Authoriarians - Stalinists, confuciunists and the like.

[Eastside Revolt]

I have to ask you guys this, what is the point of trading-up capitalism with an ideology that oppresses and ubuses the people just as much, and doesn't allow for continuous revolution?

[antieverything]

(Edited by antieverything at 2:32 am on Feb. 5, 2003)

[antieverything]

(Edited by antieverything at 2:23 am on Feb. 5, 2003)

[thursday night]

Authoritarian socialism does not oppress people in the way that capitalist and Trotskyite lies put out. Hardly. Cry me a river about all the 'terror' that takes place in socialist states.

Why don't we look to the Cuban Revolution to see it's amazing advancements in socialism and the overall success that socialism has had there? It is an example of an 'authoritarian' state that is nevertheless democratic and socially just. Although if you are a mindless Trot you'll probably try to tell me it's "state capitalist" or some total lie like that: be prepared to be proven very wrong by myself, and if you try to spread untruths about the Soviet Union I am sure Mazdak will be happy to prove you wrong as he is as knowledgeable in that area as I am on the glorious Cuban Revolution.

[Eastside Revolt]

Thanx, now prove me wrong fearless leader, all mighty one, eyes and ears and mind of all the people, the petron, savior of the prolateriat.

[thursday night]

What the hell?

[ID2002]

wtf....authority, is a must for society to continue. Sorry, this is how Cuba, and many other Left wing countries rule. I am in full support.

capitalism is pure exploitation...power is money...rule is by the tax man, propaganga, and political/social segregation.

....take away the structure and the people will fall over night.

(Edited by ID2002 at 8:43 am on Feb. 5, 2003)

[Just Joe]

there is no point in having economic equality if you don't have political and social equality. in fact Marx said they all went hand in hand.

having economic equality (which has never existed even in your Stalinist states) but some all powerful dictator or poitburo making your every descision for you is not Socialism.

[Blackshirt]

Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.

George Washington.

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from redcanada on 4:31 am on Feb. 5, 2003
Thanx, now prove me wrong fearless leader, all mighty one, eyes and ears and mind of all the people, the petron, savior of the prolateriat.


Bassically what I meant was that you were mostly right about the kind of arguments I was gonna throw back at you, so now "prove me wrong" about state capitalism and such. The reason I went off on that little tangant, is that the idea of an absolute dictator drives me fucking nuts!!!!!

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from redcanada on 12:11 am on Feb. 5, 2003
I have to ask you guys this, what is the point of trading-up capitalism with an ideology that oppresses and ubuses the people just as much, and doesn't allow for continuous revolution?


This is entirely you're opinion. We do not consider Marxism-Leninism to oppress or abuse the people. Nor does it deny revolution in any country.

How can you profess to be a socialist or a Marxist when you would allow the Bourgoeisie full freedom in society and retain all the false ideals of their bourgeois democracy?

A revolutionary movement needs a revolutionary leader and a revolutionary party to organise it. A revolutionary leader and party are tools for the emancipation of the masses. The dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship by the proletariat, rule in the interests of the single class. If you have studied dialectics you will know all system have more than one aspect to them, usually they have two polar opposites. bourgeois democracy is democracy for the bourgoeisie, but dictatorship to the proletariat because democracy for the proletariat cannot exist in the confines of a class system. DoP is democracy for the proletariat as it rule by them for their interests. But DoP is dictatorship for the bourgeosie.

Therefore DoP is a democratic system for the masses by which they can destroy the ruling class. The DoP needs a revolutionary leader and a revolutionary party and those who deny that deny class struggle and rather seek to perpetuate the conditions by which the bourgeois oppress and exploite the mass class.

[thursday night]

I will prove you wrong, RedCanada, by simply pointing to Cuba and thus showing you a working Marxist-Leninist state that is not-Trotskyite and authoritarian in nature. Like I said, if you do not think Cuba is a working socialist state then I will prove you wrong.

[Som]

You can keep pointing to cuba, but overall the problem is that its an isolated event. Castro could've been far more ruthless, far more dictatorial, far more totalitarian, the cuban people were merely lucky he didn't.

Simply, leninism in cuba AT BEST got lucky with Castro.

Leninism in China, the soviet union, vietnam, so on and so forth, didn't. When you create this sort of dictatorial oligarchy, you turn history into a series of personalities, and history has shown that you're NEVER going to get a successive chain of 'good' dictators (as their could be such a thing). The stalinists go on to complain that krushchev ruined, they'll further go to blame the soviet union on gorbachev, the capitalization of china on deng, so on and so forth.
You're never going to get a long chain of Castro's or Mao's or whoevers your great proletarian leader of some sort, that form of government decays from the inside.

How can you profess to be a socialist or a Marxist when you would allow the Bourgoeisie full freedom in society and retain all the false ideals of their bourgeois democracy?

And what about proletarian democracy? The revolutionary party may consist of the 'working class', but its never been more than a small fraction of the population, so again, its an oligarchy, in the soviet union it was around 16% of the population, I think its a similiar amount in the others.
This small percent in power form an entirely new ruling class, and rule over the population just like the capitalist elite.

[Saint-Just]

'You can keep pointing to cuba, but overall the problem is that its an isolated event.'

I'll keep pointing to Cuba, and I'll point further to others too, to the USSR, China, DPRK etc. Not exactly isolated when at one point almost a third of the world lived in Marxist-Leninist societies.

Castro could have be 'far more ruthless, far more dictatorial, far more totalitarian' if he wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. But, he was.

'history has shown that you're NEVER going to get a successive chain of 'good' dictators'

History has shown that without anti-revisionist struggle the party may be overcome with factionalism, and Marxism-Leninism could be revised. However, with anti-revisionist struggle, so far in Cuba and the DPRK the banner of Marxism-Leninism is held high. We only need follow their example to ensure that revisionism cannot take ahold.

'And what about proletarian democracy?'

A pre-requisite for democracy is the existence of a single class. A party member has certain functions to fulfill, political representation is not only achieved by being a member. Therefore it is not necessary for the entirity of society to be a party member, nor is it desirable. Representative democracy operates by political party members re-presenting the views of citizens in a forum of debate...need I explain anymore...?

[Mazdak]

Workers Prolatarian democracy? As soon as you win a revolution. Doesn't that seem to make no sense. On one hand the people see a party which will change their lives and will make them work harder and force the selfishness out of them. On the other side you have the Party you have known for ages which plans on making no changes whatsoever. It would be a pointless revolution. The One Party State achieves more because of this. The whole idea of starting a revolution is to topple the parties and regimes in power and starting a socialist state. People are by nature resistant to change. They would fight it because they are ignorant. Once the working class is educated and the harsh reforms needed to set the course for communism are set, then democratic reforms can be introduced. Any other way would be stupidity.

You are starting a revolution and then stepping down and restoring the previous regime by having this "people's democracy" immediatly.


EDIT: This was not a response to Chairman Mao but the posts befiore his.

(Edited by Mazdak at 11:21 pm on Feb. 5, 2003)

[Lefty]

Quote: from thursday night on 3:21 am on Feb. 5, 2003
Authoritarian socialism does not oppress people in the way that capitalist and Trotskyite lies put out. Hardly. Cry me a river about all the 'terror' that takes place in socialist states.

Why don't we look to the Cuban Revolution to see it's amazing advancements in socialism and the overall success that socialism has had there? It is an example of an 'authoritarian' state that is nevertheless democratic and socially just. Although if you are a mindless Trot you'll probably try to tell me it's "state capitalist" or some total lie like that: be prepared to be proven very wrong by myself, and if you try to spread untruths about the Soviet Union I am sure Mazdak will be happy to prove you wrong as he is as knowledgeable in that area as I am on the glorious Cuban Revolution.



1. freedom of speech is nonexistant, and if you wish to argue otherwise, i have like 4 cuban friends that escaped to the dirty capitalist U.S. so they could at least have opinions.
2. If people don't like the way they are forced to live, shouldn't they be allowed to at least say what they want about it, at a bare minimum?
3. Cuba is poor as shit. (Also from cuban friends) so much for successful economy.

I would like to hear a response to this, thursday.

[thursday night]

Leninism in China, the soviet union, vietnam, so on and so forth, didn't.

There is no doubt that the People's Republic of China has taken “two steps forward, one step back” so to speak with its recent revisionist reforms. Here I cannot disagree with you. However, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is currently doing far better under a socialist state than it would have under a corrupt American backed dictatorship. Vietnam has instated much social justice, basic health needs and education that are crucial to a people’s revolution. And what about the former Soviet Union? I would say the life of an average Russian was far better under socialism than under the current Russian Federation. Crime has skyrocketed, health care and other social services are crumbling, and terrible things such as bread lines, prostitution and so forth have reemerged. The wild waves of capitalism have done very little for the Russian people indeed.

[Mazdak]

Quote: from Lefty on 11:09 pm on Feb. 5, 2003

Quote: from thursday night on 3:21 am on Feb. 5, 2003
Authoritarian socialism does not oppress people in the way that capitalist and Trotskyite lies put out. Hardly. Cry me a river about all the 'terror' that takes place in socialist states.

Why don't we look to the Cuban Revolution to see it's amazing advancements in socialism and the overall success that socialism has had there? It is an example of an 'authoritarian' state that is nevertheless democratic and socially just. Although if you are a mindless Trot you'll probably try to tell me it's "state capitalist" or some total lie like that: be prepared to be proven very wrong by myself, and if you try to spread untruths about the Soviet Union I am sure Mazdak will be happy to prove you wrong as he is as knowledgeable in that area as I am on the glorious Cuban Revolution.



1. freedom of speech is nonexistant, and if you wish to argue otherwise, i have like 4 cuban friends that escaped to the dirty capitalist U.S. so they could at least have opinions.
2. If people don't like the way they are forced to live, shouldn't they be allowed to at least say what they want about it, at a bare minimum?
3. Cuba is poor as shit. (Also from cuban friends) so much for successful economy.

I would like to hear a response to this, thursday.


hey, well what your stupid ass cuban friends in the US say is nothing Lefty. You should know at this point the Cubans who fled here are 100%trash.

Most of my family still lives in Cuba and they came to the US and have absolutely no problem with the government. They love Castro and hate the US for what it has done to their country. I take their words over what some filthy gusanos say, probably just mimicking what their parents say.

[thursday night]

1. freedom of speech is nonexistant, and if you wish to argue otherwise, i have like 4 cuban friends that escaped to the dirty capitalist U.S. so they could at least have opinions.

I have had the honour to travel to Cuba and I will tell you here and now that your four Cuban friends are probably the sons and daughters of upper middle-class right-wingers who were malcontented by a system which favours the lower class masses over the bourgeoisie. The fact is that freedom of speech is wide spread. I was identified as a tourist in Cuba as I am quite tall (and Latin American people tend to be on the short side ;) ) and many approached by and simply started chatting in English. They would speak freely about how proud they were of being Cuban, and they would also say that life is tough and they would like things to be easier (saying all this while walking pass policemen and military officials: nobody gave them a dirty stare).


2. If people don't like the way they are forced to live, shouldn't they be allowed to at least say what they want about it, at a bare minimum?

See above, and the other threads on the the misguided opinions that freedom of speech is always a good thing.


3. Cuba is poor as shit. (Also from cuban friends) so much for successful economy.

“Poor as shit”? Certainly not. A third world country? Yes, but not by their own fault. Forty years of a cruel American embargo and the unfortunate collapse of the Soviet Union (and thus the immediate stopping of the kind foreign aid given to the Cuban people by the USSR) have much to do with the slow growth of the Cuban economy.
By the sheer brilliance of the people’s government of Cuba, however, a ‘Special Period’ has been declared and the country has begun to dive into the profitable area of tourism to aid it’s economic woes.

Just how poor is Cuba? Not too poor. Most families have a television, a radio. The stores in downtown Havana even sell Sony boom boxes! The Cuban people are hardly suffering, while at the same time it can be hard to live and get by with a terrible American embargo on the nation.

[thursday night]

Well said Mazdak. Hey, I had no idea your family was Cuban. That's awesome. :)

[HS The Whap]

LOL "Cuban friends"

Cuban Americans are far-right anti Communist bastards who fled during the revolution and/or are the families of those who fled the revoltuion.

Hey Lefty, ask your cuban friends about the kind of jobs their family had before the revolution? Ask them how in touch were they with the exploited majority that supported the revolution, Cuban Americans are not Cuban. They are elitist shit that fled as the people were taking over their country! The fucking idea that someone would flee "just to have an opinion" is fucking ludicrous. I have friends who lived in sociaist countries, who may not be socialists, however laugh at the idea that someonne would risk their lives just to "have an opinion". Ask if your "cuban friends" had already relatives in the US prior to their great escape. I'm damn sure the incentive was economic because of the support base waiting for them in the United States. Lefty, i think your daddy has been getting to you, you better start thinking for yourself, again.


(Edited by HS The Whap at 12:07 am on Feb. 6, 2003)

[HS The Whap]

Sorry everyone, double post :(

(Edited by HS The Whap at 12:05 am on Feb. 6, 2003)

[thursday night]

Good post HS The Whap. Quite good. :)

[ID2002]

Leaders lead a country...the people support the leader and runs its institutions. If the people see flaws in the government which marr its performance then the people revolt...a revolution forms. People are liberated, and a new leader is elected.

...without structure you have NO civilisation, and complete disfunction. Castro, and Che...were both great leaders in that they balanced the needs for order and justice with flexiablity to allow for progressive social change and transition. This is why I see Cuba as a leader in terms of Communist/Socialist ideology.

Long live Socialism!

[Just Joe]

how can you say countries like the Soviet Union and China are democratic? there is only one party and people stand uncontested in elections. i know that happens in Cuba, but at least people can say pretty much what they like without fear or death. especially in recent times.

[Som]

The wild waves of capitalism have done very little for the Russian people indeed.

I agree, I'm not a supporter of capitalism, so the comparisons to capitalist countries are irrelevent here.

I'll keep pointing to Cuba, and I'll point further to others too, to the USSR, China, DPRK etc. Not exactly isolated when at one point almost a third of the world lived in Marxist-Leninist societies.

yes 1/3rd of the world USED to live in marxist-leninist societies, now its isolated to a few small countries. Since the majority of these governments had a strong grasp of power and still fell, it shows that the system is inherently flawed.

History has shown that without anti-revisionist struggle the party may be overcome with factionalism, and Marxism-Leninism could be revised. However, with anti-revisionist struggle, so far in Cuba and the DPRK the banner of Marxism-Leninism is held high. We only need follow their example to ensure that revisionism cannot take ahold.

Constantly these 'revisionist' elements took hold and socialism was destroyed.
Even Stalins purges couldn't hold off the revisionism of Kruschev, and then it was furthered by brezhnev, gorbachev and so on.
Cuba hasn't yet had a real transition of power, with Castro still at the lead. The DPRK is incredibly brutal and authoritarian, and is considering going the same path as china, opening up free market zones.

Like I said, all of this creates a history of personalities, nothing more, its only takes one or a few revisionists to act against the will of the majority, and destroy the society you seek to create.

Likely Cuba will infact last the longest, and that is because it is the least authoritarian of them, its people don't live in fear, and there are far more democratic elements than in the others.

A pre-requisite for democracy is the existence of a single class. A party member has certain functions to fulfill, political representation is not only achieved by being a member.

Its the other way around, a pre-requisite for the existence of a single class is democracy. Once you create a one-party rule, you create a new class of rulers, a dictatorship over the proletariat.
An oligarchy is no replacement for real democracy, the majority is best to excersize its will instead of a few that supposedly act in the interests of the majority.

[thursday night]

" The DPRK is incredibly brutal and authoritarian, and is considering going the same path as china, opening up free market zones.

I suggest you take a look atthis (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=2752) thread in which Chairman_Mao has given quite a debate as to how socialistic the DPR of Korea really is, and just how many lies the capitalist media puts out.

"Its the other way around, a pre-requisite for the existence of a single class is democracy. Once you create a one-party rule, you create a new class of rulers, a dictatorship over the proletariat."

How is a one-party state undemocratic? The fact is the party in a socialist state is the revolutionary vanguard for the revolution, protecting its goals. In a political sense the party is not a central to operation. For instance in Cuba the Communist Party is by law not allowed to field candidates for elections. The fact is that in socialist states there are popular elections in which the people directly elect their own people's councils at a local, regional and national level.

(Edited by thursday night at 1:56 am on Feb. 6, 2003)

[Som]

How is a one-party state undemocratic?

Because democracy entails the majority of the population excersizing their will through the government. In a one-party state, usually the party membership is about 15%, as this isn't the majority with power, instead its an oligarchy thats meant to represent the majority.

Cuba, as I've been saying, is quite the exception to all of this with its electoral process. Though I think the cuban people would benefit from a more open system, and a repeal on a few laws which are often used to censor dissent. I think the cuban people would continue to elect the communist party if others were allowed to form, even if they were all communist, but the people should have that choice.

[thursday night]

"I think the cuban people would continue to elect the communist party if others were allowed to form, even if they were all communist, but the people should have that choice."

I'm sorry but I must disagree. Do you really want the capitalist class to have a voice in the socialist state? I don't think you do, or else you would not be a Marxist. People should not have that choice because socialism becomes useless if all the work a people's party has done is done away with once the next election term is brought about. Furthermore, a multi-party system also creates huge problems when it comes to money: instead of every citizen having a fair chance to get elected and be elected based on his or her comitment to the revolution, a citizen is elected on how much money he or she has and how much advertising space they can buy, or how many more meetings they attend to defeat the other party. That is not democracy and that is why I do not believe in a multiparty system for socialism.

[Saint-Just]

'instead its an oligarchy thats meant to represent the majority.'

Yes, thats how reperesentative democracy works. Thats how even western liberal democracies operate. Are you saying you propose some kind of mass direct democracy? Thats impossible, only in societies of about 10 or 20 people does that work.

[Just Joe]

thursday night, if Communsim is the best ideology, why are you concerned about the voices of a few Capitalists?

you claim to uphold the working class but you are anti-working class. you are anti-people and anti-democracy. people will elect who they want. giving them one name on the ballot paper is not democracy.

[thursday night]

I am afraid you are mistaken, Just Joe. In one-party socialist states the 'one name on a ballot' suggestion is totally a myth. Candidates are nominated by mass people's organizations (woman's organizations, student's groups, youth wings etc.) and in most socialist states (such as Cuba) the Communist Party is by law not allowed to put forward candidates. Then the voters go to the polls and by secret vote say 'yes' or 'no' to the candidates nominated (or so it is done in Cuba, it varied in other socialist states). The candidate with the highest approval rating is thus elected.

And I am concerned about the voice of the minority upper class because they can be quite powerful with their own counterrevolution, as has been seen in near all socialist states from the Soviet Union, the PRC and Cuba. Right-wingers must be silenced or the socialist system could fall prey to a counterrevolution.

[Just Joe]

in virtually all Communist countries, there was only 1 name on the ballot paper. usually nominated by the local Communist Party not by the actual people.

even in your system, there still isn't enough democracy. people should be allowed to vote for different people even if you don't agree with them. if Capitalism is so bad and Communism is so good, people would not vote for Capitalists and you wouldn't need to oppress them. its the 'i want what i can't have' effect. it happened in Russia and Eastern Europe. Capitalists and pro-Democracy activists were oppressed so much, that the people had enough and actually voted Capitalists and Democrats in power. and look at the situation Russia and Eastern Europe are in now.

it also doesn't help if you've got some secret police force like the KGB knocking on your door asking why you didn't vote. speak out against the regime, and if youre lucky you get put in a mental hospital.

[thursday night]

Just Joe, it's official: you're an idiot.

[Saint-Just]

I think what thursday night means is that you might be better off reading the works of Marx and Lenin before debating this.

[Just Joe]

read 'The Communist Manifesto'
read 'the State and Revolution'
read 'What is to be Done'
and am presently working through Das Kapital.

but as we know, theory does not work out in practice all the time. i don't blame Marx. his ideas were ahead of his time and his critisism of Capitalism is unrivaled today. i blame the tryants like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung who try to put this ideology into practice. most of the were simply band wagon jumpers who wanted power. the regimes they constructed show how little they took in from reading Marx.

[thursday night]

Lenin was not a tyrant, nor was Mao. Both are highly intelligent and amazingly good leaders. Stalin was crucial to the survival of the Soviet Union. As for Kim, I appreciate his brilliance in playing against the United States, and for his efforts in keeping the DPRK socialistic while allowing for a decent economy.

Just Joe, I think that these may not be the forums for you. In theory, these are forums for Marxists, however as you said theory does not always work out.

[Saint-Just]

So, do you think they ignored this part; or is it just you choosing to ignore it?

Marx said that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat".
["Marx to J. Wedemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 452.]
He also said:
Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.]


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 10:55 pm on Feb. 6, 2003)

[Som]

Do you really want the capitalist class to have a voice in the socialist state? I don't think you do, or else you would not be a Marxist. People should not have that choice because socialism becomes useless if all the work a people's party has done is done away with once the next election term is brought about. Furthermore, a multi-party system also creates huge problems when it comes to money: instead of every citizen having a fair chance to get elected and be elected based on his or her comitment to the revolution

Perhaps you just had a poor choice of words, but as a socialist state, theres no capitalist class. The old ruling elite that wish to be the capitalist class become a powerless minority.
You somehow take the concept of multi-party elections solely in the sense of capitalist multi-party elections. The idea of a socialist state is that these multi-party elections would be in a socialist sense, so money would not be an issue.

to show what I mean with your examples, The candidates in cuban elections that are put forth by these 'mass peoples organizations' get elected without these monetary measures, now why wouldn't a multi-party election act in just the same way? As it is a socialist state theres no monetary advantage of one group over another. Other menas could be taken as well, for example having all candidates run on equal public funding.

And I am concerned about the voice of the minority upper class because they can be quite powerful with their own counterrevolution, as has been seen in near all socialist states from the Soviet Union, the PRC and Cuba. Right-wingers must be silenced or the socialist system could fall prey to a counterrevolution.

The first two of those still fell with right-wing counter-revolutions, even while silencing opposition. The idea of an open democracy is that since they are a minority, they will not have to be silenced, as a real socialist democracy would make them powerless.

Yes, thats how reperesentative democracy works. Thats how even western liberal democracies operate. Are you saying you propose some kind of mass direct democracy? Thats impossible, only in societies of about 10 or 20 people does that work.

I said that they were MEANT to represent the majority, as in they claimed they did, and theres no way to back up these claims, as the majority can't choose to remove or replace those with elections.

[thursday night]

"The idea of a socialist state is that these multi-party elections would be in a socialist sense, so money would not be an issue. to show what I mean with your examples, The candidates in cuban elections that are put forth by these 'mass peoples organizations' get elected without these monetary measures, now why wouldn't a multi-party election act in just the same way?"

Okay, I see what you are saying and it is a valid thing to say. Unfortunately what you are forgetting to mention is the fact then when you have two political parties vying for power they will spread lies and basically do whatever they must to win the election and emerge victorious over the other party. This always happens in all Western world liberal democracies and I see no reason why it wouldn’t happen in a ‘socialist democracy.’ In this way, the real thought behind a bloc of people running in an election to represent the people the best they can and being elected based on the candidate’s merits is forgotten to whatever party can ‘win’ over the other party.

"The idea of an open democracy is that since they are a minority, they will not have to be silenced, as a real socialist democracy would make them powerless."

The other problem with allowing the discredited capitalist class to unite under a political party is it gives them a venue to perform a counterrevolution, whether while being aided by foreign imperialists or by simply being able to legally organize and overthrow the socialist state. This cannot be a desirable option. All the efforts of the revolutionary working-class to create a state that serves their interests could be destroyed by a legally run capitalist party.

[Just Joe]

Lenin was not a tyrant,

a man who constrcuted a one party state after his party failed to receive a popular mandate and who started the 'red terror' is a tyrant.

nor was Mao.

the second largest mass murderer after Hitler is a tyrant.

Both are highly intelligent and amazingly good leaders.

if you reckon pluging your country into civil war, ruining its economy and spreading fear amongst a helpless population is good leadership, then youre right.

Stalin was crucial to the survival of the Soviet Union.

he was also crucial to the death of Communism.

As for Kim, I appreciate his brilliance in playing against the United States, and for his efforts in keeping the DPRK socialistic while allowing for a decent economy.

up to 2,000,000 have died of starvation in North Korea. great economic planning, that.

Just Joe, I think that these may not be the forums for you. In theory, these are forums for Marxists, however as you said theory does not always work out.


don't kid yourself into thinking youre a Marxist mate. youre a lunatic looking for a way to express your lunacy. youre most likely a fairly decent guy so racism and fascism didn't appeal to you. but the next best thing was Stalinism.

(Edited by Just Joe at 11:37 pm on Feb. 6, 2003)

[ID2002]

Kim in N.Korea is a nut. Sorry, his policies are completely stalinistic. Yes, I agree he making the US quake before him...and thats helpful but Nuclear war just got a HELL of a lot closer to reality today.

Its the USA's funeral if they ever decided to attack.

N. Korea in reality just wants to be left alone. I understand this.

[thursday night]

"the second largest mass murderer after Hitler"

Prove it! :)

"he was also crucial to the death of Communism."

I also beg you to prove this too.

"up to 2,000,000 have died of starvation in North Korea."

Okay, I ask you where you got this 'fact'? Two million seems like awfully large number to me. Furthermore, yes there are food shortages in the DPRK. Why? Partially because of mismanagement, I will admit this. But there are many, many other reasons. Cruel sanctions against the country, the constant threat of South Korea and the USA, freak droughts and so on.

"Kim in N.Korea is a nut. Sorry, his policies are completely stalinistic."

I suggest you take some time and read this (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=2752) thread. It is quite educational as Chairman_Mao makes some very valid points and shares his extensive knowledge of the DPRK.

[Just Joe]

ok i better prepate for a tongue lashing from everyone but have you ever read the 'Black Book Of Communism'? Mao is responsible for maybe 60,000,000 deaths.

Stalin basically ruined Communism/Leninism with the oppression and the image he have to the rest of the world about what Communsim is.

[thursday night]

"have you ever read the 'Black Book Of Communism'?"

I'm sorry, but this hardly even sounds like an unbiased source.

[Mazdak]

Yes, i have heard of that nonsensical work. It is obsurd. The cappies here use it as a source many times. However, what a few McCarthyists say means nothing. It would be like asking a Nazi to prove the evils of the jews.

[RedCeltic]

During the Russian revolution Anarchists played an important role. They participated on every front and helped drive back the allied attack. After the Revolution Anarchists where participating in the Government, helping with reconstrution work and working in the Foreign Office and other departments.

Five months after the revolution, the Bolshiviks than turned their machineguns on the Anarchist club in Moscow. They smashed their press and supressed their voice. The same Anarchists that fought in the glorious red revolution where now being betrayed by the wonderful leader known as IV Lenin.

Upon arival in the Soviet Union, Emma Goldman found that many of her comrade Anarchists where inmprisoned by Lenin.

Upon her interview with Lenin... the first thing he asked was, "When can the Revolution be expected in America?" It shocked her that not only would a man of the stature of IV Lenin be so ignorant of the situation in America, but that he would expect her to work with him while her comrade Anarchists where in prison.

[El Brujo]

Anarchism couldn't possibly work in todays society. It's a romantic movement that assumes people are generally good and won't take advantage of each other. If big businesses take advantage of workers today where there is government authority (granted its a government authority that favours the crooked big businesses), imagine how it would be in a lawless society. It would end up being lassiez-faire in its purest form because the rich and the mobs would control everything and there would be no government to put restrictions on their atrocities.

[RedCeltic]

you obviously missed the whole point of my post. Read again.

[El Brujo]

I wasn't replying to your post, I was just making a point about anarchism and extreme libertarianism in general.

[RedCeltic]

well then perhaps you should have started a new thread titled, "I'm going to bash Anarchism even though I've never read any books about it."

[thursday night]

"Upon arival in the Soviet Union, Emma Goldman found that many of her comrade Anarchists where inmprisoned by Lenin."

I can’t help but think that the Bolsheviks did the right thing in ending the Anarchist ‘movement.’ Anarchists are extremely fickle and reactionary bunches who are so theoretical (perhaps even more so then Trotskyites) and so critical of socialist states that they really wouldn’t have benefited the Soviet Union very much. If anything they would have posed a threat to the newly founded USSR.

[RedCeltic]

"But as to free speech," Lenin remarked, "that is, of course, a bourgeois notion. There can be no free speech in a revolutionary period.

Interesting how that Revolutionary period lasted untill 1991.

Lenin had no problem with the Anarchist movement when they fought alongside him, and had no problem supporting the Anarchist Emma Goldman.

Yet... it's these same backstabing Marxist Leninists that will say that we need to unite the left... Like we did in 1917? So you can do what you did in 1918?

Marxist Leninism is steeped in opression from day one that's why I'm a Marxist and never a Marxist Leninist.

[El Brujo]

Real cute.

I wasen't "bashing" anarchism. I was simply stating its inefficiency as an applied movement. Ask yourself if you are going to be an idealist hoping for an absolute miracle or if you are going to conduct an efficient revolution.

Look what happened in the Spanish Civil War. The anarchists held back the republican army because they were trying to systematically apply their beliefs BEFORE the actual change of society.

[Valkyrie]

El Brujo,

Anarchism only takes away the top tier. What remains is organization through cooperatives rather dictatorship,--- poison, I know.. to the authoritarians.

Here's the schematics: Top Out - bottom up- and up down.

(Edited by Paris at 6:58 am on Feb. 7, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Anarchism is about decenteralization, where the power of making the most important decisions for the community are made by your co workers and neighbors, not an oil barron from texas.

it's about gettng rid of federal government positions, but retaining certain structures. such as a food and drug administration.

[ID2002]

...I am sounding like a broken record...

N.Korea is not socialist, nor represents the left in good form. Kims' oppressive rule of his people and xenophobic cult following is completely against the grain of marxist society. Marxism was interested in the peoples liberation from oppression.

Cuba is Marxist, Vietnam was Marxist...and these are excellent examples. I hold these to be true to the principles set forth by communism and socialism.

I will say no more on this topic

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, Laissez-faire or Capitalism would not develop because the economic platform would be socialist and the societal structure would be anarchist, meaning a decentralization of a Federal Government. Organization would still be retained through cooperative liaisons.

(Edited by Paris at 7:28 am on Feb. 7, 2003)

[Eastside Revolt]

I wish I hadn't started this thread, it relly makes me lose faith in the possibility of a socialism. I think we all need to carefully watch "The Life Of Brian"

[Stormin Norman]

{tut tut SM...}

(Edited by James at 9:36 am on Feb. 7, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 3:33 am on Feb. 7, 2003


{tut tut SM...}

(Edited by James at 9:36 am on Feb. 7, 2003)


You mean like King Tut??? :confused:

[Palmares]

Are we all talking about the same thing? Anarchism is always mistaken for a chaotic society, but infact it lacks that very thing.

The dictatorship of the proletariat in Socialism is very different from that of Fascism, since it is non-oppressive and is not permanent.

This goes to everyone (especially the Cappies), STOP ALL THE PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! it is childish, and hinders the discussions.

[Just Joe]

Marxist Leninism is steeped in opression from day one that's why I'm a Marxist and never a Marxist Leninist.


totally agree with you RedCeltic (good name too). my ideologies Marxist orientated but i'm anti-Marxist-Leninist because it goes against everything i beleive in. there is no point setting up a revolutionary 'vanguard' if its only to replace the big businesses with the state.

[Stormin Norman]

These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me. These pussies are to weak to even ban me.

[RedCeltic]

That can be aranged Stormin Norman.

[Stormin Norman]

Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.

Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.

Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.

Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.

Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.

Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.



Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.

Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it. Arrange it.

You have already banned me by deleting my valid criticism of your use of censorship.

[RedCeltic]

I never deleated or edited a single post of yours.

[Stormin Norman]

That is true. However, you are teamed with people who lack your integrity, namely James (the slime bucket).

[Stormin Norman]

I am sorry about what I have done to your board, and I don't wish to do it anymore. That is why you should impose the ban, so I can be on my merry way and put this sorry ass web-site behind me. I won't give the slime bucket the satisfaction. Therefore, I will continue to troll. I would not be upset if you did what is necessary.

[Mazdak]

not to mention D Day. (when referring to people who "lack your integrity.")

[RedCeltic]

Stormin Normin

I just noticed the cool diagonal pattern in your "These pussies are to weak to even ban me. " Post... Did you plan it like that? :cool:

[Valkyrie]

"Are we all talking about the same thing? Anarchism is always mistaken for a chaotic society, but infact it lacks that very thing."


Yes, Anarchism would be less chaotic then State Socialism because it lacks the beuracracy that a centralized body is inevitably doomed to have. In that regard Anarchism is more efficient, as resources would be moved to problem-specific regions at a faster rate.

[thursday night]

"I wish I hadn't started this thread, it relly makes me lose faith in the possibility of a socialism."

Why?

[Som]

Unfortunately what you are forgetting to mention is the fact then when you have two political parties vying for power they will spread lies and basically do whatever they must to win the election and emerge victorious over the other party. This always happens in all Western world liberal democracies and I see no reason why it wouldn’t happen in a ‘socialist democracy.’

But this will happen when you have any two people competing, not just with different parties, and this vying for power is the idea of representing the people. Simply, If you or your group screws up, you don't get voted back in.
The one-party system endangers this basic premise of democracy because of its very authoritarian and eclusive nature. So many different single-party states have had their parties 'purged' of ideological deviations, because they did not fall in line with the party leadership, any voice they have then is lost. The people should be able to decide. Democratic centralism within only one party narrows any ideology, which destroys any element of choice.
How far this goes just depends on the oppurtunism of the party leadership. Like I've said before, Cuba's just gotten lucky.

whether while being aided by foreign imperialists or by simply being able to legally organize and overthrow the socialist state.

I don't see why they'd be able to overthrow it, unless of course they were elected into power. If they are, it would be unfortunate, but it would be a democratic choice.
The idea is simply giving the majority power to choose, even if they want to choose wrong.

I wasen't "bashing" anarchism. I was simply stating its inefficiency as an applied movement. Ask yourself if you are going to be an idealist hoping for an absolute miracle or if you are going to conduct an efficient revolution.
Look what happened in the Spanish Civil War. The anarchists held back the republican army because they were trying to systematically apply their beliefs BEFORE the actual change of society.

Sure you were bashing it, and you were greatly showing your ignorance of it while you did it. As an applied movement its been incredibly effecient.
Theres a thread in history about the spanish civil war, I'd suggest you take a look.

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from thursday night on 6:09 pm on Feb. 7, 2003
"I wish I hadn't started this thread, it relly makes me lose faith in the possibility of a socialism."

Why?


Because it would seem to me that there isn't very much time for this earth, under the current system. And all of us even remotely like minded people who want to do somethin about it, can't agree on anything. How are we supposed to organize.

[thursday night]

"How are we supposed to organize."

I wouldn't worry about it. :)

"The one-party system endangers this basic premise of democracy because of its very authoritarian and eclusive nature."

I don’t see how this is possible. Is it just the name ‘one-party republic’ that bothers you? In effect, a one-party socialist state is a non-party republic because the party plays such a minor role in politics. Real democracy in socialism is the people directly electing their fellow citizens, from people’s councils right up to national assemblies. Political parties play no role. The candidates are nominated by the people (through their people’s mass organizations) and then elected by them in turn.

"I don't see why they'd be able to overthrow it, unless of course they were elected into power. If they are, it would be unfortunate, but it would be a democratic choice."

I can never accept this. What’s the point of being a Marxist if everything you have worked for is thrown out in an election? And also, are you a Marxist or even a socialist? I doubt it, given the fact that you are so given to multi-party states.

[Som]

Is it just the name ‘one-party republic’ that bothers you? In effect, a one-party socialist state is a non-party republic because the party plays such a minor role in politics. Real democracy in socialism is the people directly electing their fellow citizens, from people’s councils right up to national assemblies. Political parties play no role. The candidates are nominated by the people (through their people’s mass organizations) and then elected by them in turn.

Most of the time it creates far more than a minor role in politics, and doesn't take the back seat you seem to think it does. Again, perhaps in cuba it works out decently, but it still creates dangerous precedents and a quieting of dissent and less of a variation of ideas. You still have this 'party line' of things. Since the party is still at the helm of things, no matter how much of a backseat it takes, its still in control.
I agree people should directly elect their candidates, I think a single party is nothing but a threat to this idea, and that there should be many parties or none.

I can never accept this. What’s the point of being a Marxist if everything you have worked for is thrown out in an election? And also, are you a Marxist or even a socialist? I doubt it, given the fact that you are so given to multi-party states.

It doesn't matter if I am a marxist or socialist or not, socialism will just have to speak for itself, which I think it can easily do, so I really never expect it to just be thrown out in an election. I'd expect to have many socialist parties, and a that minority of capitalist parties to have there voice that no one would bother to listen to.



(Edited by Som at 1:55 am on Feb. 8, 2003)

[El Brujo]

RC & Paris:

That's fine, but it is impossible for a society to go directly from capitalism to anarchism. Marx clearly stated that a classless and lawless society can only develop AFTER the dictatorship of the proletariat. The purpose of the DoP isn't for despotic rulers to eternally control the state but to efficiently restructure society while educating the masses on what is correct, that way personal freedom could be reaserted only without a bourgeoisie to bribe and cheat itsself out of the system at the sacrifice of the interests of the people. True democracy can't be created until after a period of authoritarianism.

Som:

You are no one to lecture me on the Spanish Civil War. My grandfather fought in it and he told me, from personal experience, that one of the reasons the republican army was held back was that the anarchists would always question the authority of the leaders and would want to vote on where and when to make attacks and other such things. It was a WAR for fuck sake. If they truly wanted to win the war, they must have been out of their fucking minds to sacrifice strategy and tactical superiority over the enemy for petty personal freedoms that would not solve a thing at the time of truth.

Anarchists must become authoritarians while the revolution is going on in the pursuit of their utopia in the future, much like Lenin had to use bourgeoisie practices during the Russian Civil War in order to properly defeat the enemy so the USSR could survive and begin the un-interrupted switch to a socialist society.

(Edited by El Brujo at 3:40 pm on Feb. 9, 2003)

[Som]

You are no one to lecture me on the Spanish Civil War. My grandfather fought in it and he told me, from personal experience, that one of the reasons the republican army was held back was that the anarchists would always question the authority of the leaders and would want to vote on where and when to make attacks and other such things.

Thats his personal opinion, but that is all it is, you can read many first hand accounts from alot of different people from that time that say many different things.
The anarchists were not part of the republican army, they were formed into independent militias. Its true that the anarchists did not want to blindly follow orders, but this hardly made them ineffecient. They fought just as hard as the other forces, and were just as committed.

Anarchists must become authoritarians while the revolution is going on in the pursuit of their utopia in the future, much like Lenin had to use bourgeoisie practices during the Russian Civil War in order to properly defeat the enemy so the USSR could survive and begin the un-interrupted switch to a socialist society.

An anarchist revolution is not one population imposing its will on another, its the population negating illigitimate authority, and then defending this act.

Negating authority, even if forcefully, is not quite authoritarian, and not against anarchist ideas.

[Saint-Just]

'illigitimate authority'

Authority is legitimated power. Therefore illigitimate authortiy is a paradox.

[Som]

'illigitimate authority'

Authority is legitimated power. Therefore illigitimate authortiy is a paradox.

I suppose if not familiar with libertarian ideas you'd miss the idea of that, its a term used a lot by anarchists and the like when they differenciate between types of authority.

Any authority based on physical coercion is considered illigitimate.
Legitimate authority would only be a voluntary authority.

Illigitimate authority would be the relationship between the wage slave and his boss, or the police officer and non-violent offender.

Legitimate authority would be between a teacher and a student, or a council and delegate, things not based on coercion.






(Edited by Som at 12:58 am on Feb. 10, 2003)

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 1:36 pm on Feb. 9, 2003
'illigitimate authority'

Authority is legitimated power. Therefore illigitimate authortiy is a paradox.

for a good book on legitimacy of authority, see In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff. it will explain it all.

[Umoja]

We should have a Confucious government, and we can all be the leaders!! Yee-Hee!