Believing in Communism today is as irrational as religous faith

[graffic]

Don't you think?

I was thinking and writing about this in another thread..

The reality today is this..

We are in an era of globalization. If your a free market state Capitalist your in a golden straight jacket. Communism has failed every time its been tried. Capitalism is no doubt shit and unjust but if you work hard its good enough and miles better than socialism.

Of course believe in what you say and do but those of you who truly believe the "revolution" will happen sometime soon - in my opinion your no different to people who believe in the sky fairy.

[Killfacer]

The title should be corrected to "believing a revolution is likely to happen today is as irrational as religious faith".

[Dean]

The title should be corrected to "believing a revolution is likely to happen today is as irrational as religious faith".

*Believing in Obama today is as irrational as religious faith.

[#FF0000]

Don't you think?

No. Religion is based in idealist, rationalist thought. That is to say, it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Marxism is based in materialist, empirical observation and analysis.

Nice try though.

As for socialism failing, it never did. The Soviet Union and China failed, and the reasons they failed are because of their problems adapting socialism to their countries, not because socialism doesn't work.

[Dóchas]

the only reason its failed so far is because capitalist countries, maily america has interfered before its got a chance to even begin

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

*Believing in Obama today is as irrational as religious faith.

Man, you're really worried, aren't you? :lol:



As for socialism failing, it never did. The Soviet Union and China failed, and the reasons they failed are because of their problems adapting socialism to their countries, not because socialism doesn't work.


But Capitalism seems to work, or at least survive, anywhere. The only countries which have had a Communist revolution are those which hadn't even fully replaced feudalism.



the only reason its failed so far is because capitalist countries, maily america has interfered before its got a chance to even begin


:confused: ummm....what? When have we interfered in any of the big communist countries?

Cuba doesn't count, they're a mouse between the elephants (like Prague).

[Dóchas]

:confused: ummm....what? When have we interfered in any of the big communist countries?

Cuba doesn't count, they're a mouse between the elephants (like Prague).

in guatemala in the 60s the einsenhower administartion supported the opposition party to the revolutionary government and helped them take control of the country. the americans then used guatemala as a training ground for their army before the Bay of Pigs invasion of cuba. america also refused to trade with the soviet union but thats kinda understandable

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But Capitalism seems to work, or at least survive, anywhere.
Ah, here we get to the core of this issue: When people say that capitalism "works," what they mean is only that it continues to exist.

Huzzah, what an impressive achievement. It's like calling a person "successful" just because he's not dead. :rolleyes: Bear in mind that capitalism still hasn't lasted nearly as long as, say, feudalism.

[synthesis]

To paraphrase a racist:

"I like your leftism. I do not like your leftists."

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

in guatemala in the 60s the einsenhower administartion supported the opposition party to the revolutionary government and helped them take control of the country. the americans then used guatemala as a training ground for their army before the Bay of Pigs invasion of cuba. america also refused to trade with the soviet union but thats kinda understandable

Oh so you only want to play that game.

How can we be blamed for setting up a western bloc of nations with little freedom when the "enlightened" communists do the same thing?



Ah, here we get to the core of this issue: When people say that capitalism "works," what they mean is only that it continues to exist.

Huzzah, what an impressive achievement. It's like calling a person "successful" just because he's not dead. :rolleyes: Bear in mind that capitalism still hasn't lasted nearly as long as, say, feudalism.


It kinda is, you know.

There's a cappie and a commie. The cappie can survive in any terrain, environment, hell-hole on earth. The commie will die in anything less than the civilized world first world. And at that he still dies.

[Forward Union]

Don't you think?

We are in an era of globalization. If your a free market state Capitalist your in a golden straight jacket. Communism has failed every time its been tried. Capitalism is no doubt shit and unjust but if you work hard its good enough and miles better than socialism.
.

Hmm but it seems to me the people that really work harder get more shit than those that do less. I don't think I need to substanciate that claim if you have any life experience.


Of course believe in what you say and do but those of you who truly believe the "revolution" will happen sometime soon - in my opinion your no different to people who believe in the sky fairy


But I don't believe in some magical revolution tomorrow or next week. I do 't pray that change will oneday come. I organise, organise, organise. And do what I can in my day to day life to improve the conditions of myself, friends, family and community. And of course I hope we will do better, build these community and workplace groups and begin to resist and achieve more. But success and defeat are measured by our hard work. There's no faith involved.

In a sense you are completely correct. If you work hard you can just about have a decent standard of living in a Capitalist sosciety. This hard work comes in the form of mass strike action, solidarity, and strong community and residence associations, that can keep your wages up and defend you from evictions once your pompus landlord has sent you enough payment due letters.

We could keep livign like this, or we could kick the parasites out and use the unions and residence associations to manage our workplaces and lives.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There's a cappie and a commie. The cappie can survive in any terrain, environment, hell-hole on earth. The commie will die in anything less than the civilized world first world. And at that he still dies.
Sorry, but the commie in your story hasn't been born yet.

And the cappie is only the latest in a long line of people who also survived in the same environments - and he hasn't broken any survival records yet.

[synthesis]

When have we interfered in any of the big communist countries?

Short-term memory, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

(Yeah, we all know Wikipedia sucks, but check out the references listed if you're curious.)

We also supported the KMT in the Chinese Civil War; the point is that while revolutions are generally limited to executions of former government officials, civil wars are almost always extraordinarily bloody affairs, and when you support the losing side, you're drawing out the war, which in turn devours resources and skilled laborers.

I think it is silly to say that socialism does not work based on the difference between advanced capitalist countries and former socialist republics - it would only be an accurate comparison if they were both equally advanced to begin with, in terms of their economies. They never are.

[graffic]

No. Religion is based in idealist, rationalist thought. That is to say, it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Marxism is based in materialist, empirical observation and analysis.

Nice try though.

As for socialism failing, it never did. The Soviet Union and China failed, and the reasons they failed are because of their problems adapting socialism to their countries, not because socialism doesn't work.

How is socialism "successfully adapted" to countries then?

And my point was that, based on the evidence in front of us, the likelihood of a "revolution" is ridiculous, it shouldn't even be considered by an intelligent, rational thinking person.

Thats not because I'm right wing or whatever (far from it), its just the bare truth.

[Dóchas]

Oh so you only want to play that game.

How can we be blamed for setting up a western bloc of nations with little freedom when the "enlightened" communists do the same thing?




dude dont take this personally i said the eisenhower administration not TheCultofAbeLicoln administration i was just saying that america has put its nose in a lot of potential communist countries and stopped them turning to communism eg most of latin america

[Bud Struggle]

Ah, here we get to the core of this issue: When people say that capitalism "works," what they mean is only that it continues to exist.

And the reason they say Communism doesn't work is that it no longer exists.

Bada Bing! :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

dude dont take this personally i said the eisenhower administration not TheCultofAbeLicoln administration i was just saying that america has put its nose in a lot of potential communist countries and stopped them turning to communism eg most of latin america

On the other hand at that time--Stalin and Communism were VERY involved in a small but very active segment of American politics. Stalin was DIRECTLY involved. You can see why the American government was somewhat disturbed and decided to fight back.

[Dóchas]

On the other hand at that time--Stalin and Communism were VERY involved in a small but very active segment of American politics. Stalin was DIRECTLY involved. You can see why the American government was somewhat disturbed and decided to fight back.

ye its kinda a "you started it" "no you started it" kinda thing i duno maybe i phrased it wrong but i didnt mean the american people i just meant the american govenrment when i said "the americans" i hope i havnt offended anyone

[RGacky3]

Well Capitalism IS around and IS'nT working and Never has, so I don't see how anyone could believe in that.

BTW, everytime communism has been tried it has worked (although generally destroyed by outside Capitalist armies). the USSR and China, never tried it, they just replaced Capitalism with state Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

ye its kinda a "you started it" "no you started it" kinda thing i duno maybe i phrased it wrong but i didnt mean the american people i just meant the american govenrment when i said "the americans" i hope i havnt offended anyone

No offence taken--EVER.

But that's the way it was in thise days--the whole McCarthy hearings--while brutal, were about a real threat to American soverignty. Communists controled by Stalin were infiltrating the government. Now you may think this a good thing--but you can see why the government of the US thought it might not be so good.

[Dóchas]

No offence taken--EVER.

But that's the way it was in thise days--the whole McCarthy hearings--while brutal, were about a real threat to American soverignty. Communists controled by Stalin were infiltrating the government. Now you may think this a good thing--but you can see why the government of the US thought it might not be so good.

oh ye i definitely understand why america had to react but they usually reacted in a much more aggressive way eg the bay of pigs (although that was a joke) and some of the revolutions that they sponsored in latin america in opposition to the communist parties that had just gained power or were in the process of gaining power

[Bud Struggle]

oh ye i definitely understand why america had to react but they usually reacted in a much more aggressive way eg the bay of pigs (although that was a joke) and some of the revolutions that they sponsored in latin america in opposition to the communist parties that had just gained power or were in the process of gaining power

The response of the United States to Communism has been all over the place. But without a doubt--America ALWAYS tool communism as a threat. They fought in Korea and Vietnam directly. They fought in Central and South America indirectly. And then they fought in Europe (brilliantly played by Reagan) not at all. America was just BETTER than the Soviets and he played that trump card to the hilt--and the Evil Empire fell.

Interesting game of chess all around, but for the most part the Capitalists always won in the end.

[Forward Union]

could the people who agree with the first post please read my last responce

[Dóchas]

America was just BETTER than the Soviets.

i wonder why? (no joke im serious why was america better because the soviets had an economy and army to match the americans was it just that the americans were better at discussing things politically and no one trusted the soviets or something?)

[Bud Struggle]

i wonder why? (no joke im serious why was america better because the soviets had an economy and army to match the americans was it just that the americans were better at discussing things politically and no one trusted the soviets or something?)

Great question. But lightly--America had a HUGE economy compared to the Soviets, the Amercan army was on top of their game--but most importantly the Americans wisely used their space program as a starting point for their technological growth, while the Soviets--just as clever in the space race didn't make that connection. Also the SU had to make up for the devistation of WWII. America while involved wasn't part of the land war.

I was in the SU before it fell and compared to America it was a third world country.

Oh and also--the Soviet brand of "communism" really didn't work too well.

[Dóchas]

Great question. But lightly--America had a HUGE economy compared to the Soviets, the Amercan army was on top of their game--but most importantly the Americans wisely used their space program as a starting point for their technological growth, while the Soviets--just as clever in the space race didn't make that connection.

so it was basicly the two superpowers showing off to everyone else in between and let them decide who was better (and as seen as americas anti-communist propaganda machine was well oiled america won)

[Demogorgon]

And the reason they say Communism doesn't work is that it no longer exists.

Bada Bing! :lol:
What is Communism? If we are going to measure it by Soviet Standards-that is a state that formally classifies itself constitutionally as Communist or Socialist, over a third of the world's population lives under Communism or Socialism.

[Bud Struggle]

so it was basicly the two superpowers showing off to everyone else in between and let them decide who was better (and as seen as americas anti-communist propaganda machine was well oiled america won)

And each spending PILES of money showing off. Now if both countries spent the money on a better standard of living for their people--we'd ALL be living in a better world.

But no.

Really, if we all just stop "fighting" both Communism and Capitalism would work and feed and cloth and treat their people just fine. Both systems probably work if not hampered with WAR. Capitalism, at least in the past, definitely was at an advantage in that sort of peacock presentation of power.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hmm but it seems to me the people that really work harder get more shit than those that do less. I don't think I need to substanciate that claim if you have any life experience.

Working hard doesn't matter. The level of your contribution to society does.



But I don't believe in some magical revolution tomorrow or next week. I do 't pray that change will oneday come. I organise, organise, organise. And do what I can in my day to day life to improve the conditions of myself, friends, family and community. And of course I hope we will do better, build these community and workplace groups and begin to resist and achieve more. But success and defeat are measured by our hard work. There's no faith involved.

In a sense you are completely correct. If you work hard you can just about have a decent standard of living in a Capitalist sosciety. This hard work comes in the form of mass strike action, solidarity, and strong community and residence associations, that can keep your wages up and defend you from evictions once your pompus landlord has sent you enough payment due letters.

We could keep livign like this, or we could kick the parasites out and use the unions and residence associations to manage our workplaces and lives.

You sound like every other memeber of this board. Organize! Organize! Organize! If we say it enough maybe we'll become...Commie Club Members :lol:

Rise as One:



dude dont take this personally i said the eisenhower administration not TheCultofAbeLicoln administration i was just saying that america has put its nose in a lot of potential communist countries and stopped them turning to communism eg most of latin america


I'm not. I'm just asking if you would really want to play the USSR v USA debate (which clearly doesn't matter) when all we're going to realize is that a.) America Won and that b.) Both superpowers are evil, and powerful.

If you do, I'll counter your argument with the fact that the USSR, while pushing Communism on our doorstep, wouldn't allow Capitalism on theirs, even though the Eastern Bloc was anything but pro-Soviet.

As Tom pointed out, it's just a chess game. And by the way, we did trade with the USSR.



Well Capitalism IS around and IS'nT working and Never has, so I don't see how anyone could believe in that.

BTW, everytime communism has been tried it has worked (although generally destroyed by outside Capitalist armies). the USSR and China, never tried it, they just replaced Capitalism with state Capitalism.


Typical Communist rhetoric. Most Capitalists admit contemporary Capitalism isn't perfect, but don't run away like it's a prom night dumpster baby.

[Dean]

Man, you're really worried, aren't you? :lol:

Yes. It's really, really terrifying to watch someone like Obama make corporate and militant extremist remarks, and vote that way, and have such pbulic support. And when I tell people about what an unbelievable shit he is, they still support him dogmatically. For fucks sake, he supports and encourages the murder of civilians and mass theft from the working class. I have never once in my life doubted that the 9-11 attacks were unjustified. But when I see the U.S. people behave this way, it makes me feel like they are asking for what comes their way. It's very hard to defend a system and a population when it gleefully welcomes the reign of an international terrorist.

It's very simple. One day, and not far from now, the U.S. will get what's coming to her. And the U.S. people will be indignant, questioning what they did wrong when it was clear all along.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What is Communism? If we are going to measure it by Soviet Standards-that is a state that formally classifies itself constitutionally as Communist or Socialist, over a third of the world's population lives under Communism or Socialism.

What is a democratic republic? If it's defined as what a country calls itself then North Korea's population is very lucky.

[Demogorgon]

What is a democratic republic? If it's defined as what a country calls itself then North Korea's population is very lucky.
Indeed, but it is not me that regards self definition as accurate, but Tom tends to regard the Soviets as Communist, so for the sake of consistency he can't say that Communism has gone.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Short-term memory, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

(Yeah, we all know Wikipedia sucks, but check out the references listed if you're curious.)

We also supported the KMT in the Chinese Civil War; the point is that while revolutions are generally limited to executions of former government officials, civil wars are almost always extraordinarily bloody affairs, and when you support the losing side, you're drawing out the war, which in turn devours resources and skilled laborers.

I think it is silly to say that socialism does not work based on the difference between advanced capitalist countries and former socialist republics - it would only be an accurate comparison if they were both equally advanced to begin with, in terms of their economies. They never are.

Hmmmm...didn't know that. Interesting, though it didn't make a difference in either case and both of those nations have sold-out to capitalism.


Sorry, but the commie in your story hasn't been born yet.

Of course not. He'll come by about the same time Jesus does.


And the cappie is only the latest in a long line of people who also survived in the same environments - and he hasn't broken any survival records yet.

:confused: WTF are you talking about? We've set every survival record in a completely new environment....

What pre-capitalist nation had a life epectancy of over 70 years?
What pre-capitalist nation had a population of over 300,000,000?
What pre-capitalist nation has been able to have an environment 70 stories off the ground?
What pre-capitalist nation allowed free speech? education for everyone? any of the civil liberties we take for granted? travel over oceans (in a few hours)?

Are you blind?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Indeed, but it is not me that regards self definition as accurate, but Tom tends to regard the Soviets as Communist, so for the sake of consistency he can't say that Communism has gone.

Sorry for butting in, my mistake. I misinterpreted the pint you were trying to make.



Yes. It's really, really terrifying to watch someone like Obama make corporate and militant extremist remarks, and vote that way, and have such pbulic support. And when I tell people about what an unbelievable shit he is, they still support him dogmatically. For fucks sake, he supports and encourages the murder of civilians and mass theft from the working class. I have never once in my life doubted that the 9-11 attacks were unjustified. But when I see the U.S. people behave this way, it makes me feel like they are asking for what comes their way. It's very hard to defend a system and a population when it gleefully welcomes the reign of an international terrorist.

It's very simple. One day, and not far from now, the U.S. will get what's coming to her. And the U.S. people will be indignant, questioning what they did wrong when it was clear all along.


He's not the leader who could do them best, he's the leader they deserve.

And what's up with the Chicken Little attitude? What makes you think the sky will fall down?

[Forward Union]

Working hard doesn't matter. The level of your contribution to society does.

And how do you measure contribution? In all notable instances, collectively managed industries have had a higher productivity rate than a managed one. See the textile plants in Brazil or the Bike factories in Germany. Arguably the boss not only doesn't contribute, but holds back industry. Furthermore, the ruling class constantly seeks to maximise profits, at the expence of society. In the UK for example they are slashing the NHS to bits.

The Ruling class may well be the single most detrimental grouping to society in human history.

But this has nothing to do with communism. We're not talking about collectively managed capitalism. But the fact that all objects of use are produced by the Working class, not the bosses.


You sound like every other memeber of this board. Organize! Organize! Organize! If we say it enough maybe we'll become...Commie Club Members :lol:

Im active in three organisations. In one of which i hold a position of office. I've won things for my local community. So I am not sure what this criticism is meant to entail, that I am not active?


I'm not. I'm just asking if you would really want to play the USSR v USA debate (which clearly doesn't matter) when all we're going to realize is that a.) America Won and that b.) Both superpowers are evil, and powerful.

"Evil" is a meaningless term. Neither were evil. But both were looking out for the economic interests of their state. There was nothing ideological about the Cold war, it was entirely to do with competing economic interests. Now the USSR has collapsed, those tensions still exist. Furthermore, at best you could argue the conflict was one of Socialism Vs Capitalism. as the USSR was the union of soviet socialist republics, not communist. The USSR never claimed to be communist.

For the record I am no supporter of the USSR.

[spice756]

But that's the way it was in thise days--the whole McCarthy hearings--while brutal, were about a real threat to American soverignty. Communists controled by Stalin were infiltrating the government. Now you may think this a good thing--but you can see why the government of the US thought it might not be so good.



sorry this sounds conspiracy stuff infiltrating the government.If there where people in US that want communism they not infiltrating the government.



BTW, everytime communism has been tried it has worked (although generally destroyed by outside Capitalist armies). the USSR and China, never tried it, they just replaced Capitalism with state Capitalism.

No offence taken--EVER.



For the USSR to be state Capitalism there would have to be private ownership and businesses competing for profit under state run.There was no private ownership or businesses competing for profit .

Just communist party members exploiting the working class and living a privilege life.

The state Capitalism was in Italy and Germany ans Spain under fascism.It is true after Mao China allowed private ownership and investment and welcome American companies and public and private under state control.But profit drives China not socialism.

Dam they even allow capitalists to join the communist party.China and India has the worse labor laws yet they exploit the workers.

[Comrade B]

if you work hard its good enough and miles better than socialism.
The American Dream is bull shit.
Capitalism only succeeds because there is no way for it to fail. Capitalism has no goals, thus it is always successful.

Here is an example of the whole rags to riches stuff being absolute bull shit.

Joe was from a poor family in the middle of no where (Nebo). When he was 17 he faked being 18 and joined the US navy to fight in WWII. After this, he came back to the US, settled down in Queens New York and tried to raise a family working as a welder in a factory. He was called back by the military to fight once more in the Korean War, after another short bit of trauma, he returned back to New York and immediately got back to working in the factory he used to work in, because he had 6 kids. He worked his ass off all his life in that factory, never fucking up, always working his hardest, and trying to earn his family enough to get by. The Vietnam War came along and asked for 3 of his sons. They all came back addicts or with horrible PTS. Joe continued to work in his factory. One day, Joe's son, one who was not sent to Vietnam, who was working with him in the factory, goes to the doctor and discovers he has cancer. Joe also finds out a few years later that he has cancer. Joe dies poor and exhausted.

A few years after the death of Joe, his family finds out that the cancer he got was from a chemical that they used in his factory, which his rich capitalist boss decided to use to save himself some money. His son also got another form of cancer caused by the chemical.

If the American Dream truly existed and you could get rich just from hard work in capitalism, wouldn't Joe have defiantly earned that wealth?

Anyway, today this is Joe's family
Joe-dead
Joe's wife-dead from lung cancer she got from Joe's second hand smoke. Joe started smoking a lot after his diagnosis.
Son 1- A Vietnam veteran who is starting to consider himself a communist.
Son 2- has severe depression and a terrible mental disability which causes him to think that the rest of his family is trying to humiliate him/set him up.
Son 3- Has severe depression, is turning away from capitalism
Daughter- left country, married a communist
Son 4- Still alive, still with cancer
Son 5- Left the country

Here is just one case of capitalism failing at the only thing it is expected to do- reward the hard worker and their families

[synthesis]

I don't think capitalism really promotes hard work as an end in itself - the "Protestant work ethic" is long gone.

Capitalism promotes "hard work" in the pursuit of one's own business, not in pursuit of someone else's.

If capitalism as an ideology promoted "hard work" in proletarian labor, then you'd expect capitalists to constantly praise workers, even if it was only rhetorical.

Instead, they usually look down on the proletariat, saying they were not ingenuous enough to "make it" out of their class - despite basic realities that make it impossible for the majority of ingenuous people to accumulate enough capital in order to "be their own boss."

[cop an Attitude]

Don't you think?

I was thinking and writing about this in another thread..

The reality today is this..

We are in an era of globalization. If your a free market state Capitalist your in a golden straight jacket. Communism has failed every time its been tried. Capitalism is no doubt shit and unjust but if you work hard its good enough and miles better than socialism.

Of course believe in what you say and do but those of you who truly believe the "revolution" will happen sometime soon - in my opinion your no different to people who believe in the sky fairy.


wow, if your going to criticise communism on a left forum you might think about saying somthing original.

[Dean]

I don't think capitalism really promotes hard work as an end in itself - the "Protestant work ethic" is long gone.

Capitalism promotes "hard work" in the pursuit of one's own business, not in pursuit of someone else's.

If capitalism as an ideology promoted "hard work" in proletarian labor, then you'd expect capitalists to constantly praise workers, even if it was only rhetorical.

Instead, they usually look down on the proletariat, saying they were not ingenuous enough to "make it" out of their class - despite basic realities that make it impossible for the majority of ingenuous people to accumulate enough capital in order to "be their own boss."
The Puritan work ethic is alive and well. As an idolized archetype it "maintains its subconscious edge" as Greg Graffin would say. :lol:

But, really. Americans still worship toil, though the culture is to indignantly reject the notion that toil should ever compense more than it does at any given moment.

[synthesis]

The Puritan work ethic is alive and well.

If you were bolding that just to be a dick, google it - the concept is more commonly called the "Protestant work ethic"... I was only referring to the phrase itself and not trying to comment on Protestantism.

Anyways, perhaps it is often idealized in American culture, but among people who consider themselves "capitalists" in an ideological or occupational sense, the proletariat is often openly denigrated. In the modern capitalist train of thought, "hard work" is perceived as valuable only when it promotes a business in which you have some sort of direct stake.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

And how do you measure contribution? In all notable instances, collectively managed industries have had a higher productivity rate than a managed one. See the textile plants in Brazil or the Bike factories in Germany.

Do you have a link for this?

I know these collectives exist, I'm just curious about them (and have been for a while). I'd look it'd up on wiki, but I wouldn't know were to start. "communist bike factories" didn't turn back anything :closedeyes::lol:


Arguably the boss not only doesn't contribute, but holds back industry. Furthermore, the ruling class constantly seeks to maximise profits, at the expence of society. In the UK for example they are slashing the NHS to bits.

Aguably, yes. There is nothing stopping workers of a similiar trade from organizing and maximing their productivity and, thereby, maximizing their return from society.


The Ruling class may well be the single most detrimental grouping to society in human history.

What ruling class are you refering to?


But this has nothing to do with communism. We're not talking about collectively managed capitalism. But the fact that all objects of use are produced by the Working class, not the bosses.

Yes, but save you and your chaps, it's the organizing part holding many, more productive and 'morally superior,' potential groupings back.


Im active in three organisations. In one of which i hold a position of office. I've won things for my local community. So I am not sure what this criticism is meant to entail, that I am not active?

You are an exception, and keep it up the good fight. It's just that I start to doubt if many of the comrades here spend as much time helping those worse off then they are as they do online.


"Evil" is a meaningless term. Neither were evil. But both were looking out for the economic interests of their state. There was nothing ideological about the Cold war, it was entirely to do with competing economic interests. Now the USSR has collapsed, those tensions still exist. Furthermore, at best you could argue the conflict was one of Socialism Vs Capitalism. as the USSR was the union of soviet socialist republics, not communist. The USSR never claimed to be communist.

Ahhh, that's refreshing. A brief view of the Cold War in which rationale and analysis replaces the meaningless name-calling which preoccupies most discussions of world relations.

Furthermore, I believe we can both agree that the USSR v US was not a battle between socialism or capitalism, or of freedom vs freedom as the debate often goes, but between the ruling elite of both superpowers intent on their own benefit. Neither the American teenagers in Vietnam nor their Russian counterparts in Afghanistan gave a damn to these interests nearly as much as the fight for basic survival.


For the record I am no supporter of the USSR.

Consider it noted.

Let me add that I'm no ideological supporter of many, if not most, of the neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda for the world.

[Bilan]

Tisk tisk.

[Dóchas]

Rise as One:



I'm not. I'm just asking if you would really want to play the USSR v USA debate (which clearly doesn't matter) when all we're going to realize is that a.) America Won and that b.) Both superpowers are evil, and powerful.

If you do, I'll counter your argument with the fact that the USSR, while pushing Communism on our doorstep, wouldn't allow Capitalism on theirs, even though the Eastern Bloc was anything but pro-Soviet.

As Tom pointed out, it's just a chess game. And by the way, we did trade with the USSR.




i wasnt looking for a debate i was just saying that th US stunted the development of communism.

in relation to the soviets not allowing capitalism on their dorstep,why would they? they were just establishing their own economy why would they give the population an alternative to what they wanted to do in their country ( i want you to know im not defending the soviet union they were far from perfect)

just wondering, what did the americans exactly trade with the soviet union apart from insults?

[jasmine]

The American Dream is bull shit.
Capitalism only succeeds because there is no way for it to fail. Capitalism has no goals, thus it is always successful.

Here is an example of the whole rags to riches stuff being absolute bull shit.

Joe was from a poor family in the middle of no where (Nebo). When he was 17 he faked being 18 and joined the US navy to fight in WWII. After this, he came back to the US, settled down in Queens New York and tried to raise a family working as a welder in a factory. He was called back by the military to fight once more in the Korean War, after another short bit of trauma, he returned back to New York and immediately got back to working in the factory he used to work in, because he had 6 kids. He worked his ass off all his life in that factory, never fucking up, always working his hardest, and trying to earn his family enough to get by. The Vietnam War came along and asked for 3 of his sons. They all came back addicts or with horrible PTS. Joe continued to work in his factory. One day, Joe's son, one who was not sent to Vietnam, who was working with him in the factory, goes to the doctor and discovers he has cancer. Joe also finds out a few years later that he has cancer. Joe dies poor and exhausted.

A few years after the death of Joe, his family finds out that the cancer he got was from a chemical that they used in his factory, which his rich capitalist boss decided to use to save himself some money. His son also got another form of cancer caused by the chemical.

If the American Dream truly existed and you could get rich just from hard work in capitalism, wouldn't Joe have defiantly earned that wealth?

Anyway, today this is Joe's family
Joe-dead
Joe's wife-dead from lung cancer she got from Joe's second hand smoke. Joe started smoking a lot after his diagnosis.
Son 1- A Vietnam veteran who is starting to consider himself a communist.
Son 2- has severe depression and a terrible mental disability which causes him to think that the rest of his family is trying to humiliate him/set him up.
Son 3- Has severe depression, is turning away from capitalism
Daughter- left country, married a communist
Son 4- Still alive, still with cancer
Son 5- Left the country

Here is just one case of capitalism failing at the only thing it is expected to do- reward the hard worker and their families

This is a great post - the best I've read here. The Wobblies would be grateful to count you as a member.

[Forward Union]

Do you have a link for this?

I know these collectives exist, I'm just curious about them (and have been for a while). I'd look it'd up on wiki, but I wouldn't know were to start. "communist bike factories" didn't turn back anything :closedeyes::lol:

Well the Bike factory was occupied by workers in the Anarchist Union the FAU (Free Workers Union) www.labournet.net/world/0709/bike1.html (http://www.labournet.net/world/0709/bike1.html)

As for argentina, there are many instances. Here's a lead for you to follow, I don't have time to look up all the possible sources. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4562114.stm



What ruling class are you refering to?

There's only one.


Yes, but save you and your chaps, it's the organizing part holding many, more productive and 'morally superior,' potential groupings back.

Not sure what you mean by this? DO you mean workplace and community organising holds back morrally superior groupings?


You are an exception, and keep it up the good fight. It's just that I start to doubt if many of the comrades here spend as much time helping those worse off then they are as they do online.

But I don't think I am helping people "worse off" than myself. Im helping myself, my family friends, coworkers and local community because it's better for me and Im a selfish ****. I want what I've earnt and I want control over my community.

I don't recognise the right of bussinesses to invade my community, put a fence around my local park and build a Tescos. I don't recognise the right of my boss to take my wages from my hard earned work and give me back 20% of it. I don't recognise the right of my landlord to hold land by force and charge me extortionatly for shelter through threat of homelessness and eviction. And I have the spine to stick up for myself and my mates when they suffer for this state of affairs.

I'm not arguing about ideology, but about everyday life. You can disagree with Communism and love Adam Smiths' "The Wealth of Nations" all you want, but when you have to pay half your wages on a single room and a shower, with food costs gong up and home repossesions going up. Working class resistance is a practical necessity. To add insult to injury our government spends much of our tax on bombing people even more hungry tired, depserate and poor than ourselves. While 1 in 3 children in London live below the poverty line...
,
I'm putting it like this because this is the reality that draws so many people to our politics. But once people adopt an idea, they tend to get a bit full hardy with it and argue about abstracts. Perhaps this helps yo usee where we're coming from, from a fresh angle.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

And the reason they say Communism doesn't work is that it no longer exists.

Bada Bing! :lol:


Correction: It has yet to exist.

[trivas7]

Ah, here we get to the core of this issue: When people say that capitalism "works," what they mean is only that it continues to exist.

You're comparing mixed economy to something that has never existed, so your point escapes me.

[ashaman1324]

how can you say capitalism works?
have you taken a look at Africa recently?
or Urban America, the "richest and most powerful country in the world"?
the fact that a poverty line still exists anywhere in the world shows capitalism doesn't work.

[synthesis]

the fact that a poverty line still exists anywhere in the world shows capitalism doesn't work.

The fact that a poverty line exists somewhere doesn't necessarily mean anything. If communism ever comes to be, in practice there will still be different standards of living for different people. All the theory in the world can't totally compensate for limited resources - only technology has that power.

[Forward Union]

I wonder if anyone will respond to my last post? Or have I won the argument?

[pusher robot]

A few years after the death of Joe, his family finds out that the cancer he got was from a chemical that they used in his factory, which his rich capitalist boss decided to use to save himself some money. His son also got another form of cancer caused by the chemical.

You forgot about the part where Joe's wife and son sued the pants off the rich capitalist boss.

[Plagueround]

You forgot about the part where Joe's wife and son sued the pants off the rich capitalist boss.

Well that makes the system all better! Hugs for everyone! :mellow:

[Forward Union]

You forgot about the part where Joe's wife and son sued the pants off the rich capitalist boss.

Citation needed. More often than not this wonderful idea never happens. All the time, workers get made to handle chemicals that are later found to be dangerous, or are known to be dangerous. Workers dont get issued hard hats or recieve safety training all over the place. Workers are often given unhealthy amounts of work to do and pressured into doing more. Sometimes legally. Civillian work kills more people than warfare, even in the west. There's even a memorial day in the UK www.hazards.org/wmd (http://www.hazards.org/wmd)

Despite the winning of the 8 hour day, most people I know work nearly 14 hours a day in two jobs.

The best solution to these problems is to have strong Unions in the workplaces that can confront and challenge the bosses, whos cost-cutting world outlook completely contradicts and opposes our interests as working humans.

[Comrade B]

You forgot about the part where Joe's wife and son sued the pants off the rich capitalist boss.
Joe died before the class action lawsuit
It lost because you cant fight 7 lawyers with 1.

Rich people win in court. Always.

[politics student]

how can you say capitalism works?
have you taken a look at Africa recently?
or Urban America, the "richest and most powerful country in the world"?
the fact that a poverty line still exists anywhere in the world shows capitalism doesn't work.
According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty.

Apparently that is a good economic system. Which means that within 10 years of that statistic alone it would have exceeded the 100 million which communism apparently killed.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

There's only one.

Really?


Not sure what you mean by this? DO you mean workplace and community organising holds back morrally superior groupings?

No, many morally superior groups being held back by a lack of organization.


But I don't think I am helping people "worse off" than myself. Im helping myself, my family friends, coworkers and local community because it's better for me and Im a selfish ****. I want what I've earnt and I want control over my community.

If you were making more, would you still demand all that you've earned?



I don't recognise the right of bussinesses to invade my community, put a fence around my local park and build a Tescos. I don't recognise the right of my boss to take my wages from my hard earned work and give me back 20% of it. I don't recognise the right of my landlord to hold land by force and charge me extortionatly for shelter through threat of homelessness and eviction. And I have the spine to stick up for myself and my mates when they suffer for this state of affairs.


First, preserving, maintaining, and building parks or other public entities is hardly a far-left quality alone. Second, what do you mean by your boss taking most of your wage?



I'm not arguing about ideology, but about everyday life. You can disagree with Communism and love Adam Smiths' "The Wealth of Nations" all you want, but when you have to pay half your wages on a single room and a shower, with food costs gong up and home repossesions going up. Working class resistance is a practical necessity. To add insult to injury our government spends much of our tax on bombing people even more hungry tired, depserate and poor than ourselves. While 1 in 3 children in London live below the poverty line...


You can look at all the tinder which should spark a strong leftist current and I, though I could be wrong, don't feel one. A slight shift perhaps, but I don't really see a credible worker-basd force rising or even attempting to rise out of the turmoil. Anybody can ***** at the government to do something, the trick is getting enough people to enact the changes wished to be seen.

Obviously, 1 in 3 children coming out of London should be ardent communists. Are they? If no, why not? They are the children which society has forgotten, should they not organize and make society come to terms with them?


I'm putting it like this because this is the reality that draws so many people to our politics. But once people adopt an idea, they tend to get a bit full hardy with it and argue about abstracts. Perhaps this helps yo usee where we're coming from, from a fresh angle.

Yes, but when you say 'we' who are you reffering to? The wobblies?

[Forward Union]

No, many morally superior groups being held back by a lack of organization.

Oh no doubt about that. It's a serious issue.


If you were making more, would you still demand all that you've earned?

No, if we can over-produce, which we can in most cases, we ought to plan the economy so that it's effectively distributed. Today, grain is over produced in the US, much of the grain produced is dumped in the sea to make existing grain more valuable. I would propose that the surpless is given to people who need it.


First, preserving, maintaining, and building parks or other public entities is hardly a far-left quality alone. Second, what do you mean by your boss taking most of your wage?

The park was simply an example of the fact that I community control. And that the interests of the community, conflict with the interests of capitalism and bussiness. Since the start of private property, with the enclosures acts in the UK, working people have resisted the right of the few to plan, and cut up communitites in their own interests. I say that communitites belong to the people who make them up. If it's profitable for a bussiniss man to build a shop on a park, I say it's legitimate for the people of that community to prevent him by any means.

Other examples of working class resistance could be resisting evictions and repossesions, refusing to pay rent and essentially "squatting" etc. In some parts of England communities have built burning barricades to stop police coming in to look for illegal workers. That the white working class had decided to hide in their homes...

I make more money for my Boss than he gives me back. Thus I am exploited.


You can look at all the tinder which should spark a strong leftist current and I, though I could be wrong, don't feel one. A slight shift perhaps, but I don't really see a credible worker-basd force rising or even attempting to rise out of the turmoil. Anybody can ***** at the government to do something, the trick is getting enough people to enact the changes wished to be seen.

All I can say in responce to the Criticism that we're disorganised and ineffective, is, yes you're right. But that's notthe worst problem imaginable. Many of our organisations have started growing rapidly over the last 2-3 years.


Obviously, 1 in 3 children coming out of London should be ardent communists. Are they? If no, why not? They are the children which society has forgotten, should they not organize and make society come to terms with them?

They should, and at various times, they do. We have numerous radical community groups in London, made up of locals. Action East End, Harringey Solidarity, Hackney Independant, London Coalition Against Poverty etc. The problem is a lack of coordination. People may well agree with these groups, but fail to see how it helps them. This is a problem left over from an influx of liberals into our movement in the 1960s.


Yes, but when you say 'we' who are you reffering to? The wobblies?

No I was loosely refering to communists in general. But Im sure many wobs would agree with my statements.

[Jazzratt]

You forgot about the part where Joe's wife and son sued the pants off the rich capitalist boss.

And then, with the money they got they bought Joe the ability to continue respiring. Oh no, wait...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

:confused: ummm....what? When have we interfered in any of the big communist countries?

:blink:

"You" have interfered in every "communist" country, big and small. Gee, it makes it kinda fun to argue against American imperialism when your opponent chooses to personally represent it. Hey, how many innocent civilians did you kill in Vietnam? Why did you support mass murdering racist terrorists in Africa to fight leftist regimes? If you didn't want responsibility for the collapse of XX century socialism, why did you participate in stopping the August coup?

[eyedrop]

You forgot about the part where Joe's wife and son sued the pants off the rich capitalist boss.

Sounds good in theory, but not in practise.

Last time my spouse tried that she ended up winning the case, having to pay the legal fees and without the money she was supposed to get from winning the case.


Edit; BTW does anyone have any statistiscs on how many poor Joe's that end up gaining anything by suing?

[Bud Struggle]

:blink:
If you didn't want responsibility for the collapse of XX century socialism, why did you participate in stopping the August coup?

Remember: "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!!?"

The USA more than willingly destroyed Socialism.

Did a good job of it, too.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The US didn't only fight socialism with weapons and threats (as cited above), but also by interfering in the internal affairs of every big and small socialist regime, contrary to what's his face's claim.

[Dóchas]

:blink:

"You" have interfered in every "communist" country, big and small. Gee, it makes it kinda fun to argue against American imperialism when your opponent chooses to personally represent it. Hey, how many innocent civilians did you kill in Vietnam? Why did you support mass murdering racist terrorists in Africa to fight leftist regimes? If you didn't want responsibility for the collapse of XX century socialism, why did you participate in stopping the August coup?

thats what i asked him but he didnt get it

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The US won the cold war because of imperialism, plain and simple. The nature of capitalist imperialism is to exert control over other governments and economies. In that respect, the USSR really was a second rate super power. As for the Soviets pushing socialism closer to the US than the US was allowed to do in the East is simply ridiculous in the extreme. First, the US did not "accept" a socialist country on its doorstep, they just didn't have a viable way of changing that. The US did have plenty of close allies on the Eastern bloc's borders, namely NATO, Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan. At the end of the missile crisis, the American nukes stayed, while the Soviet nukes in Cuba had to go.

[Bud Struggle]

The US didn't only fight socialism with weapons and threats (as cited above), but also by interfering in the internal affairs of every big and small socialist regime, contrary to what's his face's claim.

You must remember that Stalin and HIS Communist part were players in American politics and unions in the 30's 40's and 50s. The US was just playing hardball back at him.


The US won the cold war because of imperialism, plain and simple. The nature of capitalist imperialism is to exert control over other governments and economies. In that respect, the USSR really was a second rate super power. As for the Soviets pushing socialism closer to the US than the US was allowed to do in the East is simply ridiculous in the extreme. First, the US did not "accept" a socialist country on its doorstep, they just didn't have a viable way of changing that. The US did have plenty of close allies on the Eastern bloc's borders, namely NATO, Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan. At the end of the missile crisis, the American nukes stayed, while the Soviet nukes in Cuba had to go.

America played a LOT better. They simply outclassed the Socialists--outspent them too, I'm no economist, but I remember the guns vrs butter speech in Economics 101 and the US was able to produce both while the SU (and now Cuba) had empty supermarkets.

[Jazzratt]

You must remember that Stalin and HIS Communist part were players in American politics and unions in the 30's 40's and 50s. The US was just playing hardball back at him.

Bollocks. The SU involvement in American labour unions was fucking tiny, most of the berserk paranoia about that was cooked up by McCarthy and his ilk during their (wildly successful) attempt to whip the American masses up into a state of wild jingoism and self-defeating ideology. The main reason they built up this paranoia (and later religious sentiment) was to make sure the American people wouldn't give a shit about horrendous fucking atrocities.

America wasn't just playing "hardball". Where socialism was winning in the stakes of popularity amongst the people of nations around the world, america was winning in their willingess to carry out acts of unbelievable savagery. Just look at the tactics they used in Vietnam, the dehumanising language about their enemies and the kind of people they installed (Pinochet, for example) or supported (Sukarno, for example).


America played a LOT better.

Yes, they can say with all honesty that even with the atrocious agricultural and political decisions of the SU they were much more classy about their bloodbaths. At least they intended to kill millions...


the simply outclassed the Socialists--outspent them too, I'm no economist, but I remeber the guns vrs butter speech in Economics 101 and the US was aboe to produce both while the SU (and now Cuba) had empty supermarkets.

Yeah. We've all heard the "bread lines" and "empty supermarkets" bullshit before. We shouldn't forget, however, that when the free market came back to places like Poland the situation got far, far worse. Gains made for the working class in terms of nationalised industries, job protection and living wages were demolished in one fell swoop and unemployment, starvation and homelessness shot up. Now there weren't any more bread lines because there was no bread and the supermarkets were full but no one could afford what was on the shelves.

Meanwhile the brilliant outspending tactic left america reeling in debts that it has never fully recovered from while money is still pissed away on the paranoid fantasies of a demented old fart (see $10bn-a year pie-in-the-sky project "STar Wars").I wouldn't say America won the Cold War, because it was not a victory of nations or even of internationalism it was a victory of corporations, nebulous free market entites which are a law unto themselves.

Of course you're going to hit back with some fascinating and historically innacurate, star-spangled fuckwittery but please for a moment consider exactly what the capitalist imperailist involvement in the cold war was and to whose benefit.

[Bud Struggle]

Bollocks. The SU involvement in American labour unions was fucking tiny, most of the berserk paranoia about that was cooked up by McCarthy and his ilk during their (wildly successful) attempt to whip the American masses up into a state of wild jingoism and self-defeating ideology. The main reason they built up this paranoia (and later religious sentiment) was to make sure the American people wouldn't give a shit about horrendous fucking atrocities. No read Bernard Wolfe's bio (A Life in Two Centuries) to understand howdeep Stalins's involvement in the day to day operations of the American Communist Party was. Stalin was indeed "bothersome" to american self interests here at home.


America wasn't just playing "hardball". Where socialism was winning in the stakes of popularity amongst the people of nations around the world, america was winning in their willingess to carry out acts of unbelievable savagery. Just look at the tactics they used in Vietnam, the dehumanising language about their enemies and the kind of people they installed (Pinochet, for example) or supported (Sukarno, for example). And Communist had Stalin's purges and Pol pot and Mao, and the Gang of Four, and North Korea--any hardly a paradise.




Yes, they can say with all honesty that even with the atrocious agricultural and political decisions of the SU they were much more classy about their bloodbaths. At least they intended to kill millions... It was a war for the minds and hearts of the world and both sides played quite brutally. I'll grant you that.




Yeah. We've all heard the "bread lines" and "empty supermarkets" bullshit before. I have been to Eastern Europe before and after the fall and I must admit I have never seen a bread line, but I've seen plenty of supermarkets with nothing in them. It was a hard life in socialist countries--the worst isn't the food problem--it was the TRUST problem. You never knew who you were talking to or who would report you. It was (and in the case of places like Cuba and North Korea, still is) real terror.



We shouldn't forget, however, that when the free market came back to places like Poland the situation got far, far worse. Gains made for the working class in terms of nationalised industries, job protection and living wages were demolished in one fell swoop and unemployment, starvation and homelessness shot up. Now there weren't any more bread lines because there was no bread and the supermarkets were full but no one could afford what was on the shelves. An ajustment period--but imagine--now the Polish can actually be "allowed" TRAVEL to other countries and make money and return at will--imagine the freedom. And thing little, by little are improving.


Meanwhile the brilliant outspending tactic left america reeling in debts that it has never fully recovered from while money is still pissed away on the paranoid fantasies of a demented old fart (see $10bn-a year pie-in-the-sky project "STar Wars"). I agree we don't much need any Star Wars programs--but life is good in America. (For the most part.)


I wouldn't say America won the Cold War, because it was not a victory of nations or even of internationalism it was a victory of corporations, nebulous free market entites which are a law unto themselves. It's really not a matter of who won--it's a matter that Socialism/Communism lost.


Of course you're going to hit back with some fascinating and historically innacurate, star-spangled fuckwittery but please for a moment consider exactly what the capitalist imperailist involvement in the cold war was and to whose benefit.

Ah Jazz, you know me to well. :rolleyes: America benefited and I must admit not much else.

Side note--Jazz, you are one of the most interesting and best writers here on RevLeft--you should do something with it.

[Comrade B]

To those of you trying to create their own story for Joe, he was a real person. I am not making up some hypothetical tragidy because that would just be lying.

[synthesis]

The main reason they built up this paranoia (and later religious sentiment) was to make sure the American people wouldn't give a shit about horrendous fucking atrocities.

It was really more for personal gain in the populist sense than anything.

[Jazzratt]

No read Bernard Wolfe's bio (A Life in Two Centuries) to understand howdeep Stalins's involvement in the day to day operations of the American Communist Party was. Stalin was indeed "bothersome" to american self interests here at home.

The Communist party and the unions are different entities. America has always had trouble accepting unions and has tried to discredit them at pretty much every turn. A relevant example of this from the time would be this cartoon which implies that the IWW is made up of russian spies:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=27Bb2AwozYQ&feature=related

What subtlety!


And Communist had Stalin's purges and Pol pot and Mao, and the Gang of Four, and North Korea--any hardly a paradise.

I didn't say it was a paradise. They had failed to create communism but their policies were less brutally imperialist, espescially in later eras when America was really going for it in south America. Also Pol Pot wasn't a communist, even other communists stayed the fuck away from him and his primitivist ideology.


It was a war for the minds and hearts of the world and both sides played quite brutally. I'll grant you that.

America wasn't fighting for hearts and minds, it was fighting to cow people. To terrorise them. To send the message "If you even think of tying to improve your lives uncle Sam's going to come and beat seven shades of shit out of you". That's why they toppled democratically elected leaders in South America, that's why they worked hard to crush obviously popular uprisings.



I have been to Eastern Europe before and after the fall and I must admit I have never seen a bread line, but I've seen plenty of supermarkets with nothing in them.

Anecdotes. No place in a logical argument.


It was a hard life in socialist countries--the worst isn't the food problem--it was the TRUST problem. You never knew who you were talking to or who would report you. It was (and in the case of places like Cuba and North Korea, still is) real terror.

Yeah, all those terrible secret police. Nothing like America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO). The problem with getting any accurate information on this kind of stuff is that anyone who tells America the most outrageous shit about what happens in Cuba/North Korea/The old SU or whatever gets plenty of cash. It must be tempting to bend the truth or fabricate shit.


An ajustment period--but imagine--now the Polish can actually be "allowed" TRAVEL to other countries and make money and return at will--imagine the freedom. And thing little, by little are improving.

Things are improving because polish people have been forced to find work abroad. Things were improving before they were burned by the free market.


I agree we don't much need any Star Wars programs--but life is good in America. (For the most part.)

That's because the US dollar is the only currency in which oil can be traded, which means the federal reserve isn't going to be asked to give back the money it owes. At least not for a bit. Enjoy that "bit".


It's really not a matter of who won--it's a matter that Socialism/Communism lost.

YOu can't beat socialism. You can kill and demoralise its supporters, you can intimidate us and try to stop us from organising but you'll never beat us. Because as long as there is a working class there will be the malcontents and there will be a yearning for what is better. It will keep coming back to you until either it wins or both perish.


Side note--Jazz, you are one of the most interesting and best writers here on RevLeft--you should do something with it.

It's not often I agree with you, but hey you said it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Without a doubt, the United States subjected more people to state terror through puppet regimes than the Soviet Union. It wasn't all indirect on the part of the US gov't either. The American military, the CIA and other organs of the US government, armed with notoriously brutal and unscrupulous methods, had a direct presence in US-backed dictatorships all over the world. This didn't only come in the form of armed repression, but also in the imposition of dictatorial and neoliberal political, social and economic policies by US embassies, US AID, IMF and so on.

People over here were also killed by the thousands just for being leftist activists. The police persecuted, tortured, incarcerated and expatriated countless dissidents in the name of a dictatorship established with the objective of saving the country from the peril of communism. State terror isn't only what the evil Soviet empire did. It's actually primarily what the evil American empire did (does).

[RGacky3]

^^^ what he said, and juts because they do it in other (subservient) countries and not their own (as much) does'nt make it any less dispicable.