Results 21 to 40 of 102
i dont really care how much people Mao killed, and nobody gonna make me have compassion or understanding for the way the cultural revolution happened.
the crimes of capitalism dont erease the crime commited by horribles dictatorship regimes.
we may never know how much people where killed back then, the chinese governement love to rewrite history when it suit them, nothing new from a dictatorship.
nothing good come out from book burning.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
How many people.
Anyway there was loads of freedom of speech in maoist China, if you were willing to back up your views and debate them. Ever heard of the hundred flowers movement?
Formerly zenga zenga !
i love those little anti revisionist love fest.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Im not anti-revisionist, I just think Mao's democratic policies are important to understanding of history
Formerly zenga zenga !
Mao was a powermonger, just like every creazy people with power.
power corrupt, you should know that.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
The Hundred Flowers was a trap for intellectuals and 550,000 of those who criticized Mao was arrested and variously tortured or killed.
Democratic?!Do you work for the Chinese Ministry of Propaganda?
To be fair he said nation/regime.Which sound even worse.
Quite a few people do seem to think that.
I reckon the Ukrainian and Catalonian free territories have been the best examples so far.
You act like this is a bad thing.
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
Norway.
the freedom of other dosnt mean shit when they dont think like you eh?
well, if you are leftist you can say and think the way you want but if you arnt, well fuck you buddy, you gonna be raped and tortured beccause we said so!
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Yeah, ever hear what happened after that to the people that spoke out against mao? (by mao).
I would include the Zapatista territories, although poor, they are better off and have autonomy.
Yes people who disagree with the Great Mao must be re-educated!
Though I would disagree with you about nowadays. I would say from between 1920-1992 (especially during the 40-60s) you would actually have a point, I think. They never where declared a socialist republic and have always had a monarchy. But all I know is that workers had a lot of rights and the state was very generous. It also send aid to revolutions in africa also (would never be allowed to happen today).
It has always celebrated egelitarian goals also (not so much nowadays) in a way that only its neighbours can boast also (apart from UK obviously)
This is all based on testimonies from my family, so I can only speak from my own experiences as of 1984 onwards. All i can say is that it is now been ruined by capitalism (and so expensive its both offensive and embarrasing-im scared to take my mates there now).
Its still more so that way than other european countries, supprisingly Norway has been able to hold on to Social democracy more.
Also, the low unemployment rate and the actual worker effectiveness of Norway disproves all the Capitalists "incentive" scare stories.
A Socialistic culture and a Capitalistic culture changes, the so-called "human nature".
Rape? No. Torture? Maybe. Forced labor? Definitely.
"We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
--Lenin
Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
Sweden.
I really don't think it's justified for people to be mocking Richard Nixon for disliking the actions of self-styled communist states. We should learn whatever lessons we can from Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism- but this trend of "Maoism killed so-many, capitalism only killed this much" "no no, Maoism didn't kill that much, capitalism killed more" doesn't help anyway, and doesn't do justice to the leftists (and rightists/centrists/non-aligned too, of course) who died over disagreements with these "Communist" states.
It's hard to say which comes closest, because leftism isn't static- Marxism has it that a capitalist stage is as necessary, as desirable even, as a socialist stage of society in the grand scheme of things.
I would narrow the last one to Petrograd and Moscow. The relationship with the peasantry was always more tenuous.
To tell the truth, if we didn't have modern nation-states of the size that we do, and individual cities had political self-determination, I think most cities in the world besides Las Vegas would be socialist by now. For one, because genuine grassroots socialism works for the urban working class, and secondly, because I can't even count the number of cities in which genuine, politicized working class uprisings have occurred, and have always either been put down by the armed forces of the capitalist state, or in one case, have resulted in a socialist state (Paris 1871, St. Louis 1877, Petrograd 1917, Seattle 1919, parts of Germany in 1918-19, parts of Spain in 1936, etc...).
Anyway, asking what countries most exemplified functioning socialism is confused. We don't believe in monolithic nations on this site. Economic systems don't serve nations, they serve classes. It would be better to ask when and where leftist policies most benefited the working class. Conversely, you could ask when and where capitalism best served the capitalist class, but to ask when and where capitalism worked the best for an entire nation would be contradictory. Short of communism (classless society), this will always be the case.
Last edited by JimmyJazz; 2nd July 2009 at 18:47.
You think that describes socialism???
COMMUNISM !