Our rights in our socialist society

[Rawthentic]

I have recently been reading on the current conditions in Cuba. I read that Fidel Castro has revoked some individual liberties for the social advancement of the people. Do you guys think that this is fair and will the rights be granted in the near future? Is Cuba on the path to pure communism? As I see it, they very well could be still be in the stage of socialism where they are STILL being taught how to work in cooperative environments and how to live in a socialist society. There are factors, such as the death of our comrade Fidel Castro and the US trade embargo that empoverishes the country in a criminal manner.

[redstar2000]

You touch on one of the problems faced by those who endorse the "socialist option" (as opposed to communism).

Socialism is a form of class society and thus suffers from all or nearly all of the disadvantages that capitalism suffers from.

In Cuba, one's "rights" are at the discretion of the government to expand or contract...just like here.

"Rights" don't exist "up in the air"...they are tied to class realities and material circumstances.

I don't know to what specific "restrictions" you refer...so I can't comment on the details.

But I can certainly tell you that "under socialism" your "rights" are whatever the government (and the party&#33 says they are.

End of story.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Dec 12 2005, 11:23 PM
You touch on one of the problems faced by those who endorse the "socialist option" (as opposed to communism).

Socialism is a form of class society and thus suffers from all or nearly all of the disadvantages that capitalism suffers from.

In Cuba, one's "rights" are at the discretion of the government to expand or contract...just like here.

"Rights" don't exist "up in the air"...they are tied to class realities and material circumstances.

I don't know to what specific "restrictions" you refer...so I can't comment on the details.

But I can certainly tell you that "under socialism" your "rights" are whatever the government (and the party&#33 says they are.

End of story.

what the hell is your problem? Every post ive seen of yours you respond so damn agressively. Do you have mental problems or something? Were all comrades here so if you cant respond respectfully to a question then you dont belong in admin or even revleft for that matter. Maybe not so much in this thread, but in some other ones. And whats with bolding your words?

[RedSabine]

To point you toward the point he wants you to pay attention to, and make you pay less attention to the rest of the post.

[James]

i have some questions redstar:
what is your view on "rights"?

you stated:

But I can certainly tell you that "under socialism" your "rights" are whatever the government (and the party&#33 says they are.

How would communism be different?
Surely under communism, "your rights" would also be whatever was collectively decided?

[polemi-super-cised]

"Rights" don't exist "up in the air"...they are tied to class realities and material circumstances.

I think the point 'redstar2000' was making, is that in a "Socialist" society (which is class-based) the proletariat does not have the opportunity to debate and then reach informed decisions on matters such as these - the government, or "the party" (in many respects indistinguishable&#33, decides on their behalf.

In a "Communist" society, the question of "rights" once again reflects material reality: but this time, the proletariat is "in charge" of it's own destiny. There are no rival classes contending for power, and thus no class imposing restrictions on the rights of some over others.

what the hell is your problem [redstar2000]? Every post ive seen of yours you respond so damn agressively. Do you have mental problems or something? Were all comrades here so if you cant respond respectfully to a question then you dont belong in admin or even revleft for that matter.

Hahaha! Don't expect him to feel remorse: it's a bourgeois illusion designed to fool the working class! (Apparently... :P )

[James]

so again, basically they would be decided collectively?

Which would be ok, because everyone would have the same standard of living etc?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria
We're all comrades here...

Newbie, eh?

Ok, I'll take it nice and slow for you.

We are not "all comrades here". At least not in the sense that you seem to mean.

If you want a "love-fest", then you've come to the wrong board.

This is a board where we sometimes vehemently argue over the shape of the future.

Thus we both teach and learn from one another.

This is, of necessity, a raucous process...we don't observe the rules of the Oxford Debating Society.

Correctly or incorrectly, most of us think that what we do here is important to the eventual emergence of a revolutionary movement in the "west".

I don't think, as a matter of fact, that you'd much care for communism -- where raucous popular debate might well be the norm.

Socialism might suit you better...where everyone is careful not to speak in such a way that it might hurt anyone's feelings.

Just as a point of information for you, there have been two recent polls on whether or not I should remain an admin...and I won them both by very substantial margins.

From now on, in fact, all the admins and mods will be voted on every six months...another feature which I think unique to this board.

I have done my "best" to respond to your post in a courteous way.

The next time you find it necessary to deliver yourself of an incoherent rant in my direction, you may expect a more appropriate response.

[encephalon]

teehee.

In any case..

You touch on one of the problems faced by those who endorse the "socialist option" (as opposed to communism).

Socialism is a form of class society and thus suffers from all or nearly all of the disadvantages that capitalism suffers from.

As it has been practiced. I rather disagree with all forms of what have previously been known as "socialism." I don't think representative government is possible for a socialist future, or any other bourgeois implementation we've seen thus far.

I would advocate a decentralized socialism that relies heavily on technological advancements to provide the infrastructure of a government in which all can participate. The people would be the government officials and workers alike. The Leninist conception of vanguardism has turned to despotism in almost every instance, and I think it would be wise for us to note that (I would say the job of a vanguard is to educate, not rule). There wouldn't be a ruling party in decentralized socialism, but direct democracy. My biggest concern would be the fact that computer programmers, who would invariably provide such an infrastructure, would find themselves in a position that might become abusive.

In any case, I see socialism as the correct steps to communism rather than an extension of the bourgeois state.

In Cuba, one's "rights" are at the discretion of the government to expand or contract...just like here.

"Rights" don't exist "up in the air"...they are tied to class realities and material circumstances.

But I can certainly tell you that "under socialism" your "rights" are whatever the government (and the party&#33 says they are.

I would say that under decentralized socialism, "rights" are agreed upon by the people via direct democratic involvement rather than appointed by class interests. Of course, some right must invariably be givens; "each to his own needs" might be one that should be set in stone.

I would not call anything that has existed before now actual socialism.

[ComradeOm]

Of course socialism is a class society. Hence the "dictatorship" of the proletariat. Some of us aren’t naïve enough to assume that class divisions will simply disappear like a whiff of smoke come revolution. That will require effort and the use of that tool that is the state. But that is part of a wider discussion.

The only question with regards Cuba is who is deciding the people’s rights. I don’t have enough information to draw any real conclusions on Cuba but I suspect that if it is in fact a socialist state then the necessity of prolonged resistance to the capitalists across the water has proven detrimental to the progress towards communism.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 13 2005, 07:30 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 13 2005, 07:30 PM)

hastalavictoria

We're all comrades here...

Newbie, eh?

Ok, I'll take it nice and slow for you.

We are not "all comrades here". At least not in the sense that you seem to mean.

If you want a "love-fest", then you've come to the wrong board.

This is a board where we sometimes vehemently argue over the shape of the future.

Thus we both teach and learn from one another.

This is, of necessity, a raucous process...we don't observe the rules of the Oxford Debating Society.

Correctly or incorrectly, most of us think that what we do here is important to the eventual emergence of a revolutionary movement in the "west".

I don't think, as a matter of fact, that you'd much care for communism -- where raucous popular debate might well be the norm.

Socialism might suit you better...where everyone is careful not to speak in such a way that it might hurt anyone's feelings.

Just as a point of information for you, there have been two recent polls on whether or not I should remain an admin...and I won them both by very substantial margins.

From now on, in fact, all the admins and mods will be voted on every six months...another feature which I think unique to this board.

I have done my "best" to respond to your post in a courteous way.

The next time you find it necessary to deliver yourself of an incoherent rant in my direction, you may expect a more appropriate response.

[/b]

Look, I dont know who the hell you think you are, but all I ask for is some dignity and thats it. I dont wanna hear anymore. Im a newbie huh? What kind of elitist crap is that? You see me as a little kid now right? I ask questions and you give demeaning answers like that? My feelings arent hurt if thats what you think. I love raucous debate but I still respect the people I debate with. If your in admin, then wh dont you try to teach others in a more respectful manner, so then we can all learn in a better way. Seieng that you love to demean and I want respect and unity, maybe communism would be suited for me. Seeing that you win elections, I cant help but wonder how many people actually vote . And your right, were not ALL comrades, you arent one. The rest of us are who look for help with eachother and treat eachother as equals, no matter how much more intellect we might have. Love-fest? . Wow thats really weak. But seeing that we are all revolutionaries striving for a just life, we must all love eachother as brothers. You seem to wanna be the daddy :P .

[kurt]

Redstar was hardly being demeaning. You clearly must be somewhat new to this board if you haven't realized that people here rarely get along. We're not all comrades, sorry to break it to you.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria
Look, I don't know who the hell you think you are, but all I ask for is some dignity and that's it.

That is, you "ask for" what you are evidently unwilling to grant to others...starting with me.

Recall that I did not post a rant against you "out of the clear blue sky".

On the contrary, you posted one against me.

Now I don't know "who the hell you think you are" either. But the tone of your posts does seem to suggest that you like to start personal "flame wars"...perhaps this enlivens your otherwise dreary existence.

So I will give you a friendly warning in advance: we don't much like that sort of crap on this board. You are perfectly free to disagree with me about anything you like. And you are perfectly free to criticize my position on any matter of controversy.

But if you continue to indulge yourself in personal abuse, then it's probable that you will first be restricted to Opposing Ideologies and then, if you keep it up, banned.

Our policy here is not exactly "zero tolerance" for personal flame wars...but it's pretty close to zero.