NationStates Jolt Archive

Clicky (http://www.therundown.co.uk/news/world/1136124016/?PHPSESSID=3271172e14ab4086d6e9b81ea25844bd)

Basically the Czech government has told the Communist party to stop being... well... communist or it will be banned along with the fascists.

Is this right? Should the state be allowed to ban political parties which threaten the social norm?

Oh, I'll add a poll for people who don't like debating, but do like clicking on things

As much as I hate extremists of all kinds, this is wrong. You should allow them to be free and be a political party, and trust the public that they won't vote for extremists.

Clicky (http://www.therundown.co.uk/news/world/1136124016/?PHPSESSID=3271172e14ab4086d6e9b81ea25844bd)

Basically the Czech government has told the Communist party to stop being... well... communist or it will be banned along with the fascists.

Is this right? Should the state be allowed to ban political parties which threaten the social norm?

Oh, I'll add a poll for people who don't like debating, but do like clicking on things

Hitler banned the communists from the Reichstag in order to come to power....

I think the Czech state profits on sophistry.
1. If their reason is that Communism in Czechoslovakia was the result of occupation (which it wasn't altogether), then they should also declare the previous state to have left no binding legal precedent - and I doubt that they do that, although they claimed to be.
2. It will never be proven consistently that the two forms are connected. I mean: look at similar, reformed, parties throughout the former Bloc. In Hungary, in Poland, in Slovenia, and arguably in Romania: in all these places, it's former communists who have ensured most reforms, after winning free elections.
3. They ignore the fact that they are giving encouragement for minor name-changes.

They shouldn't be banned; in all honesty, Communism was such a failiure that it is impossible that any Communist organization would have more than a token representation on the national level.

It's kind of ironic that they are banning political parties just like the Communists themselves did...needless to say, it's not a particularly stellar example of freedom of expression or speech and should be avoided. Banning political parties only attracts the worst elements of society to it that seek to "rebel" against the existing establishment...it will have the same effect as the Neo-Nazis in Germany.

2. It will never be proven consistently that the two forms are connected. I mean: look at similar, reformed, parties throughout the former Bloc. In Hungary, in Poland, in Slovenia, and arguably in Romania: in all these places, it's former communists who have ensured most reforms, after winning free elections.


That's a pretty broad statement about who carried out the reforms considering that everyone in the bloc nations born before 1989 was a communist.

why ban them? let their hypocritical society burn itself out.

Only ban them if they're a cover for terrorists, like Batasuna or Sinn Fein.

That's a pretty broad statement about who carried out the reforms considering that everyone in the bloc nations born before 1989 was a communist.
Ok, let me be more specific:
-Milan Kučan was regional leader of the League of Yugoslav Communists when he voted for independence.
-Aleksander Kwaśniewski was a voivodship and students' unions leader for the Polish United Workers' Party before joining the Democratic Left Alliance, widely held to be the succesor of the PUWP.
-Ion Iliescu was leader of the youth wing of the Romanian Communist Party in the 1960s, and then marginalized by Ceausescu because of his pro-Soviet views (which Iliescu kept on believing in as Ceausescu turned more and more nationalist). The Romanian Revolution of 1989, even though it dissolved the RCP, marked the triumph of the pro-Perstroika faction which had been clamped down.

Is this too broad? Also, I should point out that I was born behind the Iron Curtain (incidentally, 7 years before 1989), and still live in the area.

They shouldn't be banned; in all honesty, Communism was such a failiure that it is impossible that any Communist organization would have more than a token representation on the national level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Czech_Republic

I'm no fan of Communism, but the restriction of free thought and assembly is not right.

I'm no fan of Communism, but the restriction of free thought and assembly is not right.

Same thoughts here. Banning isn't right

And yes, I'm aware I just voted for the option that it is. That was an accident. I have a godawful flu and the options merged and I clicked the wrong one.

people are ignorant when spruting out that communism is bad ...

granted ... allmost all countries that have been calling themselves communist have failed ... but that is just as much because they wasn't true communism but rather a small group being dictators hiding behind the label of communism (some of them even themselves believed that they was communistic ... but that is at most wrong) ...

the only true communist that have been leading a country the last 50 years would be Che Guevara ... and he didn't even lead Cuba alone but together with Castro and ... some guy who's name i've lost ... and Castro when looking on his communistic program is somewhat more doubtable ...

On the paper Communism is the perfect government ... just sad that its going crash'n'burn when the human greed is entering the scene

so, what has happened with the situation since the new year? anybody find a more recent article on it?

so, what has happened with the situation since the new year? anybody find a more recent article on it?
A little more recent, but not much new:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/656/656p15f.htm

That's a pretty broad statement about who carried out the reforms considering that everyone in the bloc nations born before 1989 was a communist.

everyone was a member of the communist party? really?

everyone was a member of the communist party? really?
No. Not at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Czech_Republic

18.5% of the Chamber of Deputies and 8.6% of the Senate...that's not very big representation given the dominance of the Communist parties for 40-odd years in the entire region. It's more than in previous elections, but their performance is also coincident with the 1998 recession that increased their popularity during that period.

No. Not at all.

precisely my point. in my experience, people over here make all sorts of claims about the soviet union and it's related states that just have no relation to how things actually were. i find it strange.

"Communists banned in the Czech Republic"

I suspect that this is based on their experiences with communism. Give it a couple of generations and the "new and improved" communist party will regain a place in the politicial spectrum.

everyone was a member of the communist party? really?

No, it was actually a fairly small part of the population; however, they controlled the government of the various states of the Warsaw Pact (and Comecon). It wasn't mandantory.

No, it was actually a fairly small part of the population; however, they controlled the government of the various states of the Warsaw Pact (and Comecon). It wasn't mandantory.
You should've followed the exchange he was answering to (between me and some other guy). No one is arguing against what you said, but you did not notice what this was about.

18.5% of the Chamber of Deputies and 8.6% of the Senate...that's not very big representation given the dominance of the Communist parties for 40-odd years in the entire region. It's more than in previous elections, but their performance is also coincident with the 1998 recession that increased their popularity during that period.

yup, 18.5%, also known as 6% behind the second biggest party and 12% behind the largest in the chamber of deputies. pretty damn competitive if you ask me.

the diversity of the senate it actually rather surprising, since it operates on single member districts - which usually leads to a two party system. from the raw numbers i would guess that most of the parties have a sort of local stronghold in some area, with the rightwingers largely rallying behind the civic democratic party in most places.

my point stands. the commies aren't a tiny fringe party with only token representation. and that's just looking at the czech republic. you should see how the commies do in mongolia, for example.

while i'll admit to lacking totaly intimate expertese on marxist doctrine, no where in it, to the best of my knowledge, does it advocate or insist upon the use of physicaly violent force. i think this is one of those big idiology vs idiology myths created to frighten people for political gain.

the america i've lived in for more then 50 years had defacto, if not in letter of law, prevented marxist political parties from running candidates, and for all practical purposes, by cultural brainwashing in combination with covert suppression, all but completely prevented the existence of marxist thought in political debate.

while i have no love of any idiologica pretentions to panacea, expecialy those which do little or nothing to acknowledge humanity's dependence on nature, i am nontheless shamed by my nation's doing so.

i cannot speak for the experiences of another nation that is not my own, but this certainly seems like run away vested corporacratic faschism for them to do this, if in fact this is something actualy being advocated and taking place if not just a rumor being deliberately and gratuitously generated here, to no immaginably useful purpose.

=^^=
.../\...

I suspect that this is based on their experiences with communism.
Or merely an experiment in populism.

Given their history I can't say I blame the Czech government for trying to ban the commies.

Given their history I can't say I blame the Czech government for trying to ban the commies.
Why?
Ever heard of Communist leader Alexander Dubček? Look him up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubcek.

commies allowed fascist shouldnt be

this leaves me with a dilema though why is it that we tolerate and accept far left views in society but reject all far right. im not saying we support them but
for example in the office if you say something far left people will not raise an eyebrow but say it far right and your'e arse will get fired so fast you wont hit the ground.

now im not saying that i agree with far right, on the contrary i am on the left but is it right to punish the far right and not the far left

I believe that you should allow both ends of the spectrum, as long as they don't advocate violent revolution.

Any person who advocates, organizes, or attempts violent revolution needs to be shot on the spot.

So, if you can have Communism or Fascism with a complete disavowal of armed insurrection and with no forcible overthrow of the government and full recognition of the nation's constitution, then hey, no problem.

But one word about putting the bourgeoisie against the wall, and it's good night for you.

Any person who advocates, organizes, or attempts violent revolution needs to be shot on the spot.
1.This would be the epitome of absurdity.
2.Who do you listen to that someone would advocate violent revolution? I mean, it is highly doubtful that would be the purpose of a behind-the-Curtain Party. If you do attempt to pin it down, then please qualify Bush's saying that a war is needed for democratic change in this or that place.

Why?
Ever heard of Communist leader Alexander Dubček? Look him up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubcek.

When thinking of communism I think the Czechs are more likely to remember 45 years of authoritarianism, economic stagnation, unemployment, dictatorship and total neglect for individual rights than the failed aspirations. of the Prague spring.

When thinking of communism I think the Czechs are more likely to remember 45 years of authoritarianism, economic stagnation, unemployment, dictatorship and total neglect for individual rights than the failed aspirations. of the Prague spring.

Waiting for DHomme to say that the people who did those bad things weren't really Communists.

commies allowed fascist shouldnt be

this leaves me with a dilema though why is it that we tolerate and accept far left views in society but reject all far right. im not saying we support them but
for example in the office if you say something far left people will not raise an eyebrow but say it far right and your'e arse will get fired so fast you wont hit the ground.

now im not saying that i agree with far right, on the contrary i am on the left but is it right to punish the far right and not the far left

Mao Tse Tung's communist party were responsible for the deaths of over 50 million of its own citizens in the name of "cultural revolution". Actions such as this are no less repulsive than the genocidal leanings of groups on the extreme right. Either ban them both or ban neither (I'd favour the latter) but don't try to draw a moral distinction between types of evil when essentially talking about tyrannical states who abuse their citizens.

Waiting for DHomme to say that the people who did those bad things weren't really Communists.

Capitalism is judged by its outcomes not its intentions, communism should live by the same standard of measurement.

Capitalism is judged by its outcomes not its intentions, communism should live by the same standard of measurement.
True, but most of the Communists here on NS General (and most I've met in real life) disavow that Communism has ever been implemented at all, nor has anyone attempted to implement it. Thus removing, in their little minds, the stigma of the murderous tide of Communism.

It would be like someone saying, "well, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with someone trying to implement democracy, because no country would elect a government that would forcibly overthrow a nation and impose a democratic government."

Like you said, an ideology is as an ideology DOES - not what some little book says it should be.

Only ban them if they're a cover for terrorists, like Batasuna or Sinn Fein.

Oh? The DUP aren't covered in your spectrum then?

When thinking of communism I think the Czechs are more likely to remember 45 years of authoritarianism, economic stagnation, unemployment, dictatorship and total neglect for individual rights than the failed aspirations. of the Prague spring.
It's nice to speak in generalities: "Czechs are more likely". If "Czechs" are more likely, then why is that the the third party in the country? Or are all people voting for it "not Czechs"?
A name means little, one way or the other. And even if you claim the same ideology as x, you could point out that has nothing in common with x. To give a brief example: how many victims of a communism weren't communists themselves? Including the Slansky Affair and the Prague Spring.

When thinking of communism I think the Czechs are more likely to remember 45 years of authoritarianism, economic stagnation, unemployment, dictatorship and total neglect for individual rights than the failed aspirations. of the Prague spring.

you've polled them on this?

you've polled them on this?
Sounds logical to me.

For the few Czechs I've met in person who are old enough to remember Prague Spring (and Hungarians who remember a similar violent action by Communists), they have an abiding feeling that Communists belong in the trash bin.

If the Czechs hate the communist so much why have they been getting so many votes? This is pure bullshit. Oh, and the fascists shouldn't be banned either. Let them make fools of themselvs when they speak in public.

Sounds logical to me.

For the few Czechs I've met in person who are old enough to remember Prague Spring (and Hungarians who remember a similar violent action by Communists), they have an abiding feeling that Communists belong in the trash bin.
And your point is?

you've polled them on this?

No but I've been to Prague, have friends who are Czech and know a bit about Czech history. I certainly hold no pretentions to be anything like an authority but if you have any doubts as to the extent of their hatred I would implore you to visit the country.

And your point is?
According to them (and I may be wrong), the feeling is quite widespread in that age group.

Still waiting for someone to deny that the government that repressed so many people for so long was Communist.

Sounds logical to me.

For the few Czechs I've met in person who are old enough to remember Prague Spring (and Hungarians who remember a similar violent action by Communists), they have an abiding feeling that Communists belong in the trash bin.

despite the fact that their homegrown communists were the ones proposing better and more popular forms of socialism, and it was the russians who came in with tanks to stop it? one has to wonder if at least some people don't make such distinctions.

According to them (and I may be wrong), the feeling is quite widespread in that age group.

Still waiting for someone to deny that the government that repressed so many people for so long was Communist.
The feeling might be widespread, but regardless:
-The Prague Spring was the contribution of people who considered themselves Communists, first and foremost (i.e.: Dubček and Ludvík Svoboda); not to say that this is a merit of Communism, just that having a name does not make you a sure criminal or whatever. Nor do I find any convincing proof that Communism would have a single form (consider Brezhnev or Antonín Novotný vs. Dubček)
-the more communist a movement behind the former Curtain is, the less likely it is to be revolutionary (see the critique of Eurocommunism); if it is deemed communist, and is in fact Eurocommunist, I see no goddamn problem
-polls don't count on getting political expressions banned - that would be more dangerous than any revolution

despite the fact that their homegrown communists were the ones proposing better and more popular forms of socialism, and it was the russians who came in with tanks to stop it? one has to wonder if at least some people don't make such distinctions.

You'll notice in a previous post in this thread that I don't think that banning Communists and Fascists is a good idea.

Unless they verbally advocate armed insurrection to overthrow the status quo.

Then they need to be shot, and immediately.

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that advocates the forcible overthrow of the government?"

If the answer is yes, then I ban your party and shoot you.

Still waiting for someone to deny that the government that repressed so many people for so long was Communist.

define communist. cause whether the ussr was even attempting to implement a classless and stateless society by the 1960s is rather questionable.

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that advocates the forcible overthrow of the government?"

If the answer is yes, then I ban your party and shoot you.

remind me not to answer any such question around you

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that advocates the forcible overthrow of the government?"
Ok, McCarthy. Here's a question for you: "How do you picture anyone answering 'yes' to such a question?"

my point stands. the commies aren't a tiny fringe party with only token representation. and that's just looking at the czech republic. you should see how the commies do in mongolia, for example.

It's probably important to distinguish that these Communists are miles apart from the ones that were in power during the Soviet era; like all of the other former Eastern Bloc states, their homegrown movements were repressed by the USSR and puppet Communist parties were created. These Communists likely have little or no tie to the ones back in the 1980's and earlier.

define communist. cause whether the ussr was even attempting to implement a classless and stateless society by the 1960s is rather questionable.
Nice try at disavowal, but it won't work.

Ideologies are defined by what the results are, not what was in the book.

Try again.

Ok, McCarthy. Here's a question for you: "How do you picture anyone answering 'yes' to such a question?"
It's not a McCarthy thing. It's on every security questionnaire the US uses.

If you answer No, and during your background investigation they discover that it's really Yes, you go to jail for around 10 years for lying on your security questionnaire.

You'll notice in a previous post in this thread that I don't think that banning Communists and Fascists is a good idea.

Unless they verbally advocate armed insurrection to overthrow the status quo.

Then they need to be shot, and immediately.

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that advocates the forcible overthrow of the government?"

If the answer is yes, then I ban your party and shoot you.

Hah! Oh man, you would have fit right in in the Soviet Union.

Nice try at disavowal, but it won't work.

Ideologies are defined by what the results are, not what was in the book.

Try again.
She did not say that, man. That would be a relevant topic, but for another debate. It's just that you cannot say they were revolutionary and the establishment at the same time. All Stalinism and succeding ideology inside the USSR up until Gorbachev (who was no more of a revolutionary) was conservative and anti-insurectional. That's how come Mao made a name for himself supporting revolution where the Soviets wouldn't. Inform yourself.
And take a look over my posts from time to time.

It's not a McCarthy thing. It's on every security questionnaire the US uses.

If you answer No, and during your background investigation they discover that it's really Yes, you go to jail for around 10 years for lying on your security questionnaire.

As opposed to answering "yes" and being thrown into guantanamo instantly?

She did not say that, man. That would be a relevant topic, but for another debate. It's just that you cannot say they were revolutionary and the establishment at the same time. All Stalinism and succeding ideology inside the USSR up until Gorbachev (who was no more of a revolutionary) was conservative and anti-insurectional. That's hoe come Mao made a name for himself supporting revolution where the Soviets wouldn't. Inform yourself.
And take a look over my posts from time to time.

There are over 100 million AKM rifles in the world, produced by the former Soviet Union, in circulation today, provided free of charge, for the ostensible purpose of revolution.

Of course, rifles being fairly durable items, most are being used for other nefarious purposes today.

While they may have been the establishment at home, they had the announced goal of not only implementing Communism at home (however flawed their implementation), but exporting revolution all over the world.

I believe that you should allow both ends of the spectrum, as long as they don't advocate violent revolution.

Any person who advocates, organizes, or attempts violent revolution needs to be shot on the spot.
Why not? Your own nation, and most others were founded by violent revolution.

Still waiting for someone to deny that the government that repressed so many people for so long was Communist.
Oh, why don't you just say it yourself? It will be faster than begging some leftist to say it.

You'll notice in a previous post in this thread that I don't think that banning Communists and Fascists is a good idea.

Unless they verbally advocate armed insurrection to overthrow the status quo.

Then they need to be shot, and immediately.

How can you ever justify killing people for what they say? I'd love to see the reaction you would get from any civilised government if you suggest that this is the way to deal with dissenting speech.

Unless they verbally advocate armed insurrection to overthrow the status quo.

Then they need to be shot, and immediately.


Go on then. Come and get me.

Oh, why don't you just say it yourself? It will be faster than begging some leftist to say it.

There have been entire threads of denial here on NS General from Communists - so many, in fact, that I expected a knee jerk reaction of denial.

While I am 100% against "Communism" I don't think their party should be banned. I am also of an extream political party that is still working towards acceptance [Not saying which, but look at my sig and you can figure it out], so I am able to put myself in their place.

There are over 100 million AKM rifles in the world, produced by the former Soviet Union, in circulation today, provided free of charge, for the ostensible purpose of revolution.

Of course, rifles being fairly durable items, most are being used for other nefarious purposes today.

While they may have been the establishment at home, they had the announced goal of not only implementing Communism at home (however flawed their implementation), but exporting revolution all over the world.
Your proof ammounts to nothing. States all over the world sell arms, and many communist insurgents were armed with British weapons by default.
I can summon 45,000 points against the USSR as "meaning to export revolution". The fact is, simply, that it did not. China did more than it, and attacked the USSR openly for failing to support World insurgence. The USSR made a name for itself by backing rather well-established regimes, and Soviet-backed movements put a stop to textbook Maoist revolutions in Laos and Cambodia (in a macabre twist, the US ended up backing Pol Pot against the Vietnamese). For example, the USSR had a huge problem when Ethiopia went insurgent (ousting Haile Selassie) and declared it wanted to join Soviet structures; the Soviets were backing Somalia previously, and had to watch two allies go to war - because of circumstance, Somalia thought it had been discarded, and it took Siad Barre a single day to become an American ally. Take a look at Angola: is MPLA revolutionary compared with the Maoist UNITA?
The USSR imposed "moderation" ever since Stalin, in order to get respite for developments at home. No serious revolutionary after 1962 would seek an alliance with the Soviets.

Nice try at disavowal, but it won't work.

Ideologies are defined by what the results are, not what was in the book.

Try again.

Incorrect.

Maybe you should grab a dictionary and find out what "ideology" actually means? No, no, don't trouble yourself, the nice socialist will do it for you. Ah yes, here we are:

Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy

1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.

Sourced from Merriam-Webster. (http://merriam-webster.com/)

Now, as we can see here, ideologies are actually defined by ideas.

Whats wrong with armed revolution? The american revloution comes to mind, as does numerous revolts against dictators the world over...:rolleyes:

They shouldn't be banned; in all honesty, Communism was such a failiure that it is impossible that any Communist organization would have more than a token representation on the national level.

That's why the PDS (who changed their name but are as close to communists as you can imagine) is the first party in east berlin ? ;) And examples like that are many.

And well, you once again make the major mistake of mistaking Communism with what some did in the name of communism, or more exactly, in their claimed attempt to try to reach communism in the future.

Whats wrong with armed revolution? The american revloution comes to mind, as does numerous revolts against dictators the world over...:rolleyes:

Yes. But that was by Americans. Therefore it was good.

18.5% of the Chamber of Deputies and 8.6% of the Senate...that's not very big representation

18.5% is definitely a good score for a party. The 8.6% of the Senate is not very significative, because the election mode of the Senate favors big parties.

given the dominance of the Communist parties for 40-odd years in the entire region.

Actually, if its was as horrible as you imply it were, they wouldn't do more than 1% or 2% less than 20 years after the fall of USSR. So even their broken form of socialism (= transition between capitalism and communism, not communism at all) was not as horrible as you imply... I let you imaging how great it could have been if it were democratic, human-right-supporting socialism as most nowadays communists sypport.

Whats wrong with armed revolution? The american revloution comes to mind, as does numerous revolts against dictators the world over...:rolleyes:
Can you recall an event during the American Revolution where all intellectuals were rounded up and shot for being "counterrevolutionary by nature"?

Yes. But that was by Americans. Therefore it was good.

Yes. And the Russian revolution was by dirty, stinking, Russian communists. Therefore, it was bad.

Ahhhh, the logic of the jingoist is a strangely entertaining thing to behold.

Can you recall an event during the American Revolution where all intellectuals were rounded up and shot for being "counterrevolutionary by nature"?
1. It bothers me that you are disregarding my answers.
2. Shootings of intellectuals are not common occurence in a communist revolution - in fact, most accusations of them focus on the notion that they are revolutions carried out by intellectuals against common sense. (And you get the more likely: shootings of non-complying peasants, of Whites, of other communists etc,)
3. Shootings of intellectuals, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with the accusation you yourself brought against revolution - i.e. that it was "against a government". In other words, you said that people should be shot for wanting to topple the gvt, and now you say that people should be shot for wanting people shot.
4. Shootings of contrary-minded people were not common occurence in the Am. Rev., but forcing into refuge was - check out how New Brunswick was peopled.

1. It bothers me that you are disregarding my answers.
2. Shootings of intellectuals are not common occurence in a communist revolution - in fact, most accusations of them focus on the notion that they are revolutions carried out by intellectuals against common sense.
3. Shootings of intellectuals, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with the accusation you yourself brought against revolution - i.e. that it was "against a government". In other words, you said that people should be shot for wanting to topple the gvt, and now you say that people should be shot for wanting people shot.
4. Shootings of contrary-minded people were not common occurence in the Am. Rev., but forcing into refuge was - check out how New Brunswick was peopled.

I also judge a revolution by its outcome. Did the US end up massacring 40 million of its own people? Let's compare the count - not that the US didn't have slaves and commit genocide against the Native Americans - but the counts are hardly comparable - and we did eliminate slavery.

My grandparents on my father's side were shot by a North Korean commisar after being made to beg for their lives and recant their "intellectual" misdeeds - they were schoolteachers. I don't see it as a one of a kind experience.

I also judge a revolution by its outcome. Did the US end up massacring 40 million of its own people? Let's compare the count - not that the US didn't have slaves and commit genocide against the Native Americans - but the counts are hardly comparable - and we did eliminate slavery.

My grandparents on my father's side were shot by a North Korean commisar after being made to beg for their lives and recant their "intellectual" misdeeds - they were schoolteachers. I don't see it as a one of a kind experience.
You are using sophistry to back your claims. Read my posts again: I have given proof of why you should not understand state communism as a unitary phenomenon. One major point: all communist regimes killed people who favored a communist regime (different or even the same), just as well. If you stike those off the list, you get considerably less than 40 million (not saying that one should, I'm pointing out that this is the outcome of your own logic). Furthermore, my fingers are bruised from typing reasons of why I think it is fallacious to presume that all communisms are responsible for the murders of one (I make the same "favor" for Nazis/Fascists: Mussolini is not responsible for Auschwitz).
"Intellectual misdeeds" was considered a crime by most communist regimes. But that is mainly because they believed in a single, "proper", version of intellectualism. As sympathetic as I am to your's family's suffering, I cannot say that it is proof of anything other than intellectual-on-intellectual (also, because I believe that intellectual does not mean infallible, and that intellectual victim does not add to the simple notion of victim). After all, the former used an ideology. Surely and sadly, killing intellectuals does not make one less intellectual.
I did not back the comparison Am. Rev./Comm. Rev. It came about using your own points.

You are using sophistry to back your claims. Read my posts again: I have given proof of why you should not understand state communism as a unitary phenomenon. One major point: all communist regimes killed people who favored a communist regime (different or even the same), just as well. If you stike those off the list, you get considerably less than 40 million (not saying that one should, I'm pointing out that this is the outcome of your own logic). Furthermore, my fingers are bruised from typing reasons of why I think it is fallacious to presume that all communisms are responsible for the murders of one (I make the same "favor" for Nazis/Fascists: Mussolini is not responsible for Auschwitz).
"Intellectual misdeeds" was considered a crime by most communist regimes. But that is mainly because they believed in a single version of intellectualism. As sympathetic as I am to your's family's suffering, I cannot say that it is proof of anything other than intellectual-on-intellectual (also, because I believe that intellectual does not mean infallible, and that intellectual victim does not add to the simple notion of victim). After all, the former used an ideology. Surely and sadly, killing intellectuals does not make one less intellectual.
I did not back the comparison Am. Rev./Comm. Rev. It came about using your own points.


Let's see - killing the people in the Ukraine... the gulag system in the former USSR... the killing of the Generals... Pol Pot...

It's customary in Communist revolution to move into a town and line up teachers and shoot them. Wonder why. I didn't see that in Marx's book...

Let's see - killing the people in the Ukraine... the gulag system in the former USSR... the killing of the Generals... Pol Pot...

It's customary in Communist revolution to move into a town and line up teachers and shoot them. Wonder why. I didn't see that in Marx's book...
Do you even read my posts? We do not disagree on that topic.
Did you read the one about Pol Pot and the Soviets? Staple example of why I do not think the word "Communism" does not describe a unitary phenomenon.
Again: killing intellectuals does not make the murderer less necesarilly intellectual. Even Pol Pot, who advertised himself as "anti-intellectual" (as other communist leaders never did), was in fact University-educated. In France.
But how does this go along with your original objection, i.e. "they're wrong because they go against a government" (no mention of intellectuals, and not even other "promised" victims than perhaps gvt officials - not to say this is a guarantee). And especially when you propose curbing it through shootings?!
And I have made this point before: US politicians toured civilization by toppling gvts of other countries. I'm not even gonna say that is wrong, but wtf does it tell YOU?

Actually, if its was as horrible as you imply it were, they wouldn't do more than 1% or 2% less than 20 years after the fall of USSR. So even their broken form of socialism (= transition between capitalism and communism, not communism at all) was not as horrible as you imply... I let you imaging how great it could have been if it were democratic, human-right-supporting socialism as most nowadays communists sypport.

The Communism imposed by the USSR was absolutely terrible...compared to what the local groups believed, it was little better than German occupation. Had the Communists of Czechoslovakia (and other nations) succeeded, Eastern Europe would have been far better off that it was, but the Soviet machine crushed that quite early.

Only ban them if they're a cover for terrorists, like Batasuna or Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein aren't terrorists fool.

while i'll admit to lacking totaly intimate expertese on marxist doctrine, no where in it, to the best of my knowledge, does it advocate or insist upon the use of physicaly violent force. i think this is one of those big idiology vs idiology myths created to frighten people for political gain.

Marxism doesn't advocate using physical violence, and it doesn't exclude it as a mean to gain power, but remember that at Marx time most of the countries were not democratic. Marxism is, at first, an critical analysis of the capitalist system and of human history. Then Marx give some hint on what he hopes will be next stage of humanity (after feodalism and capitalism), in a distant: communism. And he gave some hints, some ideas, on how, according to him, in the context he lived in, we could reach communism: he stated precisely that a transition phase is needed, phase that he called socialism. And to achieve socialism, the working class need to take the power, and to act swiftly against the previous ruling class, and to change the system. But the way to took the power is, of course, highly dependant of the situation.

Even if you have a look a something like Paris' Commune, which started with a very moderate amount of physical violence, it was only because the governement refused to hold elections in Paris, and most of the process was highly democratic - until the counter-revolution forces of Versailles marched against Paris. Then the Commune resisted, and was finally defeated. And 100 000 of them were slaughtered.

The Communist parties of Europe, and especially the french communist party (the one I know the best, guess why), did support physical violence in some situations: they created the International Brigad to fight alongside with Spanish republican against Franco's coup attempt, and then they created the major Resistance network against the nazi invader. Both were physical violence, but both were required by the situation. In all other times, the french communist party opposed violence.

The Communism imposed by the USSR was absolutely terrible...compared to what the local groups believed, it was little better than German occupation.
As a Romanian (ie: from a communist country to have rejected Soviet tutelage in the 1960s - and one backed by the West, nonetheless) I can tell you that the post-Stalin USSR was not nearly as crappy. Because:
-outside the innate idiocies of Marxist economics, the USSR was not bent on crushing development
-all countries who chose (or were made) to stay satellites developed better economies, including a large private sector (which the USSR NEEDED to insure feasible plans inside the COMECON); they all had a standard of living comparable to, for the very worse, contemporary Portugal or Argentina)
-political dissent had way more space for expression, and repression in Soviet-ruled areas was minimal (and ammounted to getting your ass out of the country and onto the West that you loved, spending time under house arrest, or, in a worst-case scenario used solely under Brezhnev, being labelled insane and spending time in an asylum); no ethnic cleansing was carried out
-Perestroika came with a vengeance, a liberal phenomenon missed by Romania (or Albania)

I believe that you should allow both ends of the spectrum, as long as they don't advocate violent revolution.

Most communist parties don't support violent revolution nowadays. They may have done it in different situations (and they may do it again if the situation changes), but they don't support it against democratic governements.

Any person who advocates, organizes, or attempts violent revolution needs to be shot on the spot.

Without violent revolutions, we would still have kings all around Europe, a Tsar in Russia, and american countries (be it USA or south american countries) would still be colonies of european empires. Do you really think all those who stood against kings, tsars, imperial powers, or fascist dictators should be shot on the spot ?

So, if you can have Communism or Fascism with a complete disavowal of armed insurrection and with no forcible overthrow of the government and full recognition of the nation's constitution, then hey, no problem.

But one word about putting the bourgeoisie against the wall, and it's good night for you.

The problem is that the bourgeoisie will never accept communism, just look at what happened during Paris' Commune, in Allende's Chile, or in Chavez' Venezuella. So it's very likely that the bourgeoisie will try a violent move against any democratic "communist" or "socialist" governement. So violence will probably be required to protect it. I don't like that, but what's the other solution ? To accept they will rule forever because they won't have any trouble to use violence ?

Most communists nowadays definetly oppose violence, and they won't use it unless forced to - but they won't accept anything without defending themselves. You can be sure that if a new Hitler came to power in Europe, the communists would be among the first to take weapons and fight him. Could you blame that ?

Marxism doesn't advocate using physical violence, and it doesn't exclude it as a mean to gain power, but remember that at Marx time most of the countries were not democratic. Marxism is, at first, an critical analysis of the capitalist system and of human history. Then Marx give some hint on what he hopes will be next stage of humanity (after feodalism and capitalism), in a distant: communism. And he gave some hints, some ideas, on how, according to him, in the context he lived in, we could reach communism: he stated precisely that a transition phase is needed, phase that he called socialism. And to achieve socialism, the working class need to take the power, and to act swiftly against the previous ruling class, and to change the system. But the way to took the power is, of course, highly dependant of the situation.

Even if you have a look a something like Paris' Commune, which started with a very moderate amount of physical violence, it was only because the governement refused to hold elections in Paris, and most of the process was highly democratic - until the counter-revolution forces of Versailles marched against Paris. Then the Commune resisted, and was finally defeated. And 100 000 of them were slaughtered.

The Communist parties of Europe, and especially the french communist party (the one I know the best, guess why), did support physical violence in some situations: they created the International Brigad to fight alongside with Spanish republican against Franco's coup attempt, and then they created the major Resistance network against the nazi invader. Both were physical violence, but both were required by the situation. In all other times, the french communist party opposed violence.


I've always believed that a lot of the problems identified by Marx really do exist. But you have to be a naive idiot to believe that we're all going to drop our individuality and make our best effort for a worker's paradise.

The only way I see that happenning is when we have all of our labor done by robots, and no one really has to "work".

Then it will be paradise - but not a worker's paradise. No human at that point will have to labor for anything - and the differences between rich and poor have the potential to disappear.

But until then, there's not a solution that will bring the ideal worker's paradise. None. And any attempt will dissolve, as utopias made by man always do, into a domination of the masses by a handful of asshats.

When thinking of communism I think the Czechs are more likely to remember 45 years of authoritarianism, economic stagnation, unemployment, dictatorship and total neglect for individual rights than the failed aspirations. of the Prague spring.

Unemployment ?! You can critize a lot of things in the "socialist" countries, but definitely not that. There were no unemployment in them.

Unemployment ?! You can critize a lot of things in the "socialist" countries, but definitely not that. There were no unemployment in them.
And the literacy rate was 100%! :rolleyes:

And the literacy rate was 100%! :rolleyes:
Well yea. Both are true.
Listen, what they did do wrong was wrong enough. Painting things that you hardly master black does not bring anything constructive to the debate.
Stop being chidish, and take into account what others said.

True, but most of the Communists here on NS General (and most I've met in real life) disavow that Communism has ever been implemented at all, nor has anyone attempted to implement it.

That Communism has never been implemented is a natural consequence of Marx theory, which is BEFORE the "socialist" countries, and therefore could not be seen as an excuse. It is not possible to implement communism directly after capitalism (and for both USSR and China, they didn't even had full-stage capitalism when they became socialist, which makes the direct implementation of communism even more impossible).

It would be like someone saying, "well, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with someone trying to implement democracy, because no country would elect a government that would forcibly overthrow a nation and impose a democratic government."

No, it's exactly like saying that could defend freedom and democracy without supporting the illegal invasion of another country and the use of torture and secret prisons. Bush claims to be the protector of freedom and demcoracy and does those horrible things. I do defend freedom and democracy, but I do oppose strongly those policies. Same for communism. They claimed to be aiming for communism (they didn't claim to implement it), and they did very some bad things. That doesn't mean that "communism" is a bad thing - not anymore than what Bush does in name of "freedom" means that "freedom" is bad thing.

Another example could be the Crusades or the Inquisition. They were both done in the name of christianism. They were both horrible things. Could you attack anyone who claims to be christian because of that ? Of course you can't. They will tell that those people did horrible things, in the name of christianism, but that those were against the teaching of the Christ, and they were not following really the christian ethics. The same applies for those who commited crimes in the name of communism. Nothing in the core foundation of communism support those crimes. No real communist would.

Like you said, an ideology is as an ideology DOES - not what some little book says it should be.

It's easy to claim to be something. That's the favorite goal of many politicians. You can't judge an ideology on what some who claim to be from it did. Unless of course the someone was the creator of the ideology, but that's not the case for communism. Marx supported Paris' Commune style "socialism", not Stalin style or Mao style.

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that advocates the forcible overthrow of the government?"

I am the member of an organisation that called "an union of the people to fight the government by any means, including violence".

Oh, it was in 1940. The government was Vichy, Hitler's pupper. The organisation is the French Communist Party. And I'm glad they did call to overthrow this infamous government, by any means, as soon as it was proclamed.

Should I remember you the last articles of the Constitution of First French Republic ?


Article 33

La résistance à l’oppression est la conséquence des autres droits de l’homme.

Article 34

Il y a oppression contre le corps social, lorsqu’un seul de ses membres est opprimé. Il y a oppression contre chaque membre lorsque le corps social est opprimé.

Article 35

Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l’insurrection est, pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs.


In english:


Article 33

Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the others Human Rights.

Article 34

There is oppression against the social body when only one of its members is oppressed. There is oppression against every single of its members when the social body is oppressed.

Article 35

When the government violates the rights of the people, insurection is, for the people and for each part of the people, the most sacred of the rights, and the most fundamental of the duties.


This is the guideline used by my political party to call for violent uprising against a governement. Of course, we do not even suggest it nowadays in modern France. But we may, one day, if the bleakest hours of history become true once again...

-snip-
I find yours to be a most reasonable attitude.

Sinn Fein aren't terrorists fool.

Sinn Fein are the political wing of the IRA who have carried out numerous bomb attacks and assassinations right across the UK.

I've always believed that a lot of the problems identified by Marx really do exist. But you have to be a naive idiot to believe that we're all going to drop our individuality and make our best effort for a worker's paradise.

There is nothing about that in Marxism. In fact, one of the critism done by Marx against capitalism is exactly that: that workers get de-humanised, become mechanical. Remember that at the time of Marx' writing, paid holidays, week-ends, limited working times, ... were inexistant. Workers worked 10 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year. They were really de-humanised, without any time left to themselves. All the social progress that came afterwards were won by hard class struggle, and the communist parties played a role in that.

What Marx wanted is to allow every human being to be able to live as human being, receiving education, healthcare, having free time, and being able to decide his own fate. He never wanted anyone to give out individuality. What he wanted to do is to lower egoism and increase altruism in human beings (through education and changes of the social structure), but that never meant suppressing individuality.

The only way I see that happenning is when we have all of our labor done by robots, and no one really has to "work".

Communism is an utopia. We can't reach it now, and we don't even know exactly how it'll be. But socialism can be real, and doesn't need all labor to be done by robots. There are many, many possible solutions. We can discuss them in details, but that's not the topic.

Then it will be paradise - but not a worker's paradise. No human at that point will have to labor for anything - and the differences between rich and poor have the potential to disappear.

That no human will have to labor isn't necessary for the gap between rich and poor to be very strongly reduced, and to fix most of the flaws of capitalism. Including the core evils of capitalism: the inherently non-democratic structure of the economical power, the everyone-against-everyone attitude it favors, the rewarding of the most selfish, the goal-mean inversion (money, which should always have staid a mean, becomes, in capitalism, the primary goal of all economical acts; while a socialist system would be human beings as the priamry goal), the lack of long-term sight, the exploitation of workers, the misery, ...

True, but most of the Communists here on NS General (and most I've met in real life) disavow that Communism has ever been implemented at all, nor has anyone attempted to implement it. Thus removing, in their little minds, the stigma of the murderous tide of Communism.

It would be like someone saying, "well, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with someone trying to implement democracy, because no country would elect a government that would forcibly overthrow a nation and impose a democratic government."

Like you said, an ideology is as an ideology DOES - not what some little book says it should be.

If someone called an economy involving complete government control of all its aspects "capitalist" because the economy was nationalized by the Capitalist Party, would you agree with the description?

If such an economy was a miserable failure and the government committed repeated abuses, would you agree with blaming the failures and the abuses on the capitalist system as a whole?

If someone called an economy involving complete government control of all its aspects "capitalist" because the economy was nationalized by the Capitalist Party, would you agree with the description?

If such an economy was a miserable failure and the government committed repeated abuses, would you agree with blaming the failures and the abuses on the capitalist system as a whole?
Excellent point. And it did happen: consider Fascism.

:mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :headbang:

Communism is good. So is Democracy, when both used correctly, infact, they can be used together is what people done realize. Its just around the world in every society they become corrupt. Because both systems are outdated, much like Monarchy's and Deity based Governments. What we really need is a whole new government for today's Information age.

Communism and Fascism are some of the best types of governemnt.
invade the Czech Republic NOW!

Since I read the thread from my last post foward I forgot to quote what I was going to agree with and expand on, but here goes.

Communism had its problems no denying it. But it did good where it was attempted. Die Linkspartie is the 4th largest party in Germany as a whole and 3rd largest in former East Germany. And its the successor to Socialisteingeheits Partie Deutchland (misspelt I'm sure). Moldova has elected the communist party to a second term with an absolute majority. CPRF is the main opposition to Putin. Czech, Slovak, and other former Warsaw Pact nations' communist parties also have seats in parliment. Portugal's 3rd largest party is the communist party. If it did so horribly why are they still getting seats? Because they did good and, if properly lead, will do so again.

Since I read the thread from my last post foward I forgot to quote what I was going to agree with and expand on, but here goes.

Communism had its problems no denying it. But it did good where it was attempted. Die Linkspartie is the 4th largest party in Germany as a whole and 3rd largest in former East Germany. And its the successor to Socialisteingeheits Partie Deutchland (misspelt I'm sure). Moldova has elected the communist party to a second term with an absolute majority. CPRF is the main opposition to Putin. Czech, Slovak, and other former Warsaw Pact nations' communist parties also have seats in parliment. Portugal's 3rd largest party is the communist party. If it did so horribly why are they still getting seats? Because they did good and, if properly lead, will do so again.

And why dosn't britain and the US have communist seats?

Capatilist propaganda.

Since I read the thread from my last post foward I forgot to quote what I was going to agree with and expand on, but here goes.

Communism had its problems no denying it. But it did good where it was attempted. Die Linkspartie is the 4th largest party in Germany as a whole and 3rd largest in former East Germany. And its the successor to Socialisteingeheits Partie Deutchland (misspelt I'm sure). Moldova has elected the communist party to a second term with an absolute majority. CPRF is the main opposition to Putin. Czech, Slovak, and other former Warsaw Pact nations' communist parties also have seats in parliment. Portugal's 3rd largest party is the communist party. If it did so horribly why are they still getting seats? Because they did good and, if properly lead, will do so again.

The Linkspartei has Stalinist origins, but is hardly itself Stalinist. In rhetoric and ideology it is really left social democrat, maybe democratic socialist.

And why dosn't britain and the US have communist seats?

Capatilist propaganda.

Britain and the United States never had strong Communist parties in the first place. The "left of the Second International" parties were never very strong in Britain, and while, unlike Britain, a very large portion of the active membership of the US Socialist Party was pro-Lenin and anti-World War I and thus morphed into the CPUSA, neither party ever had a very strong following.

The CPUSA lost a lot of influence in the late 1930s and early 1940s by its stubborn committment to the line from Moscow, which resulted in 1984-like absurdities in its positions. Unlike the European Communist parties, many of which drifted away from hard-line pro-Soviet stances in the 1960s and 1970s, it remained strongly Stalinist until Perestroika. Its current irrelevance is in part due to its own incompetent leadership and its inability to distinguish itself from the Stalinist regimes it supported for decades.

The Linkspartei has Stalinist origins, but is hardly itself Stalinist. In rhetoric and ideology it is really left social democrat, maybe democratic socialist.
That can be said about virtually all major communist parties today. Except for Russia's, which instead is more nationalist than communist.
So, back to my point: banning a party with the name "communist" in it, based on some claim that relies on wishful-thinking, is either populist crap or idiocy.

That can be said about virtually all major communist parties today. Except for Russia's, which instead is more nationalist than communist.
So, back to my point: banning a party with the name "communist" in it, based on some claim that relies on wishful-thinking, is either populist crap or idiocy.

True. But support for the Linkspartei, or for the Eurocommunist parties of Western Europe, is not necessarily synonymous with support for what the Stalinist regimes did in Eastern Europe.

True. But support for the Linkspartei, or for the Eurocommunist parties of Western Europe, is not necessarily synonymous with support for what the Stalinist regimes did in Eastern Europe.
You must have misread my post: there is no need for a "but", we agree completely.

Waiting for DHomme to say that the people who did those bad things weren't really Communists.

Wow, everytime you make that joke it just gets funnier and funnier, doesn't it?

Wow, everytime you make that joke it just gets funnier and funnier, doesn't it?
It's funny because in another thread, two other people have already said it for you.

It's funny because in another thread, two other people have already said it for you.

Yeah, that is really really funny. It's like me baiting conservatives by saying that the libdems are right-wing. I know they're gonna snap at that. So why don't I do it? Because it's boring. And making the same joke over and over again is just pointless and demonstrates a complete lack of originality. You want to debate about it, then debate. You want to sit back and guffaw about left-wingers you end up looking like an ignorant pompous idiot.

How dare they! I may not agree with any form of communism associated with the state, and I think that all manor of fascists can go to hell, but this is disgusting and pitiful.

You didn't really have an option for Communists...

Anyway, when my Red Army marches toward the Czechs, they will burn everything that doesn't move.

The Linkspartei has Stalinist origins, but is hardly itself Stalinist. In rhetoric and ideology it is really left social democrat, maybe democratic socialist.
Almost all communist parties relate to Stalin at some point unfortunately. But now they are deocratic socialists and doing wrather well. Halleuya!

Almost all communist parties relate to Stalin at some point unfortunately. But now they are deocratic socialists and doing wrather well. Halleuya!

The CPUSA is so successful electorally that it sees the need to endorse the Democratic candidate, and remains ardently Marxist-Leninist.

The Communist Party of Iraq, once a puppet of Moscow, has switched allegiances to Washington, and collaborates with the occupation - despite the neoliberal programs implemented by it.

The Communist Parties in Western European countries are doing horrendously in elections, even as many of them shift rightwards.

The Communist Party of China is not even close to "democratic socialist," but has instead become an authoritarian Third Way party, of all things.

The Communist Party of North Korea maintains its Stalinist orientation.

The Communists in India are doing decently, I suppose, but then again, the Communist record there is pretty much the best it is in the world.

On the whole, I think stating that they are "doing rather well" is absurd.

Good for them!

They outlawed us communists? Weak.

Good for them!

If the people want to elect a Communist Party, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

A little more recent, but not much new:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/656/656p15f.htm

That site has about as much credibility as a filthy toilet seat.

That site has about as much credibility as a filthy toilet seat.
Disregard, as I did, the "we will fight for our brothers" and whatever slogan. It is NEWS, isn't it? I mean, it does not say: "they're shooting communists", it brings further developments on a topic that was confirmed. I do not support them - I googled keywords and got there.

What you are doing is "reductio ad Hitlerium". If not, wtf is your point?

Disregard, as I did, the "we will fight for our brothers" and whatever slogan. It is NEWS, isn't it? I mean, it does not say: "they're shooting communists", it brings further developments on a topic that was confirmed. I do not support them - I googled keywords and got there.

What you are doing is "reductio ad Hitlerium". If not, wtf is your point?

They're the left-wing equivalent of Holocaust deniers. They deny communist atrocities.

They're the left-wing equivalent of Holocaust deniers. They deny communist atrocities.
I repeat: WTF IS YOUR POINT?

That site has about as much credibility as a filthy toilet seat.

Hey! You can insult the site, you can insult me, but never, ever, ever insult a filthy toilet seat!

I repeat: WTF IS YOUR POINT?

They have no credibility. THAT'S MY POINT.

They're the left-wing equivalent of Holocaust deniers. They deny communist atrocities.

They're Trotskyists, as far as I can tell. Not ardently so, though, and not orthodox.

They have no credibility. THAT'S MY POINT.
They have no credibility for what? For comments - surely not. But read the article: what does it really add, except for a few days of events than were not included in the previous, neutral, cited article?
Do they talk of "communist crimes" one way or the other in the article? Is this the subject? Does it make you feel better to state a non-sequitur?

Do you think I would give them credibility for comments? I'm not a Trotskyite. But man, can't you read a full sentence? They discuss legislation being passed in the Czech Republic! For the fucking 40th time: an event that was confirmed.

Reductio ad Hitlerium and a false premise.

They're Trotskyists, as far as I can tell. Not ardently so, though, and not orthodox.

I think they're just one of those "We're left wing. We're not gonna say what branch we are though :P" kinda sites

Yes ban all communists, LOL.

Maybe a more complete post later today.

The CPUSA is so successful electorally that it sees the need to endorse the Democratic candidate, and remains ardently Marxist-Leninist.

The Communist Party of Iraq, once a puppet of Moscow, has switched allegiances to Washington, and collaborates with the occupation - despite the neoliberal programs implemented by it.

The Communist Parties in Western European countries are doing horrendously in elections, even as many of them shift rightwards.

The Communist Party of China is not even close to "democratic socialist," but has instead become an authoritarian Third Way party, of all things.

The Communist Party of North Korea maintains its Stalinist orientation.

The Communists in India are doing decently, I suppose, but then again, the Communist record there is pretty much the best it is in the world.

On the whole, I think stating that they are "doing rather well" is absurd.
I was refering specificly to Die Linkspartie.

I could have been clearer I'll admit that.

The problem with communism as practiced the world over, not as it was ment to be is that once they come into power
they outlaw all political partys with diffrent, economic, political and social points of view.

And all civil social organizations are put under government run control.

The government not the workers are in control of all the means of production.

There can be no opposition to any government policy.

All this creates an automatic dictatorship government.

Neo Nazi partys do it too.

The problem with communism as practiced the world over, not as it was ment to be is that once they come into power
they outlaw all political partys with diffrent, economic, political and social points of view.

And all civil social organizations are put under government run control.

The government not the workers are in control of all the means of production.

There can be no opposition to any government policy.

All this creates an automatic dictatorship government.

Neo Nazi partys do it too.
You are sooooooo far away from having a point.

The problem with communism as practiced the world over, not as it was ment to be is that once they come into power
they outlaw all political partys with diffrent, economic, political and social points of view.

And all civil social organizations are put under government run control.

The government not the workers are in control of all the means of production.

There can be no opposition to any government policy.

All this creates an automatic dictatorship government.

Neo Nazi partys do it too.

In every case of Marxist-Leninist revolution, the government already existing has been dictatorial.

Democratic countries where Communist parties have or have had a lot of power - France, Italy, India - have never experienced such problems.

In every case of Marxist-Leninist revolution, the government already existing has been dictatorial.

Democratic countries where Communist parties have or have had a lot of power - France, Italy, India - have never experienced such problems.
Right.
Plus, the man has not even paid attention to the debate about Communism as a unitary phenomenon, and the place modern-day Bohemian-Moravian Communism occupies in the ideological spectrum.

The problem with communism as practiced the world over, not as it was ment to be is that once they come into power
they outlaw all political partys with diffrent, economic, political and social points of view.

That's definetly not true in many examples, I already spoke about some.

And all civil social organizations are put under government run control.

That's why when the french communist party built the social security system, it created it as an independant system, controlled directly by workers, and not by the government ? And why it was the right-wing who put it back under government control ?

The government not the workers are in control of all the means of production.

That's not communism, nor even true socialism, then. Once again, you can look in history (and even in today world), and see that most communists support cooperatives.

There can be no opposition to any government policy.

Of course there can be, see the first point.

All this creates an automatic dictatorship government.

The only automatism is that the bourgeoisie will (and always did) react very strongly, using violent methods and the dirtiest tricks against any "communist" or "socialist" governement. And yes, it's hard to resist against violence and dirty methods while staying non-violent and clean by yourself. That explains why most of the "socialist" regimes that lasted long were (more or less) iron-first ones, not because of anything inherent to "communism", but because those who staid clean, democratic and peaceful were slaughtered by the counter-revolution.

But it is possible to stay democratic, AND to resist to the counter-revolution, Chavez is a living example of it.

Right.
Plus, the man has not even paid attention to the debate about Communism as a unitary phenomenon, and the place modern-day Bohemian-Moravian Communism occupies in the ideological spectrum.

I don't know much about it, do you have any interesting link ? Or could you explain quickly what it is (if you have enough time...) If you could provide me a link or some info, that would be great, thanks :)

I don't know much about it, do you have any interesting link ? Or could you explain quickly what it is (if you have enough time...) If you could provide me a link or some info, that would be great, thanks :)
I meant the Czech Party - officially "of Bohemia and Moravia". The name itself is interesting, and should bring forth yet another topic in favor of them not being textbook by any book (paraphrasing MacCarthyism, these guys "don't even quack like a duck").
I'm willing to bet their most important feature has little to do with any form of Marxism. They likely center on Czechoslovakian nostalgia, and feel that the Czech Republic is too exclusive.
Let me explain myself: when it became clear that Czechoslovakia was not about to stand on its feet anymore, people who still favored it proposed an amendament. The main problem was that a binary federation would not sustain itself, since no majority could be formed when a decision had to be taken (it was just Czechia vs. Slovakia, and going nowhere). So, it was proposed that Czechia split itself in two - Bohemia and Moravia - so that there would be three to tango.
No revolutionary Marxism there: especially since a party like that would be quite conservative. Tie this to other points I've made about the matter at hand.


One more point in favor of calling the Czech's state promised measure sophistry-based bullshit.