News What political ideology do you follow, if any?

[Amp1]

Dawguard,

Its hardly publicized but there are people starving in this good ole US, the most recent are some victims of Katrina. Noone wants the US to become a welfare state, however, there is not enough being done to assist the disenfranchised with education, vocational skills training, housing, health care and jobs. This isn't a rant - its reality. Social programs are under funded or discontinued and the difficulty of getting assistance is increased. Many programs are now of limited duration meaning individuals have sometimes unrealistic time limits set on how long they will receive support.

 

[Smurf]

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.

I'm not even trying to argue that Communism is desirable, you can look up my older arguments with Alexandria in which I quite clearly oppose the construction of a dictatorship of the proletariate. What I object to is the pathetic statement that "Communism won't work" and your ridiculous 'evidence' for it being a mere "It hasn't worked yet".

You havn't even explained what "Communism won't work" means (you probably don't even know). Maybe you just remember hearing it from one of your friends in high school (that was the first time you heard it) and thought it was a great way to shut up communists because most of the communists you encountered were some neo-punks who thought it'd be cool to wear hammers and sickles on their jackets and don't know anything?

The most literal meaning is that a communist government system is inherently unstable. That's just ridiculous as it is the USSR it's self lasted from 1917 to the late eighties, give or take depending on when you count from. The reason why it collapsed was affected by so many other powerfull forces such as the cold war and just plain incompetent leadership as to make that argument extremely problematic at best.

More likely what you meant was that was some twisted argument that Communism isn't communism because communism leads to non-communism regardless of wether the people who want communism/non-communism actually want communism/non-communism.

...

Of course, you don't usually say that, you usually use rhetoric that presupposes that point and hope no body realizes you havn't actually made any argument or given any evidence to support it. And then of course when poeople do ask you for evidence you break out the big whiney rhetoric like "When did someone here last get killed for disagreeing with the government" actually people do get killed in capitalist countries for disagreeing, but that's only if they're a real hassle, more likely we lock them up for assorted periods of time or take away a portion of their livlihood. We charge them with things like "Disrupting the electoral process" if they do anything with a ballot aside from vote. Oh, did I mention we're not allowed to talk about the election until it's over?
http://electionresultscanada.com/pr010530a.html
http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/02edibleballot.html

(notice how you don't see this stuff on CBC - but of course, that's Canada. The US would never do anything that un-democratic. So, how are the Guantanamo prisoners doing these days? Given them fair trials yet?)

You say that 37 million people died in communist countries. You say that millions of people starved because of the government, but you don't count how many starve in the US. You say conditions are horrible in Chinese sweat shops, but your country is the one encouraging them and allowing your corporations to be the ones to set them up. You say I'm leaning back in a nice chair, but you don't count the thousands that arn't. You say I have the ability to get a job in any field I want. But you don't count the thousands that don't.

And you condemn me for saying that Capitalism is evil? I condemn you for thinking that just because someone else was worse, that you don't have problems.

Other things you're wrong (or decided not to talk) about:
-China is actually more capitalist than Canada. So really it IS capitalism that is killing people for disagreeing with the government. I mean, more so than happens in N. America.
-In Russia I would not have been killed for this. Russia has arguably more freedom of speech than the USA does. Apparently you don't realize that the Cold war is over. So much for embracing 'fact'.
-The only 37 million statistic I can find in relation to China is the extreme-high end of how many they lost in WW2. Civilian + Millitary. A handfull of Tobacco CEOs are responsible for more than that.

 

[X-43D]

Communism and capitalism are both "statist" social structures. Thus communism is based on equality, capitalism is based on hierarchy. In capitalism private business owners take the role of government in economic decisions without any concern for those in need. Capitalists are egoists, communists are altruists.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Communism and capitalism are both "statist" social structures. Thus communism is based on equality, capitalism is based on hierarchy. In capitalism private business owners take the role of government in economic decisions without any concern for those in need. Capitalists are egoists, communists are altruists.

Actual governments that called themselves communist have all been statist - actually party dictatorships. Whether that is a necessary part of communism as Marx taught it is stilll undetermined. The part of the "vanguard party" in decision making and the repressed snobbery of the middle class marxist intellectuals toward actual working people ("too dumb to know their own interests") has to be dealt with.

 

[EL]

I've heard definitions from the extremes of Sweden being a communist country

Lol. Really? How insulting! Who said so? (I will personally hunt them down...)
With that definition the whole western Europe must be communistic.

 

[Dawguard]

You havn't even explained what "Communism won't work" means (you probably don't even know). Maybe you just remember hearing it from one of your friends in high school (that was the first time you heard it) and thought it was a great way to shut up communists because most of the communists you encountered were some neo-punks who thought it'd be cool to wear hammers and sickles on their jackets and don't know anything?

First of all, I was homeshcooled so the idea I simply absorbed my ideas from friends is impossible. Second, I came the logical conclusion of the inherent impossibility of communism on my one. It is best articulated in Machiavelli's famous book, The Prince
Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done moves toward self-destruction rather then self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to act vituously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.
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. This is proven by the number of communist revalution that end in tragedy.

[QOUTE=Smurf]You say that 37 million people died in communist countries. You say that millions of people starved because of the government, but you don't count how many starve in the US. You say conditions are horrible in Chinese sweat shops, but your country is the one encouraging them and allowing your corporations to be the ones to set them up. You say I'm leaning back in a nice chair, but you don't count the thousands that arn't. You say I have the ability to get a job in any field I want. But you don't count the thousands that don't.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that 37 million people died in communist countries, I said that was the number killed when Mao took over China. Counting the USSR that number is significantly higher when Stalin and Lenin's purges are taken into acount.
Also, I am not defending business using Chinese sweat shops to get cheap goods. In my opinion we, the US, should impose trade tariffs so that manufacturors are penalized for behavior such as this. Never once have I defended what is done by 'big business', all I have done is shown the impossibility of communism. As for poor in capitalist countries and those who have little chance to improve their life, I've never said that they do not exist. They do count, but compared to those in communist countries the numbers are far lower. While we in the US may have a long way to go before beoming a perfect system of government, I find it ludicrous to compare it to places that are so much worse.
For the third time, I ask you to show me a country that has adopted communism and have the result positive. Three times I ask you to show me an example, and yet I have seen none. All this does is convince me that Machiavelli and I are correct, and that these wonderful ideals are practicaly impossible.
By the way, when referring to Russia, I meant the USSR. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Smasherman]

Dawguard, what were the conditions in Cuba before the revolution there?

 

[Dawguard]

Dawguard, what were the conditions in Cuba before the revolution there?

In my understanding, Cuba was pretty messed up before Castro took power, but he certanly didn't make it any better. Bear in mind, I am not arguing about Cuba only, I am making a much broader statement, that communism as thought of by idealists is impossible. Cuba is a dictatorship, and you cannot argue otherwise. The USSR was a dictatorship; China certanly was. This is not true communism as held by the ideas, it is something entirely different. It is despotism; a country ruled by a totalitarian dictator. There has never once been, nor do I believe ever will be, a true, unified, communist nation working together for the good of everyone.

 

[Smasherman]

In my understanding, Cuba was pretty messed up before Castro took power, but he certanly didn't make it any better. Bear in mind, I am not arguing about Cuba only, I am making a much broader statement, that communism as thought of by idealists is impossible. Cuba is a dictatorship, and you cannot argue otherwise. The USSR was a dictatorship; China certanly was. This is not true communism as held by the ideas, it is something entirely different. It is despotism; a country ruled by a totalitarian dictator. There has never once been, nor do I believe ever will be, a true, unified, communist nation working together for the good of everyone.

Ok. I suppose we'll see exactly how much of a dictatorship Cuba is when Castro dies (which won't be very long, it seems). I honestly don't know the real state of Cuba politically, since I'm not exactly involved in Cuba's political process. So, I won't argue because I don't really have data to hold a position.

My point really is that Cuba is, in my understanding, doing better than it was before Castro took power. If nothing else, Cuba is doing better than many of its neighbors, since they train Doctors in Cuba to practice in their native nations. Cuba is socialist, though, not communist. Communism is very much an absolute ideal, much like true free trade, so government under either would have to be nearly negligible (sp?).

I consider communism to be essentially enlightened anarchy. I question whether or not anarchy, even if humans weren't messing things up themselves, would be able to stand against external threats well (like an incoming meteor, an epidemic, etc).

 

[Anttech]

It is despotism; a country ruled by a totalitarian dictator. There has never once been, nor do I believe ever will be, a true, unified, communist nation working together for the good of everyone.

not totally true, there was a bunch of nomads living somewhere in africa years ago who were totally communist... or something like that :-)

Anyway I aggree.. Communism is like a badly designed network, it will work providing you don't try and scale it.. Communism works for a small amount of people, but doesn't scale well, as we have seen already numerous times...

 

[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?

 

[NafiBear]

i like one that mixes all of those, it's more real, a no-name party.
none of today's --isms distinguise themselves that clearly.

 

[Dawguard]

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?

I do have proof, and it's not exactly hidden knowledge. My proof is simple and I have stated it many times; people are too selfish to adopt communism on a large scale. This however requires further proof, and that burden lies on me. Now, since we cannot examine human nature like a piece of meat we have to rely on what we see it do. There is only one place to look for this and it is history. So, glancing back through the illuminating pages of time, we see corruption everywhere. In the so-called great civilization of Greece, the democracy of Athens was limited to citizens, which were a tiny part of the total population. The city was rampant with poverty, farmers basically became slaves through indentured servitude, etc. Pysistratus took over and became the first tyrant of Greece. He used murder, extortion and torture to achieve his goals. Even during the days of great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and Xeno (let's not forget they murdered Socrates simply for dissenting with the status quo), Athens sucked up power and wealth into itself at the expense of other Greek city-states. The Peleponisian War, lasting 250 years, was the result; countless dead, impoverished, etc.
Sorry to rant, but all of history reads like this. No religion, state or institution has remained uncorrupted. Forget the nice, pleasent view of people that pervades American society. People are depraved, corupt, lustful, and selfish individuals and there is no reason to think they will suddenly change for the better. See, its not hidden, all you have to do is turn your head to look behind and you will see it screaming in your face. Sure it's depressing and people hate to think like that, but as an old saying goes, "knowledge is sorrow".

Now, about capitalism never falling, that is simply explained. There can only be two options, communism and capitalism. There is no inbetween, for socialism is limited capitalism. Therefore one of the two must exist, and since true communism is inherently immpossible capitalism is the only one left be sheer process of ellimination.

 

[Smurf]

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.

I don't really understand it when people make this kind of distinction. As if the state and the economic system imposed by the state are not linked. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Smurf]

I do have proof, and it's not exactly hidden knowledge. My proof is simple and I have stated it many times; people are too selfish to adopt communism on a large scale. This however requires further proof, and that burden lies on me. Now, since we cannot examine human nature like a piece of meat we have to rely on what we see it do. There is only one place to look for this and it is history. So, glancing back through the illuminating pages of time, we see corruption everywhere. In the so-called great civilization of Greece, the democracy of Athens was limited to citizens, which were a tiny part of the total population. The city was rampant with poverty, farmers basically became slaves through indentured servitude, etc. Pysistratus took over and became the first tyrant of Greece. He used murder, extortion and torture to achieve his goals. Even during the days of great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and Xeno (let's not forget they murdered Socrates simply for dissenting with the status quo), Athens sucked up power and wealth into itself at the expense of other Greek city-states. The Peleponisian War, lasting 250 years, was the result; countless dead, impoverished, etc.

You should read some Hobbes. He wrote this book called Leviathan. He makes some good arguments against the liberal idea that humans are individualistic.

 

[Dawguard]

The state and the ecenomic system are linked but not necesarily bound together. A republic can be capitalist, as can a democracy, dictatorship and monarchy. Unfortunatly the same cannot be said of communism; I know of no communist countries that are not dictatorships.
I'll see of I can get a copy of the book, it should provide some interesting insight.

 

[Smurf]

The state and the ecenomic system are linked but not necesarily bound together. A republic can be capitalist, as can a democracy, dictatorship and monarchy. Unfortunatly the same cannot be said of communism; I know of no communist countries that are not dictatorships.

Actually you know of one that's a dictatorship (cuba), and a lot more that, while still totalitarian, weren't dictatorships. The USSR, for example, was not a dictatorship for most of it's history. It ceased to be a dictatorship with the death of Stalin, or arguably even the death of Lenin.

 

[Dawguard]

Actually you know of one that's a dictatorship (cuba), and a lot more that, while still totalitarian, weren't dictatorships. The USSR, for example, was not a dictatorship for most of it's history. It ceased to be a dictatorship with the death of Stalin, or arguably even the death of Lenin.

All right, I'll admit they aren't dictatorships in the strict sense. As you said though they are totalitarian, which is nearly the same; for the people under it the effect is identical.

 

[X-43D]

A gift economy could do better than capitalism. It all depends on the kind of people.