Why are all communist govt's dictatorships?

[Anti communist]

If communism is so great why are all communist gov'ts dictatorships, and why are western non communist gov'ts democracies? You would think that if communism was so great and the leaderships of those countries had no fear of being voted out, that Cuba, China, N Korea, etc would have free elections.

Also, can I get an answer on where most of you communist supporters all live? If you don't live in Cuba, China, or N Korea, then put your money where your mouth is and give up all your security, comforts, prosperity, etc and move to one of those countries? It's quite diff to say that those systems of gov't are great if you don't live there and don't really know what it's like, than actually living there.

[Show me the Money]

dictatorship of the proletariat... duh!..

western democracy = bullshit(fascism in some cases.)

Scotty.

[Anti communist]

Anyone else have a beter or more intelligent argument?

[Aleksander Nordby]

I touhgt it was very good argument from "show me the money"

[Invader Zim]

No not all communist leaderships were dictatorships, Nicaragua for example was not... Its just that in the USA's infinate wisdom they took them out and replaced the leadership with tin pot dictatorship.

Lanark and new harmony were not, countrys but they were run in a socialist fashon for about half a decade, with out resorting to them being a dictatorship.

The capitalist dictatorships are to many to number though... so im not going to bother.

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from Anti communist on 1:12 pm on April 9, 2003
If communism is so great why are all communist gov'ts dictatorships, and why are western non communist gov'ts democracies? You would think that if communism was so great and the leaderships of those countries had no fear of being voted out, that Cuba, China, N Korea, etc would have free elections.

Also, can I get an answer on where most of you communist supporters all live? If you don't live in Cuba, China, or N Korea, then put your money where your mouth is and give up all your security, comforts, prosperity, etc and move to one of those countries? It's quite diff to say that those systems of gov't are great if you don't live there and don't really know what it's like, than actually living there.


If communism is so great why are all communist gov'ts dictatorships, and why are western non communist gov'ts democracies?


Quote: from Anti communist on 1:18 pm on April 9, 2003
Anyone else have a beter or more intelligent argument?


*rollseyes* Not all, but several socialist countries are somewhat dictatorships. Cuba does have democracy, I know comrade thursday night can get into this better than I can. China, not very socialist to me, I have no clue what's going on over there. North Korea, is a dictatorship.

Dictatorship does not always mean hell on earth.

You would think that if communism was so great and the leaderships of those countries had no fear of being voted out, that Cuba, China, N Korea, etc would have free elections.

You would think that if these capitalist countries were so much better they'd get rid of "voting colleges" and whatnot. Ohhh, yes, democracy! *rollseyes* I believe, food on the table comes before freedom of speech.

Also, can I get an answer on where most of you communist supporters all live?

I moved to New York (USA) several monthes ago from Seoul, Korea.

If you don't live in Cuba, China, or N Korea, then put your money where your mouth is and give up all your security, comforts, prosperity, etc and move to one of those countries?

First of all, I don't speak Spanish...nor do I speak Chinese...and I barely speak any Korean. If you have never been to Cuba, China, or North Korea please don't act like you know everything about it.

It's quite diff to say that those systems of gov't are great if you don't live there and don't really know what it's like, than actually living there.

It's quite different to say that those systems of government are horrible if you don't live there and don't really know what it's like [than actually living there - redundant].

And one more thing, you are anti-communist...I'm wondering are you anti-american? (judging by your avatar).

[Boris Moskovitz]

Good reply, Junichi.

Actually, I don't think WORM is an anti-communist. I still remember him mentioning that the admins have changes his avatar, or something like that. But I think it looks funny.

EDIT: LMAO! I mean Anti-American!

By the way... sorry for being such a 'junior', but... what is "proletariat"?

(Edited by Boris Moskovitz at 6:52 pm on April 9, 2003)

[Politrickian]

Quote: from Boris Moskovitz on 3:48 pm on April 9, 2003
By the way... sorry for being such a 'junior', but... what is "proletariat"?


The Working Class:
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r...htm#proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat)

[Pete]

Anti. Your answer can be found in the book The Real World of Democracy by a man whoses last name is Macpherson. I would quote it but I do not have it here, so I will consult my notes on it and give you some points of why this seems to be the case.

1. There are 3 kinds of Democracy operating in this world. A) Liberal Democracy (which many people ignorantly call the only form of democracy, where your confusion lies), B) Communist nonliberal Democracy, and C)Noncommunist nonliberal Democracy.

2. The Liberal Democracies have an egocentric view point and where liberal before they where democratic, so businesses tend to have more power than an individual because society is almost always based on greed. The revolutions of these nations happened, in most cases, over 200 years ago making them the reactionary form of government. They oppose the other twos claims to being democratic almost soley because they have grown used to the idea of peaceful change, and that revolutions are bad. (THis is you Anti)

3. Marxist democracies work under one party most of the time, but that is because after a revolution the people are usually united under one banner. They have worked together for change and when it comes they seek to protect it. The leaders of the revolution often become the leaders of the new democracy (as is the most often case). In addition these democracies can be more democratic as they allow interparty politics to flourish (in some cases) which increases the efficency and the reach of that party, making major non-party opposition obselote. Why form a new party when you can be against the party lines inside the one party?
Your point about the dictatorship is shaky. The people have faith in the party after the revolution, and its leaders, so they support their goals and causes, and hey this guy was smart enough and brave enough over overthrow the tyrant, and so far he has treated us well, lets keep him where he is. It is democratic, just in a different way.

4. People in liberal democracies do not agree with the principles of the non-liberal democracies because they are democratic first, and never liberal. Since they are not liberal businesses cannot take hold and that is a great sin in the the liberal democracies books. The funny thing is that Liberal Democracy is the democracy of the liberals, where as nonliberal democracy is everyone's democracy.

5. Liberal democracy=freedom of choice of rulers not peoples rule

6. There is "nothing nesaccarly democratic about the responisble party system"

7. Liberal Democracy = Upper/middle class rule
Marxist Non-liberal democracy = lower class rule
Nonmarxist nonliberal democracy = all classes rule

8. Dictatorship of the proletatariat = rule of the people = democracy in "the original sense of the word"

9. The vanguard is a transitional phase in leninist democracies, but since it allows some interparty democracy it is democratic. As the new order (dic. of proles) is stabalized more interparty democracy is permitted.

10. Harnessing the general will is best accomplished by one party

11. Without a market system they can strive for equality over liberal ideas, making them more democratic than a Liberal Democracy can ever lay claim to being.

That should be enough to answer your question and correct you flawed viewpoint. If you don't understand go to your library and find the book!

[Show me the Money]

Quote: from Aleksander Nordby on 2:44 pm on April 9, 2003
I touhgt it was very good argument from "show me the money"
thanks, "Aleksander Nordby" :cheesy:, just call me Scotty or ShoMo!

[Show me the Money]

Oowh, look at that avatar!!!-- this man is anti-american... heh heh..

Scotty.

[Nick Yves]

Anti Commie, you are a dumbass, and obviously uneducated.

[ComradeJunichi]

No one line useless posts. Noones a dumbass just because they think differently from you and are you more 'educated' than he is?

Pete, I liked the last post. I think I will go get the book. :)

[synthesis]

There have been plenty of democratically elected socialists, AC. Check out Chile, Nicaragua, Greece, and so forth.

The problem is that they have all been immediately deposed by the American plutocracy - without exception.

[Show me the Money]

indeed-- without exception.

[Xvall]

Moldova. Democratically Elected Communist President.
Brazil; Lula = Socialist.

[Show me the Money]

* my all-knowing bot says:


yes, Lula is socialist. He is indeed democratically elected. Great president!

(it's still a beta-- called "Scotty's Agent" lol. created in Java!)

[antieverything]

I don't think that it is accurate to call Lula a socialist. He is doing what is best for his country at the moment...and socialism isn't it. He is working hard to maintain foriegn investment but also end hunger and alleviate poverty.

Cuba has elections but everything is dependant on the approval of the Communist Party.

Chavez could be called a socialist.

[Anti communist]

ComradeJunichi, Cuba, China, and N Korea are all dictatorships. Chk my posts and responses on Cuba especially. My family fled Castro's brutal regime and we came to the US. About the electoral college, I also had a post with a link to why it's done that way. It makes perfect sense. My avatar is set to the current state by a cron job run by the admins on this site. My flag wasn't upside down originally and my signature was pro American.

Dyer, I can tolerate socialist gov'ts. I know all of Scandanavia is quite socialist and so are many other European gov'ts, or at least they lean that way. I just think that brutal dictatorships like Castro's are evil.

Antieverything, Cuba doesn't have elections. If they do, I can magically predict the results, Castro 99.99% of the vote, all other candidates .01% of the vote. As you said, everything has to be approved by Castro's regime.

[antieverything]

Cuba has functioning democratic institutions--including elections. It isn't, however, a genuine democracy as the democracy extends only as far as the CP sees fit.

[Anti communist]

No it doesn't. Cuba has functioning socialist institutions like universal education and medical care. It is nowhere near a democracy. It is a brutal military dictatorship that jails, tortures, and kills dissidents.

[Eastside Revolt]

You capitalists get money confused with people.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:25 pm on April 9, 2003


Marxist Non-liberal democracy = lower class rule
Nonmarxist nonliberal democracy = all classes rule

8. Dictatorship of the proletatariat = rule of the people = democracy in "the original sense of the word"



This is a serious question, but where has this worked. Also where has it worked where they had no food shortages and rationing.

[Som]

The reason they're 'dictatorships' is because between the Soviet Union, and the United States, along with various other fascist movements, a multi-party socialism, or even further, a non-statist socialism has never been given a lasting chance, and has been brutally supressed, usually by a military coup, or even a direct foreign intervention.

Chavez could be called a socialist.

I don't think so, Chavez might be a socialist at heart, and his rhetoric seems to play on that, but really all he's trying to do is reform capitalism, tame it a bit.

Its a step in the right direction, but he's not really doing much that would be really socialist.

[Pete]

Anti- Reply to my arguement

Kelvin- have you not heard of venuezuela or cuba or nicarauga or chilie?? it is intervention that ruined the last two and the first two are going strong.

[synthesis]

This is a serious question, but where has this worked.

Try the Paris Commune, or Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain. Those are two models upon which most modern socialists would like to build Marxism.

Dyer, I can tolerate socialist gov'ts. ... I just think that brutal dictatorships like Castro's are evil.

You know, I sort of agree with you here, if you'd switch 'evil' for 'something to avoid.' No matter how much Castro has done for his people - and I do believe that he is far better than that slime Batista - I am simply not interested in authoritarian - Leninist - socialism. I'm not sure what you'd call someone whose beliefs resemble closely those of Noam Chomsky - Chomskyite? Chomskyist? Whatever. I think I'll just stick with libertarian socialism.

[Pete]

Chomskyist.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 3:08 am on April 10, 2003
This is a serious question, but where has this worked.

Try the Paris Commune, or Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain. Those are two models upon which most modern socialists would like to build Marxism.



Please provide a link or searchable key words. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain? I thought they were all dead. Spain can not even agree with the flavor of communism? Aren't they supposed to work together as comrades? Not very comrade like.

[synthesis]

Sure. Here you are.

http://www.marxists.org/history/france/par...mmune/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/france/paris-commune/index.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/history/spain/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n...ho-syndicalists (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/n.htm#anarcho-syndicalists)

[Som]

Aside from agreeing and holding on to Chomsky's writings on U.S. imperialism and the media hold and those sort of things, I don't see how anyone could really be a chomskyite, considering, he doesn't really hold any solid belief system.

He calls himself a libertarian socialist, and refuses to take anything more solid than that, usually saying it can't be sure how society should be organized on libertarian socialist principles untill experimentation and so on, he then emphasizes that he's got no new ideas on it and just takes from the classical anarchist thinkers.

So well, unless you have some tendency to hold on to being purposely vague about it, can't really put the title chomskyite to any ideology.

Please provide a link or searchable key words. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain? I thought they were all dead. Spain can not even agree with the flavor of communism? Aren't they supposed to work together as comrades? Not very comrade like.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html

Just a bit of a history lesson.

[synthesis]

Well, I also agree with his views on Bolshevism and Leninism. In "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" he proclaims the fall of the Soviet Union a major victory for socialists everywhere.

I don't, in other words, particularly feel that the working class needs some exploitative elite vanguard to further its interests. We can handle ourselves just fine.

As I said, I prefer the worker-controlled government created in Paris far more than the totalitarian police states created by Lenin and furthered by Stalin and their ilk.

[Anti communist]

Pete, maybe I'll look at it tomorrow. I started to look at it and saw it was complicated and long and I didn't have time then.

[notyetacommie]

Quote: from Anti communist on 1:12 pm on April 9, 2003
If communism is so great why are all communist gov'ts dictatorships, and why are western non communist gov'ts democracies? You would think that if communism was so great and the leaderships of those countries had no fear of being voted out, that Cuba, China, N Korea, etc would have free elections.

Also, can I get an answer on where most of you communist supporters all live? If you don't live in Cuba, China, or N Korea, then put your money where your mouth is and give up all your security, comforts, prosperity, etc and move to one of those countries? It's quite diff to say that those systems of gov't are great if you don't live there and don't really know what it's like, than actually living there.


I live in Russia, and I used to live in the Soviet Union. I really prefer living in the Soviet Union. AND I AM GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO RESTORE IT!!!!!
I was also thinking about moving to Cuba, and, if I fail in my first objective, I think I will.
"Revolution should know how to defend itself" So, the dictatorship that was there was justified by people like you and other right-wingers.
Do you know anything about real German spies as well as spies from other capitalist countries including your beloved USA?
The food shortages that Kelvin likes so much to write about emerged when Gorbatchev started moving the country in the capitalist direction, but before it was fine. I tell you! It was better than now, when you have lots of stuff on the shelves just because few can afford it. Yeah, some abundance!

There were ways to make the USSR more democratic than Russia is now, where the government, the presidents and the Parliament have been associated with crime ever since the "fall" of the USSR. Do you AC realise how many people in Russia and all over the Former Soviet Union want to restore it and who do not view it as a dictatorsip as such? It is because apart from the central government there were local Soviets, people's councils, that were designed to improve things locally. You might be familiar with "local agenda", an environmentalists' approach to solving the local problems within certain communes? This was in effect in the USSR back in the 70s and 90s, only the name was different.
"Dissident" is a very tricky term, and I am sure if I was American and was doing something to destroy it, I would be severely punished. The communists then would call me dissident.
You would call me a criminal or a renegate if I provided people with information about your crimes as you do call some journalists. You ARE heading towards a totalitarian state, you, Americans. And from what I saw on this site, you RIGHT-WINGERS like it.
So the question conerning the communist governmentS is, you know, a hypocritical one.

[Anarcho]

The problem as I see it is this one.

Many of the Communist countries that existed from the 50's up to the 80's existed because of support from the Soviet Union.

Very few of them reached a state of Socialist or Communist government through peaceful means. Most of them were violent revolutions.

I am of the opinion that any government that comes to power through a revolution formented by an outside force is inherently going to be going against the will of the people (with some exceptions, such as Iraq).

A revolution by force is one thing, but maintaining that revolution by force of arms is quite another. If Castro is so beloved by his people, why doesn't he allow anyone to run against him? If the Soviet Union was a democratic state, why were there no other political parties allowed? In Vietnam, the Communists had to conquer by force half of the population of the country.... why could they not just live as two seperate nations?

I don't know. I'm learning as I grow older, but sometimes things just don't seem right about some of this.

[Comrade Otaku]

Russia, occupying one sixth of the worlds land mass, is virtually ungovernable under the current system. Most of the time you'll find the Mafia runnign things. A system of communal living, with each area under a soviet, and each soviet under a party, and the parties working together as one main party like organisation, could govern it. A system like the USSR, which could work.

[ComradeJunichi]

[quote]Quote: from Anti communist on 12:02 am on April 10, 2003
ComradeJunichi, Cuba, China, and N Korea are all dictatorships. Chk my posts and responses on Cuba especially. My family fled Castro's brutal regime and we came to the US. About the electoral college, I also had a post with a link to why it's done that way. It makes perfect sense. My avatar is set to the current state by a cron job run by the admins on this site. My flag wasn't upside down originally and my signature was pro American.

ComradeJunichi, Cuba, China, and N Korea are all dictatorships.

Read my post. Cuba does have democracy and yes China and North Korea are dictatorships.

My family fled Castro's brutal regime and we came to the US.

Did your family live well under Batista?

[Pete]

Joon: His dad owned a factory and had 500 000 in assests. They were nationalized so they left because they where forced to lose their bourgeoisie comforts.

Anti: Thanks for your honesty. That is dumbed down from the book that I made those notes from. And those points are dumbed down and condesned forms of my notes...

[Palmares]

How about Allende in Chile and Dubcek in Czechoslovakia? Both democratically elected, but both ousted by imperialist regimes (USSR and USA).

[notyetacommie]

[quote]Quote: from Anarcho on 12:22 pm on April 10, 2003
If the Soviet Union was a democratic state, why were there no other political parties allowed?

If USA was a truly democratic state, why hasn't there been a single non-white president? Why hasn't there been a single president who didn't belong to either democrats or republican? Can you imagine a politician claiming to be communist (or anarchist, for that matter) in the US government? Can you imagine a communist in Blair's position in Great Britain?
What democracy are you talking about, guys?

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 8:28 pm on April 10, 2003

Quote: from Anti communist on 12:02 am on April 10, 2003
ComradeJunichi, Cuba, China, and N Korea are all dictatorships. Chk my posts and responses on Cuba especially. My family fled Castro's brutal regime and we came to the US. About the electoral college, I also had a post with a link to why it's done that way. It makes perfect sense. My avatar is set to the current state by a cron job run by the admins on this site. My flag wasn't upside down originally and my signature was pro American.

ComradeJunichi, Cuba, China, and N Korea are all dictatorships.

Read my post. Cuba does have democracy and yes China and North Korea are dictatorships.

My family fled Castro's brutal regime and we came to the US.

Did your family live well under Batista?

[Pete]

Notyet...it is called Liberal Democracy. Not necassarly democratic, but liberal for sure. (see my first post in this thread)

[Anti communist]

ComradeJunichi, as Pete said, yes my family did well under Batista. I know he was a dictator also. But under his gov't there were 3 classes, poor, middle, rich. Now under Castro everyone is poor.

Notyetacommie, Colin Powell was thinking of running in '96 and I am convinced that he would have won. I would have voted for him. I think it turned out to be Clinton against Dole. But if Powell would have run he would have gotten the nomination and probably the Presidency. He is loved by all Americans, and he doesn't have any character flaws like Clinton (flaws like dishonesty, boinking the interns, and bombing Iraq the day Monica is testifying to divert public attn).

Powell is very moderate. Both righties and lefties would have voted for him. In fact to prove that it's not a racial thing, I think more republicans than democrats would have voted for him. He would have also helped bring in some of the minority vote to the republican side because he is moderate (believes in affermative action for example), and minorities identify with him more than a whte candidate. I think he is a great American, and I admire him very much. I hope he does run for President one day. To tell you the truth, he is a little too moderate for me. I am very far to the right. But just like Bush, I feel that he is a man of great character and has honorable intentions.

Another black candidate I'd like to see run is JC Watts of Oklahoma. He was a House Rep but I think he just retired to go into the private sector. Everything I said about Powell applies to Watts. He is more to the right than Powell but I think he also believes in affirmative action which makes him attractive to minorities again. By the way, for the record, I don't support/like/believe in affirmative action.

Then there's Alan Keyes. What a great man. He is way to far to the right for most but not for me. I would vote for him against any democratic opponent. My order of which I like the most is like this: 1)Powell, 2)Watts, 3)Keyes.

[Chiak47]

Anti,

I also like JC..He was mad cause the Crusader program was junked.It was supposed to be built in OK.He now works for The BN railroad I believe.
Good man with a strong mind.I would vote for him.

I have to clear you up on the Clinton thing though froend.He bombed Afganistan and some places in Sudan I believe maybe Iraq-I might be wrong.Anyways,He was a all around cluster fuck.

I am actually registering as a demorat for the primaries.I'm voting for Al Sharpton.Enough people do that and they would put him on the ticket in NH.Then Bush would win forsure.
Come to think of it there is no one going up against Bush that he can't win against anywho.

BTW...Powell collects VOLVO's for christ sakes.He loves socialists but with a military background.I would vote for him also.

Thanks,
Eric

[Anti communist]

No one can touch Bush right now in popularity. But that was the same thing for his father after Gulf 1 and then they turned on him with the economy.

By the way that economy was starting to go south when Bush 1 took over. Then when Clinton took over, it had already started going north before Bush finished his term. And, in case you all can't think that far back, we all know that when Clinton was leaving, the economy had already been going south for several months. CLinton steped on shit when he became President. He inherited an economy that was on an up swing from Bush 1, and left the economy going south for Bush 2. It made him look like he was good for the economy. Meanwhile, the real reason the economy was so hot especially in his 2nd term was because of the explosion of the internet which created jobs and revenue in the computer industry and ll other sectors that mfg parts for computer, companies that ship computers and so on.

Al Sharpton sucks, and Jesse "I have a scheme" Jackson is a con artist, he's always blackmailing companies into donating thousands of dollars or he'll threaten them with a boycott.

[Totalitarian]

ComradeJunichi:

I believe, food on the table comes before freedom of speech.


Maybe if you're an animal.

In my opinion one of the problems with human society is that there are too many eating-shittin' dumb animals that don't even bother using their tongue or their brain for mentally progressive ends

Cows sit around and chew cud all day, they have freedom of speech which consists of saying "moo".

Speech comes from the same place as where our food goes, which is the throat and the tongue.

If we cannot communicate effectively, then the human race as a whole is not achieving its full potential. If communism's about silencing those who disagree with dialectic materialist doctrine so that "the masses may eat", then i ain't signing up

[Anarcho]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 4:08 am on April 11, 2003
If USA was a truly democratic state, why hasn't there been a single non-white president? Why hasn't there been a single president who didn't belong to either democrats or republican? Can you imagine a politician claiming to be communist (or anarchist, for that matter) in the US government? Can you imagine a communist in Blair's position in Great Britain?
What democracy are you talking about, guys?


I don't know much about the political system in the UK, but I will touch on your take on US politics. The truth of the matter is that to date, there hasn't been a politically savvy enough minority to make a serious run at the White House. This is changing, and (though I hate to admit it) Anti communist is right, Powell has a good chance of becoming the first minority president if he chooses to run. I know I would vote for him, as he is pro space development.

There is a world of difference between a lack of minority candidates for president and a lack choice at all on your ballot. A good example of this is in Cuba.... Castro hasn't allowed another name on the presidential ballot yet. And any that speaks out against him strongly enough is either jailed, or allowed to "escape" to the US.

If this is a democratic paradise, I think I'd rather stick with the US, despite it's problems. At least here, I don't have to vote for someone I disagree with.

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from Anti communist on 5:33 am on April 11, 2003
ComradeJunichi, as Pete said, yes my family did well under Batista. I know he was a dictator also. But under his gov't there were 3 classes, poor, middle, rich. Now under Castro everyone is poor.


So where did all the money go? Everyone in Cuba has housing, has food, has an education, has medical care. Under Batista there were less freedoms than there are under Castro. Under Batista, yes there were three classes. The extremely rich, middle, and the extremely poor.


Quote: from Totalitarian on 7:29 am on April 11, 2003
ComradeJunichi:

I believe, food on the table comes before freedom of speech.


Maybe if you're an animal.

In my opinion one of the problems with human society is that there are too many eating-shittin' dumb animals that don't even bother using their tongue or their brain for mentally progressive ends

Cows sit around and chew cud all day, they have freedom of speech which consists of saying "moo".

Speech comes from the same place as where our food goes, which is the throat and the tongue.

If we cannot communicate effectively, then the human race as a whole is not achieving its full potential. If communism's about silencing those who disagree with dialectic materialist doctrine so that "the masses may eat", then i ain't signing up


You throw freedom of speech and freedom of whatnot in Cuba you have American propaganda flooding through even more.

Socialism is about destroy bourgeois mindset. It's not clever to give freedom of speech to the bourgeois when you do that. Food on the table does come before freedom of speech. I'm not saying there is no freedom of speech, I'm saying survival is more important. Whereas in some capitalist countries you have your limited "freedom of speech" and at the same time there are hundreds, thousands starving.

If sympathy for the bourgeois mindset is wanted, fine, you can go that way. Bourgeois mindset must be destroyed. Everytime you put on a severe government change and place freedom of speech and democracy how many times have socialist movements failed like that?

[Anti communist]

Anarcho, you make perfect sense and what you said about the election systems in Cuba is true. It's not really an election.

ComradeJunichi, yes everyone has a place to live, everyone has free medical and education, but they barely have enough food to stay alive. There is a terrible shortage of food in Cuba. Not as bad as N Korea where thousands or millions are starving, but there is still a terrible shortage.

Also, there is absolutely no freedom of speech. Today or yesterday, the remaining sentences were handed down on about 75 dissidents. Some got as much as 28 yrs in prison. That's a huge human rights violation.

[Pete]

Anti....have you read my original post yet?

[Anti communist]

Pete, not yet. It's been a busy week and the weekend is gonna be also. I've been doing a lot of hit and run on this site but not too much time spent here at one time. I'll see if I can read it soon.

[hazard]

worm:

I'll make it simple. Just in case somebody else didn't say this already.

I'm gonna ask u a question. Why are all hamburgers poison? I'll tell u why. Because they aren't.

Just because somebody calls something, or somebody, a bad thing or a bad name, doesn't make that true. Wake up. You are told two lies here. ONE: dictatorships are evil and TWO: communism is a dictatorship. wake up. both aren't true.

communism is the victory, the goal, and the true phrasing of democracy. it is the governing of the people by the people. not like the american, british, australian forms of dictatorship where the MINORITY of the population is allowed to rule over the vast MAJORITY. undemocratically at that, for capitalists aren't elected, they are born into their class like princes and princessess and lords and queens. worm, I"m gonna tell u something now. it could save your life. FOOD IS BAD! DON"T EAT IT! WATERS WORSE! DON"T DRINK IT! now tell me why you DON't believe me.

[Pete]

Anti: Understandable.

[hazard]

crazy:

his name is WORM. or his rank is. I think we should all call him WORM just so nobody gets confused. especially the fish food himself.

[Pete]

Fuck off hazard.

[hazard]

crazy:

nice. next time just ignore me if you don't like what I say. just like I'm going to ignore everything else you ever have to say about anything. punk.

[Anti communist]

Thanks Pete.

[Pete]

That is your decision. Flaming is counter productive. And if you want to start a flame war with me, consider it over the moment you start it because I will not go into it. If we talk as civilized being then we may make progress with these people, if not you will prove their stereotype true.

[hazard]

crazy:

okay I lied. but I don't get it. who put worm on the worm's thing anyway? I'm thinking that you might be undermining the purpose of this forum. and contradicting yourself at the same time. at least be consistent. I'll stop calling anti worm as soon as that is no longer his rank.

then again, who cares? he's called all people he's disagreed with any and everything. not that I care. I only care that he's made you care becuase he cares so much. and to hear him "thanking" you is ridiculous. why isn't redstar getting told to fuck off for calling him according to rank? why isn't the MOD responsible for placing worm there getting *****ed at? WHY? why God, why?

[Pete]

An admin did his rank.

Myself and anti have been being civil, that is why we are not flaming eachother if you can see.

You told me directly to stop calling him anti, that is stepping into my arena, call him whatever the fuck you want, but dont tell me what to call him. Since you did that it was completely my right to tell you to fuck off. Keep your toes on your side of the line or have them chopped ok?

[hazard]

crazy:

whatever. that was a joke. obviously you can call him whatever the fuck you want. and aren't you an admin? it seems some of the admin wants to call him what the fuck I fucking want to call him. what the fuck?

[Anti communist]

Hazard, the worm in my rank was changed along with my avatar and sig. It's a cron job that runs every 15 min. If I change it to what I want, it goes back to what you now see withing 15 min.

Anyway, I'm gonna make an honest effort to stop the flaming and tone it down a bit. I know that up to recently my posts have been very "in your face" or "loud" in an attempt to get my point accross. But in the last day or so I've started to tone it down. Look at the post I put up about the Castro executions and jailings. I think that was a lot more mellow than my posts in the past.

[hazard]

thats fair. I'm not sure what all this is really about, but chances are things will settle down. personally, I was having fun with the name calling, but only as a sideline to the real show.

as for your rank, check with pete. he said an admin did it so he might be your best bet for fixing that.

[Pete]

Good.

I am only a mod. I can delete, edit, and move posts. But I have to record these actions in the CC.

[hazard]

what actions? am I in trouble? I want to join the Commie Club! will this jeopardize my entry into it?