News What political ideology do you follow, if any?

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I am an anarcho-communist, but I am curious - does anyone else considers themself to be of a certain political ideology? There will be more left-wing poll options because I know more about leftism, and I assume the forums here will be slanted to the left.

"Social Democratic Socialism" is non-revolutionary.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Your list is awful! You don't have a representative list of political ideologies on here - it's mostly economic views. Classical liberalism, roughly defined around the ideas of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke" , isn't listed - so I can't vote.

edit: Capitalism is an economic system, it does not mean the same thing as fiscal conservatism. The poll is riddled with such errors.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I didn't say the list was good, and I don't know how to edit the list. Capitalism is an economic system that many political ideologies revolve around. Political ideology and economic belief are very tightly linked. Capitalism is the economic system used by most fiscal conseratives, so I put fiscal conservatism in brackets. I probably should've switched them. I revolve the political ideologies around economics because I assume most people here are leftist on social issues. I also mentioned that I was knew more about left-wing ideologies.

Communism, Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Socialism , Social Demoracy, and Democratic Socialism can all be considered political ideologies, to my knowledge.

Classical Liberalism is close to anarcho-capitalism

 

[Anttech]

I voted none... Some people say I am a compassionate conservative Some people say I am a socialist Some say I am a liberal

I believe what is fair and correct.. I believe in Social responsabilty, fair trade... I believe the government has a responsibity to protect people from corporations, and they have a responsabilty to protect the poor and insecure. I suppose I am a socialist of sorts...

What I do find humerous tho are the "pro" communists here that live in the west. Its a failed govermental model. If they like communism so much, why don't they pack up a bag and move to a communist country, I suggest North Korea! Communism = totaliterism with an Iron fist.

If you dissagree I beg you to come to east Europe. For my work I am often in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and now Russia. I have seen the damage it has done. Take Hungary as an example, once apon a time Hungary was a super power, after WWII it was eaten by the USSR and they destroyed that country. In the reveloution in the 70's they had, the Soviets went extremely cruel and setup death camps.. People had no freedom of expression, and if they did express anything outwith the "Communist" idea they were playing with there life...

In another thread dooga you stated that communism was a Democratic model.. Freedom of expression is built into the fabric of democracy.. Communism is not democractic (at least every implemented version) it is totaliterism..

 

[Pengwuino]

Anttech is a tomato!

I think this is actually pretty useless because these terms have very very broad definitions between people and between countries. Comparing liberalism in the US to liberalism in Canada for example, is like comparing apples to soda. Another example is the vastly different definitions of communism I've seen from people. I've heard definitions from the extremes of Sweden being a communist country all the way to a highly-theoretical model that is based on zombie-like citizens, an omniscient government, and absolutely no trade requirements or resource management (the later typically being from kids who think its trendy to want communism and have no experience with "humans").

I bet if you came to the US anttech... you wouldn't have a political party to associate with. From what I've noticed from you, I don't really know of any party that comes close to representing you haha.

 

[Anttech]

I've heard definitions from the extremes of Sweden being a communist country all the way to a highly-theoretical model that is based on zombie-like citizens, an omniscient government, and absolutely no trade requirements or resource management (the later typically being from kids who think its trendy to want communism and have no experience with "humans").

lol that's funny and very true...

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Communism is a democratic form of government, in most cases. The majority of communist countries aren't communist. What better way to promote a fascist agenda than pretend to be for the working class?

The problem with most communist movements has been corruption and the centralization of government. Anarcho-communist movements have be successful until capitalist countries intervened. Some examples are the Zapatista movement in Mexico, which still exists, and anarchism in Spain, which was based around Libertarian Socialist ideals. If you read up on communist philosophy, you will see that it is based around democratic reform. It works to alter democracy so it becomes truly democratic.

 

[Smurf]

What I do find humerous tho are the "pro" communists here that live in the west. Its a failed govermental model.

You know, I hear that a lot, but I don't really understand what anyone means by "failed government" or why that's a reason not to desire it.

 

[alexandra]

What I do find humerous tho are the "pro" communists here that live in the west. Its a failed govermental model. If they like communism so much, why don't they pack up a bag and move to a communist country, I suggest North Korea! Communism = totaliterism with an Iron fist.

If you dissagree I beg you to come to east Europe. For my work I am often in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and now Russia. I have seen the damage it has done. Take Hungary as an example, once apon a time Hungary was a super power, after WWII it was eaten by the USSR and they destroyed that country. In the reveloution in the 70's they had, the Soviets went extremely cruel and setup death camps.. People had no freedom of expression, and if they did express anything outwith the "Communist" idea they were playing with there life...

In another thread dooga you stated that communism was a Democratic model.. Freedom of expression is built into the fabric of democracy.. Communism is not democractic (at least every implemented version) it is totaliterism..

Anttech, I agree with you that 'implemented versions' of what is falsely called 'socialism' or 'communism' are badly flawed. However, it is not odd that there should be people who are pro-communist despite their ability to critically analyse these 'implemented versions' and recognise that these systems were not actually communist and needed to be rejected. Just because a government claims to be socialist/communist/democratic, it does not mean that it is. It is important to acknowledge this fact.

Any so-called 'communist' who defends what is better termed Stalinism (rather than socialism/communism) is either stupid, or is a fraud or wilfully blind to reality. There is, however, a large group of people who consistently, even from the early days, critiqued Stalinism from a socialist perspective - the Left Opposition led by Trotsky, for instance. Another true socialist who questioned and rejected Stalinism and the USSR version of what is called 'socialism' or 'communism' was Che Guevara (read Jon Lee Anderson's biography, Che Guevara for details). There are, admittedly, other so-called 'socialists' who defended everything Stalin and other Communist Party leaderships did, irrespective of how unsocialistic and totalitarian these governments were; I consider these 'socialists' to either not know what they are talking about or to be blind unquestioning followers of dogma and therefore dangerous.

It is possible to be a socialist despite the fact that socialism has not yet been implemented, just as there are many people on this board who support the ideal of 'liberal democratic capitalism' despite their ability to see its flaws as 'currently implemented' (often the flaw is described as 'corporatism'). I personally see corporatism as an inevitable part of capitalism given that those with the economic power (the corporations) have the political power to pass laws that legalise, entrench and extend their thuggery.

alex

 

[Smurf]

I put other. You have really limited choices.

 

[Anttech]

The problem with most communist movements has been corruption and the centralization of government. Anarcho-communist movements have be successful until capitalist countries intervened. Some examples are the Zapatista movement in Mexico, which still exists, and anarchism in Spain, which was based around Libertarian Socialist ideals. If you read up on communist philosophy, you will see that it is based around democratic reform. It works to alter democracy so it becomes truly democratic.

You are talking about marixism not communism... And a "Movement" is not a government is it. Anarchism is NOT communism, as Anarchism is a void between goverments, a transitional faze..

You know, I hear that a lot, but I don't really understand what anyone means by "failed government" or why that's a reason not to desire it.

Well if you enjoy failure.. in a sadomasicistic way then fine desire to live as one.. Most people dont.

 

[Smurf]

You are talking about marixism not communism... And a "Movement" is not a government is it. Anarchism is NOT communism, as Anarchism is a void between goverments, a transitional faze..

Anarchism is the belief that a non-governmental system is desirable. It has nothing to do with "transitional fazes".

 

[Smurf]

Well if you enjoy failure.. in a sadomasicistic way then fine desire to live as one.. Most people dont.

Oooh! Good call Rhetoric-Man! HEY! I HAVE AN IDEA! Why don't you tell me why it's a failure in the first place like I asked. (And why this is a reason not to desire it)....

I guess what I'm asking for is an argument. As opposed to mere statements you expect me to accept without question.

 

[Anttech]

non-governmental system

That is oximorron, a non-govermental system is still a system of goverment.

 

[Dawguard]

Oooh! Good call Rhetoric-Man! HEY! I HAVE AN IDEA! Why don't you tell me why it's a failure in the first place like I asked. (And why this is a reason not to desire it).

Communism places power, not in the hands of the people, but in a few who claim to work for the benefit of everyone. It is a dictatorship of absolute power. In the last hundred years Marxist goverments have killed millions of people in work camps, prisons, and sheer slaughters. Remember Tenanim square anyone? What about the religous people who were murdered simply for practicing their faith? Just recently in China a group of Buhdists were captured, raped and beaten to death. Poverty was rampant in the USSR, there were famines that killed hundreds of thousands. Just one honest look at what Communism brings will tell you how foolish it is to seek to bring about that form of government. While the ideal of the community working together is to be admired, you must realize that it is immposible to attain. The past hundred years have proved this.

 

[Anttech]

I guess what I'm asking for is an argument. As opposed to mere statements you expect me to accept without question.

There is no point arguing with you smurf, you are too young to have witnessed the Berlin wall coming down, and too set in your ways to believe that communism in pratice doesn't work. You are also VERY LUCKY to have the choice to deside you want to be a quasi-antidisestablishmentarist-communist-sudo-whatever.

The fact that I live right next door to where the Iron curtain was, I have seen this with my own two eyes. Let's hope Russia doesn't regress any further than it has done, especially with them having the EU by the Nuts so to speak with Energy.. (Hmm interesting Dilema)

I aggree with Dawguard, the ideal is asperational, however (!) Communism is practise doesn't work. This isn't to say that I believe in Capitilism or Globalisation, because again its a cruel system and takes from the poor so the rich can get richer.

P.S.Calling me "Rhetoric-Man" Is like the kettle calling the Pot Black... Try not to be such a hypocrite!

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

There are different branches of communism. Anarcho-communism disregards centralization and the state, but it is not always opposed to a socialist transitionary state if it's controlled by the people in a decentralized fashion.

Appeal to authority and emotion. Whether you saw the Berlin wall fall is irrelevant in this debate. Anyone can open a history book and find information on the subject. The USSR is only considered communist by some communists - most say it is not. Myself being one of them.

Communism, in its true form, is completely democratic. If a country you are calling communist is not democratic, it is not communist.

 

[Anttech]

The USSR is only considered communist by some communists - most say it is not. Myself being one of them.

Total BS. Where did you get your statistics from?

Appeal to random statistics?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

No, actually. I post at www.revolutionaryleft.com, and I regularly speak with communists. Most communists view marxist-leninist philosophy, the early USSR, as legitimate while denouncing stalinism.

Regardless, you are criticizing communism. Myself and other people on this forum claim to be communist, and some of us, like myself, believe in a communist society that is different from what has already been tried. You have not dismissed anarchism, which has worked in Spain, or anarcho-communism.

 

[X-43D]

In reality, neoliberalism is the dominant political ideology in the developed world. Socialism is the dominant ideology in the developing world. Perhaps a better alternative to both could be particapatory economics.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Total BS. Where did you get your statistics from?

Appeal to random statistics?

Such ignorance!

Check out the long list of reds on http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/" blogroll. Occasionally one or another will run a poll for favorite Communist. Usually the winner is Rosa Luxemburg or Antonio Scramsi. Stalin never gets a look in, and Mao seldom. Even Lenin has a hard row to hoe.

 

[Futobingoro]

Has somebody posted a thread using www.politicalcompass.org as a metric to measure political ideology?

It seems that this forum would have seen such a thread, but I have not been here long enough to know.

 

[Smurf]

We've had 3-5 or so. I'm extreme left-bottom.

 

[Smasherman]

I hearby declare those orange-colored fruit that hang from an "orange tree" to be apples. There. (good 'ol hyperbole).

edit: (In response to repressive states calling themselves communist.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I personally see corporatism as an inevitable part of capitalism given that those with the economic power (the corporations) have the political power to pass laws that legalise, entrench and extend their thuggery.

Saying that corporatism is the hallmark of capitalism or it's inevitable end result is pretty much the same as saying that Stalinism and the like are the hallmark or inevitable end result of communism. Most people in the world may equate corporatism with capitalism but that same crowd also equates "Communist Russia" with communism.

At least, as far as I know, there aren't any great capitalist revolutionaries that had people lined up and shot for such things as listening to rock and roll.

 

[Smurf]

At least, as far as I know, there aren't any great capitalist revolutionaries that had people lined up and shot for such things as listening to rock and roll.

No, instead they targetted people who wanted to do other crazy things, like share.

 

[Anttech]

Such ignorance!
Check out the long list of reds on http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/" blogroll. Occasionally one or another will run a poll for favorite Communist. Usually the winner is Rosa Luxemburg or Antonio Scramsi. Stalin never gets a look in, and Mao seldom. Even Lenin has a hard row to hoe.

Nice BLOG... Doesnt mean anything tho, again, saying that most communists don't believe that the USSR wasnt a communist nation is rather a sweeping statement and 1 blog's list of people doesn't change that.

Perhaps many intellectuals believe that the USSR wasnt communist, but many communists I know, and have read about believe it was.

One well know group of communists are the IRA, and they firmly believed that the USSR were allies and communists...

There is a difference between intellctual opinions and rants and hard facts..

 

[X-43D]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is not compatible with anarchy. Anarchy has roots in communist thought.

Once private institutions and corporations will have the legislative power of governments, they will do what they want.

http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/anarchist817/anarcho_capitalism.html

 

[selfAdjoint]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is not compatible with anarchy. Anarchy has roots in communist thought.

No it doesn't. Anarchist thought preceded Marx. Look up Proudhonne.

 

[X-43D]

No it doesn't. Anarchist thought preceded Marx. Look up Proudhonne.

Proudhon was an anarchist-socialist and mutualist.

 

[Smurf]

Marx was born 1818. Proudhon was born 1809. Marx died a decade and a half after Proudhon did...Neither of them really proceeded the other.

Yes, some Anarchism takes many leftist ideas, but they're hardly communist. Those ideas were around well before Marx and well before Proudhon. A lot of Anarchist thought is extremely right-wing as well, and is completely different from any Marxist philosophy. "Anarchism" is not a single idea.

 

[Smurf]

There is a difference between intellctual opinions and rants and hard facts..

Which you seem to have completely ignored, it looks like.

 

[Anttech]

Which you seem to have completely ignored, it looks like.

Which facts have I ignored?

 

[Dawguard]

No, instead they targetted people who wanted to do other crazy things, like share.

Right, since when have charitable organizations been shut down in capitalist countries? Name one person who gave money away and was killed because of it? The Red Cross is famous and very well respected, United Way, etc., not to count the money governments give to foreign countries in aid programs. When the tsunamie devastaded Indonesia, billions and billions of dollars were donated to help set up camps, give food, send out rescue parties, and so on. Donations to charities are tax-decutable in order to promote the giving of money. Name me one example where people are penalized for sharing; let alone murdered simply becuase they didn't go along with the status quo of the government.
Also, if all the repressive governments that claim to be communist aren't, why is that? Why did Cuba, China, Russia and every other country that had a revelution and become communist end up as a repressive, totalitarian dictatorship? Perhaps the answer is that however applaudable the idea of communism is, it is immposible to actually construct. People are inherintly selfish and corrupt, so expecting everyone to work together is like expecting the Earth to stop spinning. There's a reason that Thomas More called his book Utopia, literally 'nowhere' in Greek. It was essentially a communist system where there was no private property, no religion, etc., but More also said that it could not exist. Plato's Republic was the same; a communist system, but at then end of the book he admitted that it might never be able to exist, and only time would tell. Well, time has told; every communist attempt has failed due to the inherent corruption of mankind.

 

[alexandra]

You are talking about marixism not communism... And a "Movement" is not a government is it. Anarchism is NOT communism, as Anarchism is a void between goverments, a transitional faze...

Just to add clarification to this point: Marxism is a theoretical perspective - a theoretical tool for analysis. It is not a political system as such, whereas socialism and communism are. If one uses a class basis with which to analyse and understand social formations (class defined in terms of ownership of the means of the production and the social relations that arise between classes as a result of this) then one is using a Marxist analysis. Marxist analyses can be used to analyse all sorts of societies, but primarily capitalist societies (that was the purpose Marx developed his system of analysis for: he wanted to understand capitalist society). Marxism is not a political system.

 

[alexandra]

Saying that corporatism is the hallmark of capitalism or it's inevitable end result is pretty much the same as saying that Stalinism and the like are the hallmark or inevitable end result of communism. Most people in the world may equate corporatism with capitalism but that same crowd also equates "Communist Russia" with communism.

You are truly a worthy 'opponent' when arguing, TSA. I recognised this flaw in my argument as I was constructing it, and wondered if anyone would pick it up. You did Nevertheless, I truly believe the corporatism is inevitable and that true communism/democracy is possible and does not have to degenerate into Stalinism - in a way, I have to believe this, just to survive - this capitalist system just can't be the best there is; if it is, humanity is doomed!

At least, as far as I know, there aren't any great capitalist revolutionaries that had people lined up and shot for such things as listening to rock and roll.

This is arguable, TSA. Perhaps they don't line them up openly and shoot them. They make people die slowly, through homelessness, starvation, exploitation - and then, there are also those detention centres all over Eastern Europe, not to mention Gitmo... and CIA operations and all that. Capitalism has killed and killed and is killing millions at this very moment.

alex

 

[Astronuc]

At least, as far as I know, there aren't any great capitalist revolutionaries that had people lined up and shot for such things as listening to rock and roll.

While this is true, some capitalists have employed violence to achieve their empires.

John D. Rockfeller's Standard Oil for example. Rivals' plants were sabotaged, and people were killed.

Look at the railroads when they were built. Out west rival gangs clashed to take property and people were killed.

Look at the mining industry, or at any heavy industry, were safey was ignored.

In the modern day, look at the despostic regimes or gangsters/militias supported by the western economies, while western businessmen and governments feign ignorance.

 

[alexandra]

Also, if all the repressive governments that claim to be communist aren't, why is that? Why did Cuba, China, Russia and every other country that had a revelution and become communist end up as a repressive, totalitarian dictatorship? Perhaps the answer is that however applaudable the idea of communism is, it is immposible to actually construct. People are inherintly selfish and corrupt, so expecting everyone to work together is like expecting the Earth to stop spinning. There's a reason that Thomas More called his book Utopia, literally 'nowhere' in Greek. It was essentially a communist system where there was no private property, no religion, etc., but More also said that it could not exist. Plato's Republic was the same; a communist system, but at then end of the book he admitted that it might never be able to exist, and only time would tell. Well, time has told; every communist attempt has failed due to the inherent corruption of mankind.

Cuba is truly not the repressive totalitarian society it is made out to be - if you're really interested in finding out about it, read some history on Cuba rather than the propaganda that comes out of the mouths of the middle class Cuban 'refugees' who 'escaped' to Florida and have, in collaboration with the US government and the CIA, done everything in their power to undermine the gains of the Cuban revolution (which has, I might add, prevailed nevertheless).

 

[Anttech]

Cuba is truly not the repressive totalitarian society it is made out to be - if you're really interested in finding out about it, read some history on Cuba rather than the propaganda that comes out of the mouths of the middle class Cuban 'refugees' who 'escaped' to Florida and have, in collaboration with the US government and the CIA, done everything in their power to undermine the gains of the Cuban revolution (which has, I might add, prevailed nevertheless).

I aggree Cuba isn't as bad as they make out.. But You couldn't say it was democratic could you? quite the opposite in fact

 

[alexandra]

I aggree Cuba isn't as bad as they make out.. But You couldn't say it was democratic could you? quite the opposite in fact

What is 'democratic'? Is the existence of multiple parties, two of which normally predominate in the major capitalist societies (and both of which represent the interests of the dominant ruling class) sufficient? Is this 'democracy'? If so, is this a 'good' system? In Cuba, there may be no 'democracy' as defined above - but there is an excellent health and education system and, if the Cubans didn't have to contend with covert operations against them all the time, and economic sanctions that have crippled their economy throughout their existence after the revolution, what could they have achieved?

Here are some links with articles interested people may find informative:
http://www.americas.org/region_25 (here's a good article to start with: http://www.americas.org/item_18815 )
http://www.cubamigo.com/
http://www.brianwillson.com/awolcuba.html

alex

 

[selfAdjoint]

What is 'democratic'? Is the existence of multiple parties, two of which normally predominate in the major capitalist societies (and both of which represent the interests of the dominant ruling class) sufficient? Is this 'democracy'?

Yes. That is the definition in spite of your hostile spin. If you think the opposing pariies in any "bourgeois" country stand for the same thing, you are dreaming.

If so, is this a 'good' system? In Cuba, there may be no 'democracy' as defined above - but there is an excellent health and education system

A pretty good medical system anyway. I won't give you the education system.

and, if the Cubans didn't have to contend with covert operations against them all the time, and economic sanctions that have crippled their economy throughout their existence after the revolution, what could they have achieved?

Don't forget that their economy was carried for many years by the Soviet Union, both through direct grants and through purchase of sugar at inflated prices.

 

[Entropy]

Theological. But I put none because my theology is politically neutral, also because you grouped it with authoritarian and fasmism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I truly believe the corporatism is inevitable and that true communism/democracy is possible and does not have to degenerate into Stalinism - in a way, I have to believe this, just to survive - this capitalist system just can't be the best there is; if it is, humanity is doomed!

I do believe that current economic systems will (or at least can) evolve into something better. If and when we achieve better more "cost" effective means of producing energy I think that will be (or should be) the turning point. I envision a sort of Technocratic-Socialist type model.

This is arguable, TSA. Perhaps they don't line them up openly and shoot them. They make people die slowly, through homelessness, starvation, exploitation - and then, there are also those detention centres all over Eastern Europe, not to mention Gitmo... and CIA operations and all that. Capitalism has killed and killed and is killing millions at this very moment.
____________________________________

Originally Posted by Astronuc
While this is true, some capitalists have employed violence to achieve their empires.
John D. Rockfeller's Standard Oil for example. Rivals' plants were sabotaged, and people were killed.
Look at the railroads when they were built. Out west rival gangs clashed to take property and people were killed.
Look at the mining industry, or at any heavy industry, were safey was ignored.
In the modern day, look at the despostic regimes or gangsters/militias supported by the western economies, while western businessmen and governments feign ignorance.

Admittedly my comment was mostly just a jab at the mention of Che Guevara. While I find it deplorable that the criminal actions mentioned were taken I find it even more so distainful when someone honoured as a hero had people imprisoned and sent to a firing squad for listening to a particular type of music.

 

[X-43D]

The problem with free-market capitalism is that competition is simply not always possible. Also jobs and resources are highly limited.

As a result people are forced to take manual jobs or simply stick to agriculture which doesn't bring enough income for their family, if any.

 

[Smasherman]

I've got a question: Is the political ideology one follows, in respect to this thread, the political ideology they advocate as the next in social evolution, or the one they consider the best ultimate solution of the choices currently within the mainstream and quasi-mainstream knowledge pool?

I ask because I doubt communism would work to any degree of what one might call success if implemented in the US immediately...

 

[Smurf]

I ask because I doubt communism would work to any degree of what one might call success if implemented in the US immediately...

Really? Does the fact that everyone there is brainwashed into blind hate have anything to do with it?

 

[alexandra]

Yes. That is the definition in spite of your hostile spin. If you think the opposing pariies in any "bourgeois" country stand for the same thing, you are dreaming.

Go on, then, selfAdjoint - educate me: What are the essential policy differences between the two major bourgeois parties in your country? How do their policies on the Iraq war differ? Is it not true that Kerry's election campaign policy was to continue the war in Iraq? As a party, do the Democrats claim they would withdraw if elected next time around? How do their policies on privatisation of social services differ? Which party is 'for' the poor, the homeless, the dispossessed (of which there are many in the US) rather than a protector of the interests of the rich? Who do the tax cuts favour? Would the Democrats dare to increase taxes on businesses?

 

[alexandra]

Admittedly my comment was mostly just a jab at the mention of Che Guevara. While I find it deplorable that the criminal actions mentioned were taken I find it even more so distainful when someone honoured as a hero had people imprisoned and sent to a firing squad for listening to a particular type of music.

TSA, are you claiming that Che Guevara imprisoned/sent to the firing squad people because of the particular type of music they listened to? You know, I've done heaps of reading on Cuban history, the Cuban revolution, and Che - having just re-read Jon Lee Anderson's detailed biography, Che Guevara - A Revolutionary Life, I have not come across a single reference to such an event.

Note that Anderson did not set out to present a biased view - for example, in his youth, Che had many qualities he himself later found repugnant (eg. individualism, selfishness, etc), and Anderson does not gloss over these. The only instances where Che executed people was when they threatened the revolution (traitors) in tangible ways (not by the sort of music they listened to). In fact, Che was incredibly fair and humane in his dealings with people (as one would expect a true, democratic socialist to be) - here's an extract you may find informative:

[Che’s] repulsion for the Communist party’s sectarianism was well known. Beginning with his selection of Jose Manresa, former Batista army sergeant, as his personal secretary, he had set forth a precedent, and thereafter stood up for anyone he felt was sincere and willing to work for the revolution despite their past jobs or affiliations. He had consistently made a home at the Ministry of Industries for purged or disgraced revolutionaries, whether the victims of the old Communists’ chauvinism or the casualties of Fidel’s own sometimes fickle purges of valuable cadres. (Anderson, J.L. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, 1997, p.607).

 

[Smasherman]

Really? Does the fact that everyone there is brainwashed into blind hate have anything to do with it?

Mostly I was referring to the mentality that playing dirty is OK if you don't get caught, as well as the mentality that making money is what's most important. Hate brain-washing works too, I suppose, though it didn't come to mind immediately.

 

[Dawguard]

Really? Does the fact that everyone there is brainwashed into blind hate have anything to do with it?

For a forum based on fact, this is a pretty ludicrous claim. My objection to communism has nothing to do with blind hate, but everything to dowith reason and logic. So what if some communist revelutionaries are genuinely good people? What matters is the end result, and never once has it been any good. When Mao took over China, 37 million people died. Think about that, 37 million! That's like another Holocaust, but I'm sure that there were people helping Mao that were disgusted by it. They thought they would be setting up an ideal government whose purpose would be to help the people, but as a result 37 million people died. Their good intentions were worth nothing.
Name one instance that America has caused death such as that. How you dare to compare the poor people in America to those who starve to death by the millions in Russia and China is beyond my comprehension. If Cuba is a good form of government, why do people risk their lives to get away from it? You con't run away from something that's good, so why do people flee their country? Could it be that America actually is better?
You can make all the idealistic claims you wish, but you still haven't once presented me with a case when communism worked. Nearly one hundred years and millions of deaths since it was first implemented in Russia, and you still claim it can work.
Do yourself a favor and take one look around you at where you live. Look at your job and everything you own. Ask youself, if capatilism is all that bad, how come I've got it so well of compared to people in China who are shot just for practicing their faith? You can do whatever you want, say whatever you want, go wherever you want. You could do none of these in a communist government. Do you notice anyone trying to censure your words or penalize you for disagreeing with the government? In Russia or China you would have been executed for so blatantly criticizing the government, and yet you sit in some comfortable chair, enjoying your life and moaning about how evil capatilism is.