were not even remotely communistic.Look, I confess that none of these horrid regimes are democratic in any sense, though that should be my point, not yours. And I know -- at least I hope -- you don't advocate totalitarianism. It just cannot escape my and your notice that in every single one of these anti-capitalist revolutions, for some strange reason we end up with a President for Life who appears to become paranoid and homicidal. And the economies tank. I admit I am relying on western press reports and stories of refugees, but what am I supposed to think?

If you on the other hand can name one, just one regime that has developed democratically as you advocate and which has economically prospered, I'll concede your point. You know that you cannot, and so the question now is "why?" My suspicion is that the reason it will never happen is that the majority of people don't want the kind of equality you advocate. Oh, they say they do in the fervor of the moment. But what they really want is equality of opportunity and some semblance of a meritocracy. When they start making these sentiments plain, the revolution's leaders know that they can't tolerate it or the revolution and their control will unwind. Maybe I'm wrong. What is YOUR explanation for the zero success rate to date? The revolutions to date may not have been socialist in their final configurations, but they started that way in concept, and they sure as hell weren't capitalist.

I do salute your concern for the working classes. I admit it's noble.

Sentinel

19th April 2008, 16:52

Seriously, a HEAD OF STATE is a HEAD OF STATE--no matter how big or small the country.Yes indeed, but the Vatican's most important buildings should be erased with the ground, and it's area and resources returned to the workers of Rome. And oh yeah, Ratzinger and the top cardinals put on trial.

I'm going to Cuba in a couple of weeks--I don't travel as I used to me and the old lady with back pack staying with the locals (kids are a royal pain in that area http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif) I have to do "the boat pulling into Havana Harbor with the Gringo that buys cigars" thing, but I will try to get out into the hinterlands of at least Havana and try to give an honest report on what I see. I will try not to be too bias.Sounds interesting, please keep us updated. I bet you will feel a bit like James Bond there. :D

Also remember to buy some Havana Club for your Mojitos. Much better than the gusano piss known as Bacardi, and by purchasing it you sponsor the Revolution. ;)

RGacky3

20th April 2008, 02:22

If you on the other hand can name one, just one regime that has developed democratically as you advocate and which has economically prospered, I'll concede your point.

Zapatista Chiapas (survives today dispite many violent attacks from the Mexican government),

large parts of Anarchist Spain during the revolution (eventually destroyed from being attacked by both Franco and the Nationalists and the Soviet backed republicans),

the Ukraine Anarchism during the revolution of 1917-1920 (eventually destroyed by the Bolshevics),

The Hungarian Revolution (Again the Soviet Union messed this one up)

The Isreali Kibbutz (Still around in Isreal)

The Paris Commune (until it was taken out by the Prussians)

I'm sure the're are many other examples, now the interesting thing about all of those, is the ones that collapsed did so because of external violent force, not because it turned into a tyrranny, not because evey one lost motivation to work, not because they did'nt produce enough for everyone, because outside armies destroyed them, interesting huh? I'd also count Oaxaca as an example, although I'm not sure what the present state of the APPO is.

Robert

20th April 2008, 17:46

Fair enough. I'll research all and report back. I'd appreciate any resources you can suggest.

I already see a problem, though ... it may appear to me that the regimes you mention failed internally because they were communist, and to you that they were destroyed from without because they were communist. How do we resolve that?

I'll admit too that there are some primitive agrarian communities/societies in Latin America that I know of right now (and yes, in many other places too) that are communist for all practical purposes. Too many of them want to emigrate for me to avoid the suspicion that they don't really prefer the risks of living in a capitalist country to the security of living a simple life on the staples of beans and corn.

And HOW are you a "counterrevolutionary"?

RGacky3

20th April 2008, 21:55

it may appear to me that the regimes you mention failed internally because they were communist, and to you that they were destroyed from without because they were communist. How do we resolve that?

History :P, thats how you resolve it, because its pretty clear, for example in the case of Anarchist spain, that they were doing well, infact better than Capitalist spain, and that most of the Anarchists were shot by either the communists or the Fascists, getting shot is external.

I'll admit too that there are some primitive agrarian communities/societies in Latin America that I know of right now (and yes, in many other places too) that are communist for all practical purposes. Too many of them want to emigrate for me to avoid the suspicion that they don't really prefer the risks of living in a capitalist country to the security of living a simple life on the staples of beans and corn.

Many of the examples I gave were industrialized heavily.

And HOW are you a "counterrevolutionary"?

I have moral objections to abortion.

redSHARP

21st April 2008, 00:21

going back to the thread, a head of state is a head of state. out of respect and honoring the traditions of head of states, we should welcome him and allow him to enjoy himself. When he gets back to his turf, then the war continues and we try to crush him and put his head on a pike.

Dust Bunnies

21st April 2008, 00:33

Amen redsharp although the head on pike is a bit cruel...

Bud Struggle

21st April 2008, 13:59

and that most of the Anarchists were shot by either the communists or the Fascists,

Yea, I found it pretty interesting that the Communists sided with the Fascist when it came to killing Anarchists in Spain.

careyprice31

21st April 2008, 15:52

"Its not at all groundless, hundreds of people in the USSR were locked up for religious reasons."

One of my university friends once had a prof for one of her courses whose grandfather was murdered by the Cheka because he was a priest in a church.

Sentinel

21st April 2008, 16:02

One of my university friends once had a prof for one of her courses whose grandfather was murdered by the Cheka because he was a priest in a church.

Sound highly unlikely that it would have been the (sole) reason, and abundantly more likely that he because of his religious convictions took part in counterrevolutionary activity, which then wasn't tolerated.. :rolleyes:

Sky

21st April 2008, 20:56

....

Bud Struggle

21st April 2008, 23:18

During the National Revolutionary War in Spain in 1936-39, some anarchists and their leaders rejected the necessity of revolutionary discipline during the war. They withdrew certain units from the fronts, arranged rowdy disturbances and provocations in the rear, and demanded “immediate revolution” and “libertarian communism.” These actions objectively assisted the fascist takeover of Spain.

The heroic defense of Madrid demonstrated the correctness of the policy of the Communist Party, which aimed at creating a people’s army capable of repulsing the enemy and which was being carried out despite the resistance of Largo Cabellero. He was increasingly falling under the influence of the anarchists who did not believe in the victory of the people. His complicity with the anarchist adventurists caused the takeover of Malaga by the fascists on 14 February 1937. Largo Caballero’s connivance enabled anarchic Trotskyist groups, in which enemy agents were operating, to whip up a putsch against the republican government.

A pretty convincing argument for the continual falure of Communism.