News What political ideology do you follow, if any?

[TheStatutoryApe]

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:

In 1960 at a town named Guanahacabibes in extreme Western Cuba, Che initiated Cuba's concentration camp system. "We send to Guanahacabibes people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals. . it is hard labor...the working conditions are harsh..." [31]



Among the many categories of criminals against revolutionary morals were "delinquents." Please take note Che T-shirt wearers: this "delinquency" involved drinking, vagrancy, disrespect for authorities, laziness and playing loud music. Among the more hilarious manifestations of Che idolatry was the rock musician Carlos Santana's grand entrance to the 2005 Academy Awards ceremony where he stopped, swung open his jacket, and proudly displayed his Che T-shirt as the cameras clicked.



By the late 60's among the tens of thousands of inmates at Guanahacabibes and the rest of the UMAP concentration camp system in Cuba were "roqueros," hapless Cuban youths who tried to listen to Yankee-Imperialist rock music. Carlos Santana, was grinning widely -- and oh so hiply -- while proudly sporting the symbol of a regime that made it a criminal offense to listen to Carlos Santana.

http://www.netforcuba.org/FeatureSection-EN/Executioner.htm

Sorry, it doesn't actually say anything about the roqueros being shot just imprisoned.

 

[alexandra]

Sorry, it doesn't actually say anything about the roqueros being shot just imprisoned.

Yes, also, I clicked on the "About us" link. This organisation is totally anti-Castro and against the revolution - it is based in Florida (Cuban middle class 'refugees'):

Who are we?
Net for Cuba International, Inc., is a non-profit organization based in the State of Florida, committed to exposing what's happening in Cuba today, and covering all aspects of Cuban life under Castro's regime.

I would consider this a fairly biased source of information, and it is interesting to note that despite their bias what they are saying about Che is hardly damning when you really think about it. After all, are laziness and vagrancy rewarded in capitalist societies? Should such qualities be rewarded in any society? In the 'western democracies', the lazy starve to death, and vagrants and those who blatantly 'disrespect authority' land up in prison. Why should Che be vilified for trying to get people to contribute to their society and punishing (though not with the death sentence) those who did not, especially in 1960, straight after the revolution when it was vital to build the structures of the new society? Che's own contributions to the rebuilding of Cuban society are legendary: he worked incredibly long hours throughout the week (Mondays through to Saturdays), including nights, and did volunteer labour on Sunday mornings, cutting cane, building schools, etc. In between, he continued educating himself (mathematics, economics) to better contribute to the new society. He demanded of others only a fraction of what he did himself. The music issue is a bit trivial, I think -in this article, 'netforcuba' was out to vilify Carlos Santana for wearing a Che T-shirt - who knows whether or not Che ever really imprisoned anyone for the type of music they were listening to.

 

[X-43D]

Humans are always motivated by self-interest and greed-for-profit. For communism to work the concept of exclusive ownership and profit needs to be replaced by more egalitarian ideals such as sharing.

 

[Smasherman]

Peer pressure is extremely powerful, as well. When someone living in a society makes a decision, how they will be perceived is usually brought into account.

If someone grew up in a communist country, it stands to reason that they'd work because everyone else does. People who question society (which would hopefully be many) would probably stop working quite as hard as others while they think about the foundations of their reality. Hopefully they're then find better ways of doing things, and take on a hard-working mentality. Of course they might not, but they'd still have their old patterns to fall into, much like in every (human) society I'm aware of.

Thus, self-interest would be to have friends.

Greed is about as much a motivator as another sin*, lust. It can be suppressed and channelled. As long as society allows a moderate amount, things work well (meaning that your greed/lust doesn't impose on others). So, one could hoard trinkits, but not impose poverty on another; One could have sex, but not rape.*I'm only using sin as an example because it's well-known. I'm not basing these examples specifically on religious morality.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

Who are the great capitalists revolutionaries?

I would supect that, great capitalistist revolutionaries don't line people up and have them shot.

What a terrible waste of capital.

Send them off to fight a war for more resources. Much more productive.

 

[Dawguard]

Peer pressure is extremely powerful, as well. When someone living in a society makes a decision, how they will be perceived is usually brought into account.

If someone grew up in a communist country, it stands to reason that they'd work because everyone else does. People who question society (which would hopefully be many) would probably stop working quite as hard as others while they think about the foundations of their reality. Hopefully they're then find better ways of doing things, and take on a hard-working mentality. Of course they might not, but they'd still have their old patterns to fall into, much like in every (human) society I'm aware of.

Thus, self-interest would be to have friends.

Greed is about as much a motivator as another sin*, lust. It can be suppressed and channelled. As long as society allows a moderate amount, things work well (meaning that your greed/lust doesn't impose on others). So, one could hoard trinkits, but not impose poverty on another; One could have sex, but not rape.


*I'm only using sin as an example because it's well-known. I'm not basing these examples specifically on religious morality.

It's all well land good to say, it stands to reason that such and such should happen, but hard fact denies this. The most motivating factor of humanity is the desire to improve yourself. Why do you learn, why do you work, why do you strive to be promoted at your job, why do humans long for freedom? The answer is simple; becuase we long to make our lives better. However good they are now we always want more, and if we have nothing, then how much more will we seek to improve? In communist countries where freedoms are denied and poverty is rampant of course it will eventually be destroyed.
People in east Berlin saw the west and wanted it for themselves. The wall was placed, and people risked their lives to cross it. Many died, but many more attempted it. Why would they do this, unless capatilism had something that communism could never give them. Whatever peer pressure they might have had from their fellow countrymen further east was worthless when faced with the chance of self-improvment. Time and time again, communism has failed in its goals, and all the rhetoric in the world about how things should be won't change that fact.

 

[Dawguard]

Yes, also, I clicked on the "About us" link. This organisation is totally anti-Castro and against the revolution - it is based in Florida (Cuban middle class 'refugees'):
I would consider this a fairly biased source of information, and it is interesting to note that despite their bias what they are saying about Che is hardly damning when you really think about it. After all, are laziness and vagrancy rewarded in capitalist societies? Should such qualities be rewarded in any society? In the 'western democracies', the lazy starve to death, and vagrants and those who blatantly 'disrespect authority' land up in prison. Why should Che be vilified for trying to get people to contribute to their society and punishing (though not with the death sentence) those who did not, especially in 1960, straight after the revolution when it was vital to build the structures of the new society? Che's own contributions to the rebuilding of Cuban society are legendary: he worked incredibly long hours throughout the week (Mondays through to Saturdays), including nights, and did volunteer labour on Sunday mornings, cutting cane, building schools, etc. In between, he continued educating himself (mathematics, economics) to better contribute to the new society. He demanded of others only a fraction of what he did himself. The music issue is a bit trivial, I think -in this article, 'netforcuba' was out to vilify Carlos Santana for wearing a Che T-shirt - who knows whether or not Che ever really imprisoned anyone for the type of music they were listening to.

Other then the fact that they are anti-Castro, why do you call them biased? Wouldn't a person who is pro-Castro be just as biased as them? Also, contributing to scociety is such a vague term as to be nearly worthless. Sure, Che worked long hours, far into the night, volunteered, etc. Aw, what a nice, sweet guy he was, :!) Honestly, I don't care in the slightest how hard working Che was if the scoiety he was helping to build was an opressive dictatorship. There's no denying that Castro is exactly that, a repressive dictator; otherwise why would people risk the lives of them and their families to get away from him?
Oh, by the way; most lazy people here in America don't starve to death, they get wellfare from the government.

 

[Plastic Photon]

Well, I've already heard the 'communism is a form of government' clause. This is not true. Communism is an economic theory, not a political/government structure. IT could be totalitarian, democratic, etc.

Answering the question: I follow a form of philosophy usually attributed to Ayn Rand called objectivism. I, for the most part, do not care what you do with your life . If you want to smoke pot, have 5 wives, circumcize yourself, etc I don't care as long as you are not hurting someone. But I do not believe in patents or much of the 'intellectual property right' business.

 

[dicerandom]

Which one is "I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone?"

 

[Anttech]

Who are the great capitalists revolutionaries?

I would supect that, great capitalistist revolutionaries don't line people up and have them shot.

What a terrible waste of capital.

Send them off to fight a war for more resources. Much more productive.

LOL... funny is a dark way, because it is TRUE!

 

[X-43D]

For true anarchist-communism to exist not only the state will have to go away but also the financial institutions of money and capitalism. Money is the real obstacle, not just the state.

 

[Smasherman]

For one, communism is not exactly anti-governmental by nature, but in order to have no classes, there can be no rulers. Thus communism, by nature, is either anarchist, democratic, or something I've never heard of.

You might study American Indians, especially the Ohlones of California. They lived fairly stable lives. Peer pressure kept most people in line, with only the occasional slacker. They lived in a near-communist state of governance, with tribal leaders leading through respect, as they had no force they could use (I suppose they could strike another, but I suppose that would dramatically decrease their influence). Don't worry, though, the Spanish got rid of all that.

I believe the ideals you posted are derived from our popular culture (yes, even freedom). They may be universal ideals for anyone with enough education and freedom of thought. It might be useful to note that there were (and maybe are still) cultures where individualism as we think of it isn't understood (for instance, there's a society where the only names are titles, which change with different circumstances).

If everyone lived decent lives and the accepted methods of work is communal and producing personal effects (art), wouldn't peoples' desire go directly to one of those methods?

The exact economic method must be taken into account, though. I doubt communism where everything everyone produces, except for what they actually need, is given away, would work. It would require too much wisdom on behalf of nearly all of humanity. It's possible, perhaps, but unlikely for quite a while, since not every community will have a shortage every 20 years which would need to be remedied by other communities.

A more effective solution is to cover the world in individual communities which produce goods for the community's benefit, except for a portion which is freely given to other communities to help them through their problems and such. This way people wouldn't feel that their actions are pointless, but wealth would still be fairly equally distributed. There would be no classes, just slightly richer and poorer communities everywhere (if you build in a desert with no natural resources, you can't expect to have the food wealth of the Ukraine). The minor economic disparity would also prevent people from drawing too much on the collective wealth, as mentioned in the desert scenario. So, it's not a free ride, but no one who isn't being extremely foolish has to worry about starving.

Also, people can always desire more. Just because we desire something, doesn't mean we should have it. We can't all own a planet. A lot of that is cultural, though (us mammals learn through experience and mimicking, you know).

As for the Berlin Wall, Stalin most definitely did not control a communist country. The very fact that he was considered the leader, through undemocratic processes, shows as much. I never said peer pressure was more powerful a force than starvation.I probably ranted here, so I apologize.

 

[rocketboy]

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.

I don't understand...why is a science forum slanted to the left? I've always thought of scientists/engineers as right-oriented...maybe that's just me. I could see a history/english/literature/art forum being leftist...but a physics forum?

 

[Dawguard]

Smasherman, everything you say is a fine ideal. Certanily little nomadic groups lived communal lives, but they had little choice. Most of them were forced to rely on each other for survival simply becuase they were small groups. It was not a question of right and wrong with them, it was simply the best way to live. On a larger scale though it is utterly impractical to expect people to behave like that. Never in all human history has there been a large scale communist society, and that begs the question why? It has been tried, not just in the twentieth century, but it has inevitably failed.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I don't understand...why is a science forum slanted to the left? I've always thought of scientists/engineers as right-oriented...maybe that's just me. I could see a history/english/literature/art forum being leftist...but a physics forum?

It depends, I suppose. In my experiences, intellectuals in general are slanted to the left. However, social conservatism is negatively correlated with IQ. Economic beliefs, however, I am not certain about. Perhaps you are thinking of the economic left/right scale and I am thinking of the social scale.

 

[Smurf]

Smasherman, everything you say is a fine ideal. Certanily little nomadic groups lived communal lives, but they had little choice. Most of them were forced to rely on each other for survival simply becuase they were small groups. It was not a question of right and wrong with them, it was simply the best way to live. On a larger scale though it is utterly impractical to expect people to behave like that. Never in all human history has there been a large scale communist society, and that begs the question why? It has been tried, not just in the twentieth century, but it has inevitably failed.

Dawguard, you have no argument. Because you're arguments come down toth is:

This is essentially my argument; that no matter how honorable the intentions of communism it is practically impossible due to the majority of mankind's inherent corruption.

Why do you insist on spouting this gibberish? There are infinitely simpler arguments against communism, all of which do not depend on complicated philosophical issues such as human nature and none of which are all that controversial. For example, my favorite goes a little like this:

"Dictatorships are Bad"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, also, I clicked on the "About us" link. This organisation is totally anti-Castro and against the revolution - it is based in Florida (Cuban middle class 'refugees'):
I would consider this a fairly biased source of information, and it is interesting to note that despite their bias what they are saying about Che is hardly damning when you really think about it. After all, are laziness and vagrancy rewarded in capitalist societies? Should such qualities be rewarded in any society? In the 'western democracies', the lazy starve to death, and vagrants and those who blatantly 'disrespect authority' land up in prison. Why should Che be vilified for trying to get people to contribute to their society and punishing (though not with the death sentence) those who did not, especially in 1960, straight after the revolution when it was vital to build the structures of the new society? Che's own contributions to the rebuilding of Cuban society are legendary: he worked incredibly long hours throughout the week (Mondays through to Saturdays), including nights, and did volunteer labour on Sunday mornings, cutting cane, building schools, etc. In between, he continued educating himself (mathematics, economics) to better contribute to the new society. He demanded of others only a fraction of what he did himself. The music issue is a bit trivial, I think -in this article, 'netforcuba' was out to vilify Carlos Santana for wearing a Che T-shirt - who knows whether or not Che ever really imprisoned anyone for the type of music they were listening to.

While I can't vouch for them really I do see that the author of the article had several sources sited for his information. He seems to know what he's talking about. Obviously though there was an idiological bias in who were painted as good guys and who were painted as bad guys but I don't see any reason to doubt the actual information in the article itself. I also would doubt that the author wrote a two page well sourced article just to vilify Santana in that one small paragraph at the end.

Any way. Regardless of his intentions I don't like the idea of throwing people in prison for being homeless or "lazy" or because they don't support "the glorious revolution". I have known plenty of good people who probably would have wound up in such camps because they just did what they needed to for food and a roof and spent the rest of their time enjoying life. They'd save up a bit then pick up and travel somewhere else. Maybe find another odd job someplace when they ran out of money. In this capitalist society I live in where everyone are expected to be consumers, workers, credit card holders, homeowners/apartment renters, family people, ect they didn't fit in one iota but were never jailed for it. I'm sure that if Bush started having young rebelious kids jailed for being delinquents and listening to punk rock there would be an up roar and you likely would be screaming along with everyone else. Somehow though you can find it within yourself to forgive Che for having people executed and thrown into prison camps because they didn't live up to his ideals.

 

[Dawguard]

Why do you insist on spouting this gibberish? There are infinitely simpler arguments against communism, all of which do not depend on complicated philosophical issues such as human nature and none of which are all that controversial. For example, my favorite goes a little like this:
"Dictatorships are Bad"

Why do you call it gibberish? Its been proven by history, which is the best proof anyone can use. Go ahead and call it gibberish, but first you have to prove it wrong, which is a whole lot harder then simply insulting it.

 

[Smurf]

Why do you call it gibberish? Its been proven by history, which is the best proof anyone can use. Go ahead and call it gibberish, but first you have to prove it wrong, which is a whole lot harder then simply insulting it.

There is nothing proven. You're first post was this:

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.

Followed only by re-wordings of the same and a feeble attempt or two to make claims on human nature. All that is proven by history is that the USSR massively violated human rights and eventually collapsed. The same could be said about Rome! Or Athens! Or Nazi Germany! Does this mean that Impericalism does not work? Does this mean that Fascism does not work? Does this mean that Democracy does not work? (All three cases, as well as countless others - prove that democracy, or republic, or some variant thereof does not work. By your own (illogical) logic!)

Some proof you have!

edit: I'll say it again to you Dawguard. There are plenty of arguments against communism without resorting to ridiculous claims such as it being incompatible with human nature or citing a period of 50 years as proof that anything called "Communism" (regardless of the number of differences) doesn't work. (which I don't think I've yet to hear a definition of. What DOES work?)

 

[alexandra]

Regardless of his intentions I don't like the idea of throwing people in prison for being homeless or "lazy" or because they don't support "the glorious revolution". I have known plenty of good people who probably would have wound up in such camps because they just did what they needed to for food and a roof and spent the rest of their time enjoying life. They'd save up a bit then pick up and travel somewhere else. Maybe find another odd job someplace when they ran out of money. In this capitalist society I live in where everyone are expected to be consumers, workers, credit card holders, homeowners/apartment renters, family people, ect they didn't fit in one iota but were never jailed for it.

I agree with you here, of course. People who refuse to buy into consumerism and the whole ethos of the capitalist lifestyle are to be commended in a way (though IMO it is quite a selfish and individualistic and, in the end, futile solution to just 'opt out' rather than to participate actively in changing what is wrong with the society).

I'm sure that if Bush started having young rebelious kids jailed for being delinquents and listening to punk rock there would be an up roar and you likely would be screaming along with everyone else. Somehow though you can find it within yourself to forgive Che for having people executed and thrown into prison camps because they didn't live up to his ideals.

Of course I'd be screaming along with everyone else! But Che just did not do those things he's been accused of - that's what I'm disagreeing with. People who were sent to 'labour camps' were sent for good reason, not for trivial reasons like listening to loud music. Listening to loud music may have been part of what they were doing, but it could not have been the sole reason. I feel at a loss arguing about something neither of us can truly verify. The website you quoted is firmly anti-Castro, anti-Che, anti-Cuba - I know that for sure, and therefore I do not trust any of the information it gives.

 

[X-43D]

I don't believe in absolute ownership. Other cultures appeared to exist (before European imperialism) without the concept of personal ownership. Members of a society would feel free to take any objects they had need of, and expect them to be taken by others.

 

[Dawguard]

There is nothing proven. Followed only by re-wordings of the same and a feeble attempt or two to make claims on human nature. All that is proven by history is that the USSR massively violated human rights and eventually collapsed. The same could be said about Rome! Or Athens! Or Nazi Germany! Does this mean that Impericalism does not work? Does this mean that Fascism does not work? Does this mean that Democracy does not work? (All three cases, as well as countless others - prove that democracy, or republic, or some variant thereof does not work. By your own (illogical) logic!)

Some proof you have!

You're right, nothing has worked permanently, and I'm not the first person to say it. Aristotle claimed that all forms of government were ultimatly doomed, and all I'm doing is saying why the communist form is doomed. It wasn't just the USSR though, don't forget the other country that had a massive revelution; China. Communism failed in its goals for that country too.
But once again you're right, democracy won't last, imperialism won't last; nothing will. Once government rises and than falls, left behind by whatever comes next until the newcomer dies away. The spesific reasons change for each government and the only one I've addressed has been communism.
Besides, show me one time when communism worked. You know, this is the fourth time I've asked that, and you still haven't answered it. I wonder why?

 

[X-43D]

Totalitarianism is not really communism. It's state capitalism where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation. Trotsky criticized Stalinism in being totalitarian in nature.

All forms of radicalism are equally bad. One gives too much power to private corporations and the second gives too much power to the government.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Stop repeating the boring argument that "communism has never worked". Communists know this already. If something has never happened, that does not mean it cannot happen. Many factors may have caused communism to fail in certain countries. You have no proof that communism cannot work. Communists have no proof that it can work. However, evidence leads many to believe that it can work; therefore, they try to implement it.

 

[Anttech]

However, evidence leads many to believe that it can work; therefore, they try to implement it.

What evidence is this..

Stop repeating the boring very small scale experiements that worked, and give us some meaningful evidence at a large scale.

Stop repeating the boring argument that "communism has never worked". Communists know this already.

Ahh some sense at last, so you are admitting that communism doesn't work?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

No, I am admitting that communism hasn't worked yet. There have been some admirable socialist states though. In terms of evidence, I am talking about communist theory more so than practice. Though some leftist movements are admirable. The Zapatista movement. I disagree with Cuba on many issues, but Fidel has improved the country. Che was a better revolutionary, however. Anarchism in Spain is another example of a leftist movement.

Remember, anarcho-communism is different from traditional marxism. I am skeptical of centralization and the "marxist" revolutions that have occured. They may work, but I think an anarchist method to achieving communism is preferable.

Communism has never been implemented in its true form. Some say it can never be done. However, there is no evidence that communism in its true form has ever been achieved; therefore, it is impossible to say that, if achieved, communism won't work.

 

[Smurf]

Besides, show me one time when communism worked. You know, this is the fourth time I've asked that, and you still haven't answered it. I wonder why?

Well I still havn't gotten an answer to "What do you mean by 'worked'" so isn't it a bit unfair to expect an answer to a question I don't understand? Regardless, this argument is over, you've ceded that communism is not specially 'non-working' than other systems. If you want to state that any political system will eventually die out I'll agree with you.

 

[McGyver]

Scientists Must be Unbiased: No Category Available

I could not find an appropriate selection either. I often will reason politically as a scientist, which means I must remain open to all ideas and discussion, devout of pre-conceived or biased conclusions, and find solutions through attentiveness and analysis.

On the other hand, political biases typically are based upon beliefs adopted from others (teachers, family) and fed by emotion - often seen as irrational exuberance and subject to influence by large group gatherings.

One has to work hard to remain unimpaired by emotion in decision-making, and led by intelligence, attentiveness, and free thinking. Such traits are required of top athletes, performers, and leaders as well.

 

[Dawguard]

By not worked I mean that it has never produced the utopian society that it claims to create. Also, while I said that all forms of government are doomed to fail, some do work and last better then others. In my belief, any attempt to create communism will result in failure, while democracy and republics won't neccesarily violate human rights. Also, no matter what the form of government the idea of capitalism remains the same. In this regard capitalism will never fall and the cannot be said of its antithesis, communism.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

By not worked I mean that it has never produced the utopian society that it claims to create. Also, while I said that all forms of government are doomed to fail, some do work and last better then others. In my belief, any attempt to create communism will result in failure, while democracy and republics won't neccesarily violate human rights. Also, no matter what the form of government the idea of capitalism remains the same. In this regard capitalism will never fall and the cannot be said of its antithesis, communism.

You say these things as if you have proof. Do you have some hidden knowledge no one else is aware of? If so, please share with me how, with all the variables in this complex world, capitalism will "never" fall?