Why does the left look up murderers like Che Guevara and Lenin? [Archive]

21st July 2008, 03:45

well, a murderer that done enough great things to erease his death toll is a hero.

when the murderer fail to do that, he a murderer.

thats bullshit firstly,murderer is a murderer!he cant erase anything.
And no protecting yourself and the revolution by killing counter-revolutionaries doesnt make you murderer.Thats why Che isnt a murderer.He fight for revolution and died for it,but never killed outside revolution!

Fuserg9:star:

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 03:48

thats bullshit firstly,murderer is a murderer!he cant erase anything.
And no protecting yourself and the revolution by killing counter-revolutionaries doesnt make you murderer.Thats why Che isnt a murderer.He fight for revolution and died for it,but never killed outside revolution!

Fuserg9:star:

so, if i fallow your logic, if in my city and there is a bunch of people manifesting against a revolution during the revolution, and that i kill them all, i am not a murderer?

that completly deprived of humanism

21st July 2008, 03:52

Trystan

21st July 2008, 03:52

Much of the time, no, it was not. For example, I do believe that to kill the whole Russian royal family was murder. Killing Nicky? No. I don't "look up" to anybody, but I admire both of these (albeit flawed) men for the dedication that they had in fighting for the cause.

Why is it acceptable to look up to Bush, btw? To Rumsfeld? To McCarthy? John F. Kennedy?

To the Christian God? :lol:

forward

21st July 2008, 03:54

Someone who is capitalist cannot be innocent? And dont use examples of other people, because I dont look up to anyone.

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 03:55

you missed me,they are counter-revolutionaries and they ATTACK you and revolution,yes you have to protect yourself and revolution even by killing.What you will let them kill you first to be humanist?

Fuserg9:star:

to me someone that attack me have a weapon or a firearm, proper wresponse to a proper attack, a political attack require a political response.

killing unarmed dissents suck, and if its communism fuck it then.

21st July 2008, 03:56

forward

21st July 2008, 04:02

Fuserg I was not talking to you, I was talking to Psy who thinks all couter-revolutionaries should die.To those who think that, think of it for a moment. Think of all the fathers, sons, mothers, daughers, grandmothers, grandfathers you are killing.

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 04:04

@forward
you are asking the same things in 2 different topics,i already answered it to you on the other topic,go read it or stop spamming!You came here to listen our oppinions or just to drop your owns?

@spetnaz21
you still didnt get my point!

Fuserg9:star:
your point was, i think,

couter-revolutionaries= piles of dead corpses.

my point:

armed counter-revolutionary=attack them
unarmed counter-revolutionary=leave them alone

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 04:05

forward,
what the fuck is your point?

Someone who is capitalist cannot be innocent? And dont use examples of other people, because I dont look up to anyone.
no capitalists are not innocent, because capitalists support the oppression of the working class.

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 04:08

forward,
what the fuck is your point?

he dosnt have a real point, he troubled, have a ton of question, but he also shocked by what he see here, i suggest everyone to go easy with him, its not by hitting him that he will understand something.

no offense to anyone.

21st July 2008, 04:10

your point was, i think,

couter-revolutionaries= piles of dead corpses.

my point:

armed counter-revolutionary=attack them
unarmed counter-revolutionary=leave them alone

thats my point,a person who dont attacks you, you DONT kill him,not even hurt him.
the unarmed isnt the proper to say although,someone might be at that moment unarmed but in different time he attacked.The whole thing is who he is and what he does,not what he thinks!

Fuserg9:star:

Psy

21st July 2008, 04:16

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 04:18

thats my point,a person who dont attacks you, you DONT kill him,not even hurt him.
the unarmed isnt the proper to say although,someone might be at that moment unarmed but in different time he attacked.The whole thing is who he is and what he does,not what he thinks!

Fuserg9:star:

in a democracy, you have to expect to see people that wont necessarly agree with what you doing, and if your action is legitimate, there should be none or almost nobody reacting, its when the action is carried by a minority that massive opposition ensue.

the trick is to be able to sell the product to most of the peoples and after the rest goes smooth and sound.

forward

21st July 2008, 04:20

Lost In Translation

21st July 2008, 04:26

My point is that murdering innocent people is not justified, only for security measures.
So, you're saying that if a few extremists are attacking your country, murdering people that are of that race, but are innocent is justified?

but killing people for not agreeing with them? hell no
But it's for "security measures". We have to make sure that they don't start a revolution :D:D.

But I agree, killing people because they have conflicting views is not a valid reason. Killing innocent people for security measures is not a valid reason either.

mykittyhasaboner, capitalists are those who own a buisness yes? That in itself is not evil.
I realize this is not directed at me, but I still want to give my two cents. Capitalists who own businesses oppress the workers because they are blinded by their desire to make money, that they don't appreciate the efforts of the workers.

Trystan

21st July 2008, 04:33

forward[/color];1198617]Someone who is capitalist cannot be innocent? And dont use examples of other people, because I dont look up to anyone.

Tsar Nicholas was a tyrant and a murderer. He was far from innocent. It's no surprise that Stalin could become the man he became, with a regime like that having preceded his. The Tsar was also a threat to the revolution.

Again, we would only kill capitalists (or anybody), if it is absolutely necessary. If they decide to fight the people for example, as they did in Russia. I certainly hope that they would not be killed simply for their politics.

My point is that murdering innocent people is not justified, only for security meassures.:lol::lol::lol:

And you accuse us of being authoritarian?

#FF0000

21st July 2008, 04:54

I don't think anyone here seriously condones killing people who don't think as we do (at least not the sane among us) during a revolution or post-revolution. I, along with (I hope) many of us here believe violent force should only be used against violence. So, if you're a fan of capitalism, that's fine. Just don't pick up a gun to push the cause.

And as for Che, he was no saint, but a mass murderer? Please. Latin America was far from a happy and peaceful place, even before Che. Violence and brutality was nothing new there. Dictators and obscene poverty were common place. Such an environment just breeds more violence and brutality. It's simple cause and effect.

And don't forget who Fidel, Che and Co. were fighting. Batista was not a friendly guy. He was just as brutal, if not moreso, than Che was. So, let's take a look at this then. We have a brutal and violent environment and a brutal, violent, and repressive fascist regime. The fact that Che was violent makes a lot of sense to me, considering this. Don't think for a second Batista would have just given him a pat on the shoulder and a fair trial if the revolution failed.

Che certainly wasn't a saint, but calling him a mass murderer implies that he killed people that weren't intent on or guilty of committing horrendous violence against others already, and that, frankly, is bullshit.

forward

21st July 2008, 04:57

It is justified only in certin cases if it is a threat to the majority. Someone who just says starts a revolution is not justified in killing people.In capitalism people ae guided by profits, but that is what makes it so good, because even despite that, people get the best quality. The people who made your computer dont care about you, they care about your money, so they will make it the best they can, so they can get your money. And you are happy too, because you bought an effecient product. If the workers are oppressed in a certain compan, they can quit. If it weren't for capitalists people would be out of work. The workers do not do the most work, it is the CEOs and such who do.

Trystan

21st July 2008, 05:08

In capitalism people ae guided by profits, but that is what makes it so good,

I think that the thousands of children who die everyday from otherwise treatable diseases might disagree with you. Not enough money to pay pharmaceutical companies, I s'pose. I guess they don't work hard enough to get rich, eh?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ethiopia/gfx/titlephoto.jpg

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 05:08

#FF0000

21st July 2008, 05:09

It is justified only in certin cases if it is a threat to the majority.

I'd say using violence against a repressive fascist dictatorship is one of those cases.

Someone who just says starts a revolution is not justified in killing people.

Even if he is doing so to free them? What about the American Revolution, where only a minority of the people (though a significant minority) were in favor of it?

In capitalism people ae guided by profits, but that is what makes it so good, because even despite that, people get the best quality. The people who made your computer dont care about you, they care about your money, so they will make it the best they can, so they can get your money. And you are happy too, because you bought an effecient product.

Or they'll coat your children's toys in lead paint because it's cheaper than regular paint. Profit motive can lead to some pretty awful stuff as well.

If it weren't for capitalists people would be out of work. The workers do not do the most work, it is the CEOs and such who do.

WHAT. Are you telling me paper-pushers, executives, and managers exoend more energy than roofers, construction workers, landscapers, mine workers, and factory workers?

Do executives and CEOs have to do dangerous work in unsafe conditions too?

21st July 2008, 05:10

Who did Lenin kill?

forward

21st July 2008, 05:10

In Ethopia it is different because there arent opperunities to get money, whereas in America, there is.

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 05:11

My point is that murdering innocent people is not justified, only for security meassures.
im guessing your referring to Che at La Cabana, since you mentioned him earlier. well those "innocent people" that were executed, were members of Batista's regime, and counterrevolutionaries.

but killing people for not agreeing with them? hell no.
whos done that?

mykittyhasaboner, capitalists are those who own a buisness yes? That in itself is not evil.

someone who owns a business and employs others, gains from the employee's labor, rather than the worker themselves. while the laborer is paid an, often insufficient, wage to sustain themselves, the employer profits much more. this is called wage slavery. so yes, that in itself is "evil".

#FF0000

21st July 2008, 05:11

In Ethopia it is different because there arent opperunities to get money, whereas in America, there is.

So capitalism doesn't work for everyone? You don't say! :rolleyes:

Trystan

21st July 2008, 05:17

In Ethopia it is different because there arent opperunities to get money, whereas in America, there is.

Oh . . . you've done it now.

And why are there not opportunities? In the so-called "developing" world? I'll tell you why, it's because western corporations go in there and steal the resources, and pay the people who they do employ fuck all.

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 05:17

It is justified only in certin cases if it is a threat to the majority.
then what are you complaining about!? :closedeyes:counterrevolutionaries are a threat to the majority!

In capitalism people are guided by profits, but that is what makes it so good, because even despite that, people get the best quality. The people who made your computer dont care about you, they care about your money, so they will make it the best they can, so they can get your money. you are wrong. the people who made my computer do not profit from the computer sales, they are paid by their employers. the workers do not get "my money", it goes to the owners of the business.

And you are happy too, because you bought an effecient product.i certainly am not happy to pay money for a computer.

If the workers are oppressed in a certain compan, they can quit. thats nonsense, for one its not easy at all to get a steady, workable job. and they would only have to work for somebody else if they quit, so that doesnt fix anything.

If it weren't for capitalists people would be out of work.The workers do not do the most work, it is the CEOs and such who do.the workers do all of the work, thats why they are called workers!! the CEO's do nothing.

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 05:19

this is really bad, i hate discussion like those, its like 2 brick hitting eachother, when 2 extreme get face to face, nothing ever come from good of it.

foward, i have to ask you, why have you come here?
to understand?, to convince people?
why?

forward

21st July 2008, 05:35

Why is everyone bombarding me with messages? I cant respond to everything, so I will take some points:Workers have lots of rights as it is. With hardwork and innovation, they can achive better. Why is the US such a developed country? How did it get to that stage? Certainly by not taking others resources, because why didnt Ethopia do that too? I mean at the start BEFORE the US was so strong and powerful. The US does does not have dictatorship, it was through the ideas of democracy that were fought for, whereas Ethopia does not have a good government. THE US IS NOT CAPITALIST!!!!!! It is a mixed economy, it has medicare and such and government intervention and regulations and restrictions for those who do not offer society a favour. PURE CAPITALISM WAS WHAT WAS USED IN PINOCHET'S DICTATORSHIP, NOT THE US. THE US IS A MIXED ECONOMY. If you are unable with your job, do something about it. Go to college, get a better job. There. Problem solved.

danyboy27

21st July 2008, 05:38

to goto colledge you have to get the money for it.

#FF0000

21st July 2008, 05:42

words

Answer me this.

Under capitalism, is it possible for everybody in the world to make $40,000 a year or more and live a comfortable life? If every country was a liberal democracy and capitalist and everyone was as hard-working as you think they have to be, would it be possible to eliminate poverty and for everyone to have a decent quality of life?

Trystan

21st July 2008, 05:44

PURE CAPITALISM WAS WHAT WAS USED IN PINOCHET'S DICTATORSHIP, NOT THE US. THE US IS A MIXED ECONOMY.

So you're a fascist now? :confused:

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 05:56

Workers have lots of rights as it is. With hardwork and innovation, they can achive better.
bullshit, workers have very little rights. and there is no guarantee that workers will be promoted to better positions simply by hard work.

Why is the US such a developed country? How did it get to that stage?
because the US ruling class has exploited its workers for 200+ years, thus generating and consolidating lots of wealth. also, by imperialism.

Certainly by not taking others resources, because why didnt Ethopia do that too?
because Ethiopia is an exploited country, they dont do the exploiting. the US certainly does take resources from other countries, are you that incompetent?

I mean at the start BEFORE the US was so strong and powerful. The US does does not have dictatorship, it was through the ideas of democracy that were fought for, whereas Ethopia does not have a good government.
the US isnt a dictatorship by definition, but whats the difference? only bourgeois politicians can be elected, and the working population has no control over what politicians do once they are elected.

THE US IS NOT CAPITALIST!!!!!! It is a mixed economy, it has medicare and such and government intervention and regulations and restrictions for those who do not offer society a favour. the US is not capitalist? honestly do you really think that? business owners own the means of production, workers are slaved by wages, and there are clear class distinctions. that means the US is capitalist. medicare is only available if you can afford it.

PURE CAPITALISM WAS WHAT WAS USED IN PINOCHET'S DICTATORSHIP, NOT THE US. THE US IS A MIXED ECONOMY.
so what is "pure" capitalism.

If you are unable with your job, do something about it. Go to college, get a better job. There. Problem solved.
workers can do soemthing about it, by becoming socialists, and fighting the class struggle. Going to college isnt easy, you need lots of money.

OI OI OI

21st July 2008, 05:58

Forward. I am writting this response in case you are not a troll which I think you are .

First of all how can you assert that Lenin was a murderer?
The revolution in Russia had only 16 deaths and that was workers or people that were killed by workers when they were trying to defend themselves. After that there was a civil war which lasted three years.

If the war was lost then the forces of reaction which wanted Czarism to return would have slaughtered millions of workers. Why did workers revolt in the first place? Because they were exploited, with no freedom and their lives were miserable. When they tried to demand better working conditions in most cases they were brutaly supressed. In one instance in a demonstration in 1905 , 4000 of workers were killed by the armed forces of the Czar. The crime of the workers? They carried pictures of the Czar and by singing songs about the glory of the "little father"(the czar) and with a priest on their head they tried to go to the palace and give hima petition. Such were the forces of reaction. And in a war against these people you have to kill in order to not get killed. Also what about the 21 imperialist armies who invaded the Soviet Union supporting the forces of reaction? Aren't they murderers?

So that being said Lenin did not kill innocents he was only the head of the movement of the workers who fought for a better life. And they achieved it(although I only criticaly support the Soviet Union but that is not Lenin's fault but Stalin's and the bureaucracy) It was just self defence against their opressors and of course the best defence is attack. They did not kill innocents, just armed forces of reaction.

As abot Che Guevara similar things apply. He fought for a better life for the workers . And he was certainly not a murderer. Although he was ideologicaly confused he was an honest revolutionary that had a dream about a socialist south america emancipated from the slavery imposed by American imperialism and local capitalists and semi-feudalists.

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 06:02

you are not a troll which I think you are
i think hes Raynai, whos comeback and is trying to sound smarter than last time. he even posts the same way.

forward

21st July 2008, 06:09

This is for mykittyhasaboner,hate your job sooooo much? GET ANOTHER ONE. Improve yourself, will you? Why is America such a powerful country? It got this way through democratic features. idc that its not a technical democracy, people still have the right to vote. The reason why it has infleunce over the whole world is because it has a decent government and strong economy, the economy is strong because of capitalism, dont say it isnt now because a healthy economy goes through recessions like it does in growth. it's completely natural, and any country with capitalist features has better conditions than any socalist countries. if America was capitalist, there would be no welfare system. i cant afford college, its called student loans and scholarships.

Dros

21st July 2008, 06:11

Killing innocent people is justified?

What innocent people did Lenin kill?

forward

21st July 2008, 06:18

Actually I read somewhere about all the people Lenin killed, i cant find it now. But anyways the Bolsheviks killed Nicholas II's whole family. I doubt the Russian Revolution only had a total of 16 deaths, it was a bloodly revolution, i'm assure. Aside from the RussianRevolution, once he got power he sent his Cheka against all counterrevolutionaries. The one guy who was sent to the Gulags, dont remember his name Alexander something, anyways said that the totalitarianism regime began with Lenin, that's right, he wasn't a good guy. The cheka, alhough less oppressive, was comparable to the NKVD.

OI OI OI

21st July 2008, 06:18

i think hes Raynai, whos comeback and is trying to sound smarter than last time. he even posts the same way.

I don't know who Raynai is but forward needs to be restricted and post his questions in the OI forum .
Where are the moderators??

forward

21st July 2008, 06:20

He killed counterrevolutionaries. Like people who were against communism because they didn't like poverty that they were in and wanted their children to have a better life,Also I'm pretty sure there was a famine during lenin's rule, yes? Why would that be?

Dros

21st July 2008, 06:23

Actually I read somewhere about all the people Lenin killed, i cant find it now.

I didn't ask if Lenin killed people. See, unlike you, I know what I'm talking about and I do know that Lenin was responsible for deaths. I asked how many innocent people Lenin killed, if any.

But anyways the Bolsheviks killed Nicholas II's whole family.

Right. An imperial autocracy responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths, a semi-feudal economic and social hierarchy, and crushingly backward social policy is certainly innocent.

I doubt the Russian Revolution only had a total of 16 deaths, it was a bloodly revolution, i'm assure.

Right. It was a war. In war, people die. That's what happens. They weren't accidental victims and they weren't killed (as in executed/murdered) by Lenin.

Aside from the RussianRevolution, once he got power he sent his Cheka against all counterrevolutionaries.

Again, the operative word here is "innocent."

The one guy who was sent to the Gulags, dont remember his name Alexander something, anyways said that the totalitarianism regime began with Lenin, that's right, he wasn't a good guy. The cheka, alhough less oppressive, was comparable to the NKVD.

Read my sig. Lenin explicitly states his intention to suppress counterrevolution. That's totally fine with me.

Also I'm pretty sure there was a famine during lenin's rule, yes? Why would that be?

If you knew anything at all about the history of Russia you would know that famines occurred regularly due to dependence on farming, backward production relations, and meteorological irregularities. Strange that you don't talk about famines in capitalist countries as if it's the rulers fault. That's a natural disaster. But when a fungus hits Eastern Europe (that's right, the famine wasn't just in Russia), it's specifically Lenin's fault.

OI OI OI

21st July 2008, 06:28

I doubt the Russian Revolution only had a total of 16 deaths, it was a bloodly revolution, i'm assure.

That's a fact. The bloodshed happened in the civil war

As about the rest Drossera99 made an excellent response.

forward

21st July 2008, 06:39

Okay so Nicholas II was an incomponent leader, so you think killing not just him but his family is okay? That reminds me of the justice system of North Korea (lol, another communist country, ironic eh!), ooh you say bad about Kim Jong il, now all your family who did nothing wrong must die. Counterrevolutionaries want the status quo back because they were happy then. So they die for enforcing the SAME methods the Bolsheviks did to gain power? Ooooh, sorry you must die because you actually want economic prospoerity ya ya ya. Nicholas II's regime was not very good, but the creation of the Soviet Union was ultimately much worse and backwards indeed. The economic system, being planned and all, gives the government much more authorirty...and indeed leads to dictatorships.

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 06:51

This is for mykittyhasaboner,hate your job sooooo much? GET ANOTHER ONE.
actually im unemployed, along with around 14 million others in America. its not easy to get a job.

Improve yourself, will you?
improve your intelligence, will you?

Why is America such a powerful country? It got this way through democratic features. idc that its not a technical democracy, people still have the right to vote.
america is powerful because its an advanced capitalist empire. that exploits billions of workers, and destroys other countries for monetary gain, not through democracy you moron. people have the right to vote for a person, not what they do.

The reason why it has infleunce over the whole world is because it has a decent government and strong economy, the economy is strong because of capitalism, dont say it isnt now because a healthy economy goes through recessions like it does in growth.
"influence" ah, so thats what you call going to war with other nations, killing countless civilians, exploiting workers, and stealing resources. the US goes through recessions because capitalism is unstable.

it's completely natural, and any country with capitalist features has better conditions than any socalist countries.
really? ok lets use Cuba as an example.

Poverty- US 12-15%/ Cuba 4.1%
Unemployment- US 5.5%/ Cuba 1.9%
Inflation- US 3.2%/ Cuba .30%
Persons Per Hospital Bed- US 303/ Cuba 185

need i go on? or do you comprehend my point?

if America was capitalist, there would be no welfare system. i cant afford college, its called student loans and scholarships.

you just said that America is capitalist, are you trying to sound stupid?

you have to payback student loans, and scholarships hardly ever pay for all expenses.

Schrödinger's Cat

21st July 2008, 06:58

My point is that murdering innocent people is not justified, only for security meassures. but killing people for not agreeing with them? hell no.mykittyhasaboner, capitalists are those who own a buisness yes? That in itself is not evil.

If Che had killed everyone who disagreed with the Cuban Communist Party, about 10% of all nationals would have to be executed. Consequently all those Cubans who spoil their ballots every year would be locked up. I'm sorry to tell you but working as a military, financial, and government operative to a puppet dictatorship doesn't make you innocent.

What a contradiction! In one sentence you defend the capitalist system, and in the next you attack the US as being non-capitalist because of welfare. If the United States isn't capitalist, then I guess we should praise its success on socialism.

forward

21st July 2008, 07:10

lol if you're unemployed how do you have a computer?Let's look at those statistics, shall we?the poverty is high in the US because most people are lazy.Unemployment is high again because people arent willing to get jobs. Or would you rather go to Cuba where you get paid shit there? The pictures of Cuba I've seen are 1950 cars, propoganda about how horrible America is, and children on the streets with no money. This is the result of a planned economy. When the economy is controlled by the government, things are not produced in reation to the needs of the people. Inflation stiminates economic growth at a particular rate, which is 3% in America, plus or minus a bit, by the federal reserve. So that is not an index of comparison. You want to see the hospitals of Cuba? Go to the site the real cuba dot com. See how bloody misrable theyare here. Hate America so much? Are you even American? Because if not, you have no right to say how horrible it is. Go to Cuba, look at people suffering. It's not even a democracy....or unless you mean having one party represents a democracy.

forward

21st July 2008, 07:18

Schrödinger's Cat

21st July 2008, 07:19

How exactly do you place the blame of the Russian Civil War on Lenin when the Whites killed about 3x more people than the Reds. The Reds were one of the few to lay off civilians. :rolleyes:

Interestingly enough, about the same percentage of people died in the Russian Civil War as the American one (as well as the American Revolution, which was really a Civil War.)

Schrödinger's Cat

21st July 2008, 07:21

What I mean was that the US is not pure capitalism. It has capitalist features, and some social programs, but that hardly makes it socialist. I dont praise the economy og America, all I know is it works and much better than Cuba, for example. Much better than most of the world.

What is "pure" capitalism? Nothing "pure" has ever existed. "Pure" feudalism was supposed to bring about perfect harmony.

Most of these social policies like welfare are written by capitalists. 'Mixed economy' is a nice way of keeping people satisfied. It's a compromise so just shut up.. mkay.

Lost In Translation

21st July 2008, 07:34

I don't care if these questions are not directed at me, but I can't pass on an opportunity like this.
if you're unemployed how do you have a computer?Hmm...maybe because you can own stuff when you're unemployed, and maybe at one point when you were employed, you bought it...just a suggestion.

Let's look at those statistics, shall we?the poverty is high in the US because most people are lazy.Unemployment is high again because people arent willing to get jobs.How is that a statistic? That's a sweeping statement at best.

The pictures of Cuba I've seen are 1950 cars, propoganda about how horrible America is, and children on the streets with no money.The pictures I've seen of America are people lining up outside of IndyMac, and propaganda of how wonderful America is. Oh, and don't forget about all those people sweating like pigs on Wall Street after the Nasdaq experienced a record plummet.

This is the result of a planned economy. When the economy is controlled by the government, things are not produced in reation to the needs of the people.So America's economy isn't planned? In other words, it's spontaneous?
Inflation stiminates economic growth at a particular rate, which is 3% in America, plus or minus a bit, by the federal reserve. So that is not an index of comparison.It is an index of comparison when the inflation rate of America is 10 times that of Cuba.

You want to see the hospitals of Cuba? Go to the site the real cuba dot com. See how bloody misrable theyare here.Better than having no medicare at all.

Hate America so much? Are you even American? Because if not, you have no right to say how horrible it is. Go to Cuba, look at people suffering.Hate Cuba so much? Are you even Cuban? Because if not, you have no right to say how horrible it is. See what I did there?

It's not even a democracy....or unless you mean having one party represents a democracy.Just because it's not a democracy, doesn't mean it's a shithole.

DancingLarry

21st July 2008, 07:50

So forward, what about your boy, your A-#1 Cubano, Luis Posada Carilles? Is he "da man" to you? Is he not a murderer? Is he being protcted by the US government from prosecution for his crimes?

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 07:54

lol if you're unemployed how do you have a computer?
because i save money, the very little money i get without employment.

the poverty is high in the US because most people are lazy.Unemployment is high again because people arent willing to get jobs. that is the worst argument heard from you yet, honestly do you think while your typing? as ive explained multiple times before, employment isnt easy, and certainly isnt an efficient way of achieving sustinence.

Or would you rather go to Cuba where you get paid shit there?at least i could get a job in cuba withouth much effort, and be provided health care.

The pictures of Cuba I've seen are 1950 cars, propoganda about how horrible America is, and children on the streets with no money.pictures of cuba dont explain everything. there are bad pictures of the US too, stop using bullshit arguments, they wont get you anywhere.

This is the result of a planned economy. When the economy is controlled by the government, things are not produced in reation to the needs of the people. of course because the government doesnt control the economy in capitalism. that was sarcasm if you didnt get that. you honestly do not know what your talking about.

Inflation stiminates economic growth at a particular rate, which is 3% in America, plus or minus a bit, by the federal reserve. So that is not an index of comparison.what do you mean its not an index of comparison? inflation makes it much harder for people to purchase goods, something that is really pissing off a lot of people in the US.

You want to see the hospitals of Cuba? Go to the site the real cuba dot com. See how bloody misrable theyare here.at least Cubans can visit the emergency room, and not have to pay thousands of dollars.

Hate America so much? Are you even American? Because if not, you have no right to say how horrible it is. Go to Cuba, look at people suffering. It's not even a democracy....or unless you mean having one party represents a democracy.i live in the US. as globalcommie quite rightly stated, if you dont want non-americans to criticize america, why should criticize cuba? and having 2 partys doesnt represent democracy either.

21st July 2008, 07:57

Hi forward, read up on history. Here's a great resource (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm).

forward

21st July 2008, 08:01

WHAT THE HELL???? Command economies fail because they do not rely on consumer behavior so things are produced that people are not demnding, the prices are not influenced by mircoeconomics, by consumers. Socialism FAILS for than in addition to the fact that it is easily corrupted. It leads to dictatroships. So if someone were to ask, would you rather live in a socialist country or a fascist country I would say a fascist country (not nazism which is more comparable to socialism). Not that I support fascism, but hell, I'd rather live in a country that has some morals, then a country where EVERYONE except the elite are treated like shit. Cuba is a great country eh? Go there then, go to your socialist utopia. Have fun! www.therealcuba.com

21st July 2008, 08:04

forward

21st July 2008, 08:08

lol love universal healthcare? I'd trade you spots anytime. In America, if people can afford it, they can special treatment. In Canada and many European countries, you die because you dont get your results back for awhile and they put much effort in your case. trust me, I live in Canada and have heard of many who died from this system....And you dont care about them?

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 08:16

^^Q-Collective already said it, but you really are a bad troll, because you have a very inept understanding of politics and economics.

forward

21st July 2008, 08:25

21st July 2008, 08:35

Dont know what a troll is (in the sense you speak)But you have a very inept understanding of politics and economics."Hey let's reproduce the system of the Soviet Union because that worked so well! Who cares that the economy will completely fail and people will live in poverty? Let's hear it for the destruction of the horrible market economy that is the US where people are able to change their situation. Lets let the government have full authority of the economy and in addition everyone's live. How does that sound?"

If you keep the trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)) up, please inform yourself a bit on the subject. You're really embarrassing yourself. You could for example read this excellent piece of Marxist critique on Stalinism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm), you did claim you want to learn after all.

mykittyhasaboner

21st July 2008, 08:37

forward

21st July 2008, 08:50

When did I say all Marxists are Stalinists?

Lost In Translation

21st July 2008, 16:35

When did I say all Marxists are Stalinists?
When did we say that?

Oh, already restricted, forward?

Dros

21st July 2008, 18:21

Okay so Nicholas II was an incomponent leader, so you think killing not just him but his family is okay?

I didn't say anything about incompetence. I said he was a reactionary.

That reminds me of the justice system of North Korea (lol, another communist country, ironic eh!), ooh you say bad about Kim Jong il, now all your family who did nothing wrong must die.

Yeah. NK sucks. No argument here.

Counterrevolutionaries want the status quo back because they were happy then.

True. They were benefiting from the coerced exploitation of millions of people! Why wouldn't they be happy.

So they die for enforcing the SAME methods the Bolsheviks did to gain power?

What are you talking about?

Ooooh, sorry you must die because you actually want economic prospoerity

Right. Because that's what existed under the Czar. Look, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. How about you go read a book and actually take some time to study the history. Then, when you come back, you won't make such an ass of yourself.

Nicholas II's regime was not very good, but the creation of the Soviet Union was ultimately much worse and backwards indeed.

And you make this absurd assertion based on... nothing.

The economic system, being planned and all, gives the government much more authorirty...and indeed leads to dictatorships.

Right. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a system where the masses are finally enfranchised and begin to control production.

forward

21st July 2008, 21:40

So you think people who do not want their children to live in poverty (the inevitable result of communism) and will fight for it should die?If a revolution takes place, I'd surely fight back because I dont want to live under communism. Never said there was prosperity during the Czar's rule, just said that prosperity cannot exist under communism. Killing all counterrevolutionaries and their families is incredibly unjust and stalinist. So, it's very similar to North Korea, that's why I was using that as an example.

21st July 2008, 23:41

you are silly and still making stupid comments,go shoot yourself before an evil comie comes around and kills all your family.
boooooooooh casper is right next to you!:closedeyes:
why do you even stay around?we showed to you that you think incorrect and you have NO CLUE about communism but you continue making your own silly judgments.
ps:dont close the lights an Anarchist may come and kill you,Goodnight.

Fuserg9:star:

comrade stalin guevara

22nd July 2008, 00:03

North Korea, that's why I was using that as an example.

Again it is not communist! its ideology is Juche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche).

Bud Struggle

22nd July 2008, 00:10

North Korea, that's why I was using that as an example.

Again it is not communist! its ideology is Juche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche).

Of course North Korea is economically Communist--Juche or not. The problem is that it also takes politics to the extreme--and thus is an embarassment. There are plenty of petty dictatorships that have perfect free enterprise systems that are an embarassment to the Capitalists.

Don't confuse economics with politics.

Jazzratt

22nd July 2008, 00:14

So you think people who do not want their children to live in poverty (the inevitable result of communism) and will fight for it should die?

Well, ignoring your blatantly stupid assertion, people who are fighting should probably expect people to fight back. If they fight with deadly force they shouldn't come crying when deadly force is used against them, it's common fucking sense.

If a revolution takes place, I'd surely fight back because I dont want to live under communism.

So workers that are fed up with being forced to the bottom of the pile by bloated leeches and their thuggish henchmen and will fight to change this deserve to die?

See how ridiculous your rhetorical style is now, fuckcarriage?

Killing all counterrevolutionaries and their families is incredibly unjust and stalinist.

Killing their families is, yes, unjust but killing people that have taken up arms against you is eminently reasonable.

Lost In Translation

22nd July 2008, 01:05

So you think people who do not want their children to live in poverty (the inevitable result of communism) and will fight for it should die?
What?! When did we say that? How can you assume that Communism will end in flames? You have never been in a real communist society. You have never seen real communism in action. They're all degenerated worker states controlled by a 'Communist party'.

If a revolution takes place, I'd surely fight back because I dont want to live under communism
Why not? Again, you have never witnessed what communism actually looks like. You're just being force-fed bourgeois bullshit that you willingly swallow.

Never said there was prosperity during the Czar's rule, just said that prosperity cannot exist under communism.
Then I suppose this never happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Year_Plan_(USSR) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Year_Plan_%28USSR%29)

Killing all counterrevolutionaries and their families is incredibly unjust and stalinist. So, it's very similar to North Korea, that's why I was using that as an example.
You didn't learn a single thing...44 posts in, and you're still making the same mistakes as you did 44 posts before.

Dros

22nd July 2008, 02:03

So you think people who do not want their children to live in poverty (the inevitable result of communism)

:lol::lol::lol:

You fail at trolling.

and will fight for it should die?If a revolution takes place, I'd surely fight back because I dont want to live under communism.

Stalin had a great solution for people like you!

Chapter 24

22nd July 2008, 02:17

This is highly typical reactionary drivel. You do realize that the bourgeoisie expect you to say that Lenin and Che are murderers as part of their agenda. There's propaganda all around you and you seem to be soaking it in like a sponge.

Bud Struggle

22nd July 2008, 02:36

Stalin had a great solution for people like you!

Ouch!!!:lol:

forward

22nd July 2008, 03:49

I dont know what an ideal communist society is, you're right. However I know that it will not end up good. Let's look beyond the theory. Equality, equality, equality. Okay, there is no equality evident in any communist country. Dont tell me it's because they're not communist, it somehow started with that inention and failed along the way. Think of all the innocent people killed in your revolution, and for what? So workers who are incredibly lazy and not willing to do anything are being oppressed? Err, how did the CEOs get to their position in the first place? Why cant you?Work hard and be rewarded.

Chapter 24

22nd July 2008, 04:35

I dont know what an ideal communist society is,
you're right. However I know that it will not end up good.
Well I'm glad you know so that we won't have to wonder anymore.

Let's look beyond the theory. Equality, equality, equality. Okay, there is no equality evident in any communist country.
Here's a hint: there is no communist country.

Dont tell me it's because they're not communist,
Well, yeah. They're not classless or stateless, and the workers don't control the means of production.

it somehow started with that inention and failed along the way.
It didn't "just fail" along the way.

Think of all the innocent people killed in your revolution
This is something to be avoided.

, and for what? So workers who are incredibly lazy and not willing to do anything are being oppressed?
First of all, if these workers were "incredibly lazy" they wouldn't be workers at all. Second of all, they would not be oppressed or in fact even coerced to live a communal society. If they were unproductive they would simply not partake in society's spoils.

Err, how did the CEOs get to their position in the first place? Why cant you?Work hard and be rewarded.

People do work hard. Work very hard. Why don't those sweatshop laborers in the Philippines just work harder and they'll be rewarded? And that's where the realization comes in that capitalism does not work for everybody. That's considering the amount of labor an average worker puts into that outweighs what a CEO might have, yet the worker receive a fraction of a percent of what that CEO does.

It's obvious you have many questions on this subject, but you really don't need to make a lot of them. Instead you should put all of your questions into one thread, or better yet look into the FAQ to see if your questions have already been answered.

forward

22nd July 2008, 04:48

Yes I know that there arent any communist countries, I am talking about any country that calls itself communist and how a desire for equality ended up being the very antithesis of equality. I just find that ironic. For every time it was like that, where the people wanted communism and got much worse. Doesn't that show you something? Doesn't that show you that any attempt of creating absolute equality will end up hindering it?

Dros

22nd July 2008, 06:39

I am talking about any country that calls itself communist

So your criticism is grounded in something that we have nothing to do with. Basically, your entire argument is a non sequitur.

Lector Malibu

22nd July 2008, 06:50

Killing innocent people is justified?

Are you from America? If you answer yes I would like to have a conversation with you as an American myself.

I'll give you a hint. It's not going to be about apple pie and baseball.

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 11:17

Innocent counter-revolutionary? Innocent fascists? Aren't these a oxymoron?

Only to a select few that still believe in the backward ideology of marxism.

Otherwise, not so much.

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 11:22

Only to a select few that still believe in the backward ideology of marxism.

Otherwise, not so much.

Who would you an innocent counter-revolutionary, when that revolutionary is supported by the vast majority?

Who would you call an innocent fascist?

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 11:59

Who would you an innocent counter-revolutionary, when that revolutionary is supported by the vast majority?

You're using your spaced out marxist logic, which, to put it kindly- doesn't jive well with reality.

First of all, how will you know there is a vast majority in support of a revolution? What if you think it's 80-20 when in reality its more like 60-40? I doubt Zogby will run a poll for you. Even if the "vast majority" support a revolution, does that mean that the 5, 10 , 20 percent (or whatever) that were against it should be killed or imprisoned? What about the people that don't care? The people that aren't smart enough to have a relevant, coherent opinion?

Secondly, the logic is silly. It only makes sense to marxists. I might as well ask, how can there by an innocent monarchist/christian/marxist/capitalist/buddhist/ etc etc etc. If I'm rabidly against against monarchy it might be logical for me to consider all monarchists automatically guilty. It doesn't make sense to most people though. I view a counter-revolutionary with someone who doesn't agree with the revolution and wants to ensure that the revolution is unsuccessful. He is not a rapist or a murderer, a thief or anything otherwise. He simply does not agree with the society that others are attempting to forcibly implement. That just makes him someone with an opinion.

Who would you call an innocent fascist?

Any fascists who does not murder, rape, steal, or break any major laws.

mykittyhasaboner

22nd July 2008, 12:19

Any fascists who does not murder, rape, steal, or break any major laws.
so openly speaking hateful xenophobia, supporting segregation, support taking rights away from other races is acceptable just because they dont break any laws? what kind of logic is that?

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 12:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedAnarchist http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1199701#post1199701)
Who would you an innocent counter-revolutionary, when that revolutionary is supported by the vast majority?

You're using your spaced out marxist logic, which, to put it kindly- doesn't jive well with reality.

Wrong. I'm an Anarchist-Communist, not a Marxist.

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 12:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedAnarchist http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1199701#post1199701)
Who would you call an innocent fascist?

Any fascists who does not murder, rape, steal, or break any major laws.

What would you call a "major law"?

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 12:27

so openly speaking hateful xenophobia, supporting segregation, support taking rights away from other races is acceptable just because they dont break any laws? what kind of logic is that?

I don't agree with them personally, but anyone is entitled to their opinion- no matter how moronic or outrageous it is. So yes, anyone not convicted in a court of law for a crime of substance (I'm not talking unpaid traffic fines here) is in my book "innocent".

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 12:32

Wrong. I'm an Anarchist-Communist, not a Marxist.

Oh please, don't attempt to derail my point with such a technicality.

It makes no difference to the substance of my point.

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 12:34

Oh please, don't attempt to derail my point with such a technicality.

It makes no difference to the substance of my point.

How does it not?

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 12:35

What would you call a "major law"?

Well, laws against what society generally deems as dangerous and terrible crimes. In addition to the ones I added, you can include things like embezzlement, perjury, incitement of hatred and/or civil disorder. Other stuff too.

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 12:41

Well, laws against what society generally deems as dangerous and terrible crimes. In addition to the ones I added, you can include things like embezzlement, perjury, incitement of hatred and/or civil disorder. Other stuff too.

Incitement of hatred? And you think theres actually a fascist out there who is innocent of this? I don't class civil disorder as either dangerous or terrible, either. Perjury is a bit controversial - its not a crime in my opinion or else every person convicted of a crime when they pled not guilty would be guilty of perjury as well. And embezzlement sounds like a rich person's crime.

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 12:45

How does it not?

First of all because each and every single one of you, young and cool as you are, all need to define yourself by some esoteric label, and when someone challenges you on some aspect of your ideology you reply with- "This doesn't apply to me. I'm a dialectical marxist/anarcho-communist/supah-leninist/contradictory stalinist/visionary hoxaist and so forth.

Now, I'm aware there is a difference between anarcho-communism and marxism. That doesn't change the fact that you apparently agreed with the person who said no counter-revolutionaries could be innocent, which in turn suggests you believe in a violent revolution through which capitalism will be abolished. Which leaves my point umolested.

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 12:49

First of all because each and every single one of you, young and cool as you are, all need to define yourself by some esoteric label, and when someone challenges you on some aspect of your ideology you reply with- "This doesn't apply to me. I'm a dialectical marxist/anarcho-communist/supah-leninist/contradictory stalinist/visionary hoxaist and so forth.

Now, I'm aware there is a difference between anarcho-communism and marxism. That doesn't change the fact that you apparently agreed with the person who said no counter-revolutionaries could be innocent, which in turn suggests you believe in a violent revolution through which capitalism will be abolished. Which leaves my point umolested.

Of course we do, this is a revolutionary leftist forum. That means that your statement is actually of very little significance.

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 12:59

Incitement of hatred? And you think theres actually a fascist out there who is innocent of this?

Many of them, most in fact. You betray a lack of understanding of how the law works. Merely having the belief that (say) blacks are less worth than whites is not incitement of hatred. Neither is telling your family or work colleagues as much over lunch. Neither is writing as much on an internet forum. The same is true for a bunch of different undoubtably racist/biggoted actions a person can take, that we both would find highly offensive. However, where we diverge is in our understanding of the law. Incitement of hatred (although laws may vary somewhat from nation to nation) generally means to persuade, encourage or pressure someone else to cause a crime of a racial nature. There must be mens rea (guilty mind- the person must be aware of the consequences of his actions). Many other factors play in also. Things aren't as black and white as you seem to think.

I don't class civil disorder as either dangerous or terrible, either.

Of course it is dangerous.

Perjury is a bit controversial - its not a crime in my opinion or else every person convicted of a crime when they pled not guilty would be guilty of perjury as well. And embezzlement sounds like a rich person's crime.

I'm rattling of some examples. There are quite a few more. My point was merely, crimes of some substance. Not a 6 year old stealing a candy bar or a man having a beer and blowing red when he's caught by a traffic patrol.

Josef Balin

22nd July 2008, 15:10

Okay so Nicholas II was an incomponent leader, so you think killing not just him but his family is okay? That reminds me of the justice system of North Korea (lol, another communist country, ironic eh!), ooh you say bad about Kim Jong il, now all your family who did nothing wrong must die.
What the fuck are you talking about? You can say whatever you like about Kim Jong-Il first off, and number two if you do something bad they don't imprison your family.

All of that shit about his wealth and about how everyone has to love him is South Korean propaganda that the BBC and CNN believe as true despite no information.

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 15:32

what the fuck are you talking about? You can say whatever you like about kim jong-il first off, and number two if you do something bad they don't imprison your family.

All of that shit about his wealth and about how everyone has to love him is south korean propaganda that the bbc and cnn believe as true despite no information.

oh. My. God.

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 15:37

oh. My. God.

Thats a little strange. You say you're going and then some time later some new member says something stupid that makes leftists look bad and look who replies? I don't normally consider such members to be sockpuppets, but that was pretty convinient for you, wasn't it?

Farrellesque

22nd July 2008, 15:47

Thats a little strange. You say you're going and then some time later some new member says something stupid that makes leftists look bad and look who replies? I don't normally consider such members to be sockpuppets, but that was pretty convinient for you, wasn't it?

I'm leaving from home in 10 minutes for BJJ practice and will be back this evening. I checked back into the thread to check if it had progressed, and found his comment hilarious.

RedAnarchist

22nd July 2008, 15:48

I'm leaving from home in 10 minutes for BJJ practice and will be back this evening. I checked back into the thread to check if it had progressed, and found his comment hilarious.

Its a stupid comment, from a Stalin kiddie.

RGacky3

22nd July 2008, 16:07

Who would you an innocent counter-revolutionary, when that revolutionary is supported by the vast majority?

Who would you call an innocent fascist?

A fascist is innocent until his thoughts turn to physical violence. The same with a Counter-revolutionary.

Now I don't glorify those types, especially not lenin, not really che either. Although Che had many very very good qualities, self-sacrifice, empathy, dedication, unselfishness, things like that, he also killed some innocents (when I say some, I mean SOME, much less than most of Britans or American's 'Heros"), now I don't justify that, and I never will, but that does'nt change his good quailities.

What you guys are saying, would be basically us saying "how could you glorify Chirchill, a man who killed thousands of innocents, (He did you know)." Its the same thing really.

so openly speaking hateful xenophobia, supporting segregation, support taking rights away from other races is acceptable just because they dont break any laws? what kind of logic is that?

its called freedom of speach, and without it you can't have any type of democratic (much less anarchistic or communistic) society. To have to right to take someones right to say hateful speach away, means someone, or a group of people must have that power, which translates into a tyrranny.

Now don't get on your high horses United States government lovers, the US has a pretty dirty freedom of speach record, at leasat up until the 60s, after that they have to subdue it with more subbtle means, ranging from Murder (black panthers), to a very well done corporate propeganda system.

Chapter 24

22nd July 2008, 16:10

Oh, and forward, if anything please stop misusing the term "ironic". The word has nothing to do with the context in which you put it in. For example, "Communism strives for equality, yet North Korea is communist and they certainly aren't striving for equality - ironic, eh?" First off, it's not ironic, it would be a contradiction. Not to mention... North Korea isn't communist and in fact follows an ideology known as Juche.

Lector Malibu

22nd July 2008, 17:36

A fascist is innocent until his thoughts turn to physical violence. The same with a Counter-revolutionary.

Gacky I'm pretty sure why you know why this innocent portrayal of fascist amounts pretty much to a truckload of horse dung. Yeah there are all sorts of Nazi's that don't engage in violence (in the dark ally way hooligan sense) Never the less they are still actively seeking to control an oppress peoples , witch I'd consider a form of violence. Fact: You can die from the sword and you can also die from the pen. There is nothing innocent about fascism period.

To have to right to take someones right to say hateful speach away, means someone, or a group of people must have that power, which translates into a tyrranny.I love it when the opressed hate speech camp spews this aurgument. "We don't want other people to have rights but you better give us what's ours"

And that is exactly what you just said to the letter.

Now don't get on your high horses United States government lovers, the US has a pretty dirty freedom of speach record, at leasat up until the 60s, after that they have to subdue it with more subbtle means, ranging from Murder (black panthers), to a very well done corporate propeganda system.There's alot more atrocities the Americans are responsible for than the above.

Government lover? I'm glad you realize that is a farce.

Lost In Translation

22nd July 2008, 18:17

Yes I know that there arent any communist countriesGood, you've learned.

I am talking about any country that calls itself communist and how a desire for equality ended up being the very antithesis of equality. I just find that ironic.First of all, they never called themselves communist countries. That was coined by the western society, who sees anything that is to the left of them (a lot of things) to be communist. However, communism is about anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism as well, not just equality. Overambition, sworn enemies, and too many mouths to feed eventually made them go over the top.

For every time it was like that, where the people wanted communism and got much worse. Doesn't that show you something? Doesn't that show you that any attempt of creating absolute equality will end up hindering it?
Again, you're only arguing one aspect of communism, albeit an important one. Broaden your horizons, and you will see that communism is much more.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

22nd July 2008, 18:50

What is an innocent?

A non-combatant who hasn't comitted any crime. At least, that's how the civilized world generally thinks of it.

Anyway, I don't know why the Left holds these people up like their Gods. Both of them sucked, and I'd never want to trade my place in this society for either of those shitholes.

That both of them failed in what they were trying to do also seems to escape many.

RGacky3

23rd July 2008, 03:18

Fact: You can die from the sword and you can also die from the pen. There is nothing innocent about fascism period.

You can only die from the pen if someone with a sword is following it, like I said, a thought crime cannot be a crime.

I love it when the opressed hate speech camp spews this aurgument. "We don't want other people to have rights but you better give us what's ours"

And that is exactly what you just said to the letter.

It does'nt matter what they want, if you give someone the power to take away hate speach, you give im the power to take away any speach, i.e. either free speach is completely free or its not free speach at all.

There's alot more atrocities the Americans are responsible for than the above.

Government lover? I'm glad you realize that is a farce.

Yeah your right, a lot more, hell just the small history of the IWW attests to that. But its not a farce perse, because you can take the government to the supreme court, it says something when a government has to break its own laws to suppress people. It says something about the government and the system it upholds, but it also says something about freedom of speach.

North Korea isn't communist and in fact follows an ideology known as Juche.

Juche is just some BS idea that Kim Il sung came up with as a logo, North Koreah practises Juche, or any form of socialism the way America spreads democracy, i.e. its a farce, just like spreading democracy.

Bud Struggle

23rd July 2008, 03:25

Fact: You can die from the sword and you can also die from the pen.

While the pen is mightier than the sword--the sword can speak louder at any given moment. :)

Dros

23rd July 2008, 06:38

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Fact: You can die from the sword and you can also die from the pen.

Am I the only one who thought about the Bourne Identity when he said this?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Lector Malibu

24th July 2008, 14:58

You can only die from the pen if someone with a sword is following it, like I said, a thought crime cannot be a crime.

No what you were implying is that as long as a fascist was not out beating some one up there was nothing wrong with it. You've also made it clear that you don't think racism is wrong , just ignorant. Witch is an apologetic way of looking at it. "They don't know any better, it's not that big of a deal"

It does'nt matter what they want, if you give someone the power to take away hate speach, you give im the power to take away any speach, i.e. either free speach is completely free or its not free speach at all.

I'm concerned about what you really want.....

Yeah your right, a lot more, hell just the small history of the IWW attests to that. But its not a farce perse, because you can take the government to the supreme court, it says something when a government has to break its own laws to suppress people. It says something about the government and the system it upholds, but it also says something about freedom of speach.

Have you ever tried to sue the Federal Goverment? :lol:

So Gacky , are you ever gonna get on track here. Quite awhile you've been here...

Josef Balin

24th July 2008, 19:03

What the fuck are you guys talking about? I've been to NK and I'm not a Stalinist nor a supporter of revisionist Jucheism.

EDIT: Shit, I worded it wrong. Visitors can say whatever they want about Jong-Il and Sung-Il. But still, they don't kill your family. And the stories of his wealth are very, very obviously propaganda.

There's Socialist Realism and a dictatorship in place, as well as a state endorsed cult of personality. Looking outside in it's pretty terrible and could easily be better. However, the things like him spending a ridiculous amount on Cognac and other items are so very blatantly SK propaganda (they definitely originate there, and are based on word-of-mouth reports) that it's just stupid. I can bring up so even more obvious links of blatantly false stories as well.

Lector Malibu

24th July 2008, 19:17

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Am I the only one who thought about the Bourne Identity when he said this?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'll deal with you later........:lol:

Abluegreen7

18th August 2008, 05:27

DId he seriously call Che Guevara and Lenin murderers on a leftist forum. Whats your problem? Lenin and Che were not murderers where are the facts here? Are you a right winger infiltrating our dear forum. We dont take kindly to that.

Benos145

18th August 2008, 05:46

God knows why they even allow a 'Opposing Ideologies' forum, I think the best way to deal with anti-communists is with a baseball bat.

Killfacer

18th August 2008, 12:36

shut up twat. Fuck of and die. Moron.

PigmerikanMao

18th August 2008, 13:06

The OP is a fucking moron. The "innocents" Che killed were fascists who were put on trial for war crimes and found guilty. Was Himmler an innocent to you too, fuck wad?! As for Lenin and Che further, they fought in wars- in war there is death, this is inevitable, but to call those fighting in them murderers for the lives lost is the most pitiful argument. Would, then, George Bush- or George Washington for that matter, be considered murderers in your eyes? Why not?!

~PMao :rolleyes:

Bud Struggle

18th August 2008, 13:30

The problem with icons like Chi is that whoever they were in real life is long gone and all we have of him is what we WANT him to be in our imagenation.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/reformtoday.gif

:lol:

RGacky3

19th August 2008, 02:48

You've also made it clear that you don't think racism is wrong , just ignorant. Witch is an apologetic way of looking at it. "They don't know any better, it's not that big of a deal"

Being an asshole is'nt wrong either, your just an asshole, and its not apologetic, theres no real excuse for thinking that way, but its not 'wrong' perse, the same way thinking all non christians go to hell is'nt 'wrong'. Its a big deal because it can turn to violence, but its not wrong, and it should'nt be a crime.

I'm concerned about what you really want.....

Yeah I want free speach for everyone (man of my arguments I got from Noam Chomsky), what do you think I want?

My point stands, either free speach is completely free or its not free speach.

Have you ever tried to sue the Federal Goverment? :lol:

Nope but it has happend, and I'm not defending the system, I'm defending the principle behind the system, the principle that no government should have power over its people to take away any freedoms ever, and that the government should be 100% accountable to its people, not really a government perse, just a venue to make desicions.