NationStates Jolt Archive

Territorial expansion, not interventions to stop the green menace.

Yes and all the Latin American interventions were about maintaining our traditional sphere of influence.

And, yet, it has worked in Christian communes.
Such as...?

There's a Soviet version of Vietnam out there, somewhere?
The Soviets won in Vietnam. But, Korea, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Afghanistan might be a good start. Assuming of course that you don't count setting up puppet governments in the states 'liberated' from the Nazis in the first place as an attack.



I think you're confusing corrupt government with the socio-economic model.

The Bush regime tortured people - is that a searing indictment of capitalism?
I don't think I am - there's a clear theoretical basis as well as a solid empirical correlation between left wing economic policies and lack of prosperity, in the more extreme cases usually manifesting itself in enormous artificial famines. For a self-proclaimed scientist you don't seem to be taking that very seriously. There isn't, on the other hand, any correlation or theoretical basis for a causal link between torturing Islamist terroirsts and levels of capitalism, not least because the Soviet Union and particularly China systematically annihilated their Islamic populations, terrorist or not.

"Green Menace"? Did Hulk get all angry again?

I'm sure the funding of violent guerrillas all over the world probably makes the USSR expansionist and hostile. If that doesn't then continued support of other mass-murdering regimes (seeing as how your argument conveniently overlooks all the internal slaughter) must count as well.

You're missing the point. Deliberately?

The USSR getting involved in regime change... the US getting involved in regime change. Both carried out decades of velvet-glove work. But the US employed an iron fist to attack the very ideology of communism, see vietnam.

Territorial expansion, not interventions to stop the green menace.

Well, that was a factor but they were justified as stopping the 'counter-revolution' so I think it was essentially the same. Just substitute 'red menace' for 'counter-revolution'.

There's also North Korea's invasion of the South of course.

And, yet, it has worked in Christian communes.

And what communes are you looking at? The Amish are collectivist and only manage to survive by selling their homey goods in the marketplace at market rates, which kind of makes them not communist, but rather something like a far more tyrannical and less doctrinally sound Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty (at least under the Shah you had freedom of movement). The only thing keeping people in (barely) Amish and Mennonite societies is the threat of violence and emotional abuse, rather like ever other communist state.

I'm beginning to see a pattern in this centralist-revisionist drivel here.

The Soviet Union had access, very rapidly, to massive industrialisation. They also had raw materials.

What the Soviet Union lacked - because of geography, mainly, was the same thing Russia has ALWAYS lacked - (reliable) food.


Russia could have had shit loads of food. It was horribly terrible programs like grain requisitioning that caused farming in Russia to suffer considerably. Seriously, at one point prior to the revolution Russia was producing more grain than any other country.


Despite all this, the USSR beat the west into space - running the same race uphill, they still reached the finish line first - so it's dishonest to say that the model was totally inherently flawed.


But whenever there was growth, it was almost entirely due to the more market oriented programs implemented, like the NEP. If you contrast how Russia was doing under the NEP with how it was doing under 'war communism', you'll see what I mean.

What are you actually referring to here? I don't define failure as whether the government could keep in power. I define by if it was actually ever 'good', and during the entire history of 'communism' in the Eastern bloc, I would never, ever, ever want to live there, even if there had been no political oppression and class warfare.

The problem with embargo politics, is that it's counter-productive.

In all our years of embargo politics with Iran, it's yielded little or no useful material. The same with Cuba.

Indeed, what it DOES, is create an aura of fear IN the embargoed state,m which allows - even encourages - draconian government. So Cuba internalises and becomes self-predatory, Iran internalises and ferments Islamic extremism... the Soviet Republics internalised and Stalin's paranoia becomes a self-perpetuating legacy.

Was life in the Eastern Bloc 'good'? You mean - while it was being starved and attacked by the West, and it's government was following the same route embargoed governments followed?

What if the US had found peace with the USSR, and trade had flowed across borders? What would life have been like in the USSR, better?

Russia could have had shit loads of food. It was horribly terrible programs like grain requisitioning that caused farming in Russia to suffer considerably. Seriously, at one point prior to the revolution Russia was producing more grain than any other country.


Russia itself, has a history of cyclic famine. The Soviet Republics never had a reliable (that was in my previous post) food supply.

The problem with embargo politics, is that it's counter-productive.

In all our years of embargo politics with Iran, it's yielded little or no useful material. The same with Cuba.


Don't worry, I was never supportive of any embargo, you don't need to argue that for me.


What if the US had found peace with the USSR, and trade had flowed across borders? What would life have been like in the USSR, better?

The welfare effects free-er trade would have been good, but it wouldn't have saved the USSR. The USSR still had enough resources, from what I've studied.

You can ask. I've even mentioned it before.

But it's not relevant to THIS topic, and runs the risk of dropping somewhere between an appeal to authority, and an ad hominem fallacy... so I'm opting out.

You brought it up, so I'm calling you on it. If it's an appeal to authority, it's your own, and if it's an ad hominem attack, then it was you that made yourself and your character a factor in this discussion. I'd like to get a little more depth out of your statement, beyond merely stating "I'm a scientist", with the implicit "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

And what communes are you looking at? The Amish are collectivist and only manage to survive by selling their homey goods in the marketplace at market rates, which kind of makes them not communist,


Exchanging your goods with outside markets makes you 'not communist'? How?


...I'm beginning to see a pattern in this centralist-revisionist drivel here.

What are you talking about?

I'd like to see the political left take a less apologetic stance to communism. To their credit a few honest leftists did, like Bakunin, Chomsky, Russell, Orwell etc.

In my view the system (I'm referring to Marxism but I think even most leftists would concede at the very least Leninism) was tested scientifically and the theory proved to be incompatible with reality and so degenerated into despotism. It was too authoritarian and didn't take into account people's individuality. But perhaps Venezuela will be a testing ground for a more democratic form of socialism?

You brought it up, so I'm calling you on it. If it's an appeal to authority, it's your own, and if it's an ad hominem attack, then it was you that made yourself and your character a factor in this discussion. I'd like to get a little more depth out of your statement, beyond merely stating "I'm a scientist", with the implicit "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

I didn't say that - I said I am a scientist, which is an explanation, perhaps - of why I insist on applying the Scientific Method.

I don't have to be a scientist. We can completely remove 'me' from the equation, and we can just talk about the Scientific Method in isolation.

According to the principles of the Scientific Method (in isolation), the 'experiment' was never actually carried out. Thus, discussing it's 'failure' is somewhere between self-congratulation for sabotaging the test, and intellectual dishonesty.

I'd like to see the political left take a less apologetic stance to communism. To their credit a few honest leftists did, like Bakunin, Chomsky, Russell, Orwell etc.

In my view the system... was tested scientifically and the theory proved to be incompatible with reality and so degenerated into despotism.. It was too authoritarian and didn't take into account people's individuality. But perhaps Venezuela will be a testing ground for a more democratic form of socialism?

And here's exactly what I'm talking about.

Russia itself, has a history of cyclic famine. The Soviet Republics never had a reliable (that was in my previous post) food supply.

Yes, this was devastating in the 19th century, but by the 20th, harvesting methods improved greatly, and special more weather resistant crops had been developed IIRC. During the 20th century, the famines were due to entirely different things, the major one under Lenin, that caused something like 6 million deaths was it(?), was caused by the civil war, and by the red terror. It did not have a natural cause.

The Soviet Union had access, very rapidly, to massive industrialisation. They also had raw materials.

What the Soviet Union lacked - because of geography, mainly, was the same thing Russia has ALWAYS lacked - (reliable) food.

Russia had plenty of farmland (Ukraine, Caucasus), and the transportation networks to move it to the important places around Moscow and the western client states. There wasn't much more than that, but if you couldn't be relied upon, you didn't get reliable food, and there wasn't much at all lost to the Politburo if you died.

The welfare effects free-er trade would have been good, but it wouldn't have saved the USSR. The USSR still had enough resources, from what I've studied.

The USSR had shedloads of resources. But people can't eat iron ore.

Yes, this was devastating in the 19th century, but by the 20th, harvesting methods improved greatly, and special more weather resistant crops had been developed IIRC. During the 20th century, the famines were due to entirely different things, the major one under Lenin, that caused something like 6 million deaths was it(?), was caused by the civil war, and by the red terror. It did not have a natural cause.

Or not.

The 'major one under Lenin' occurs right where it should, according to the historical cyclical famine.

The Soviet Union had access, very rapidly, to massive industrialisation. They also had raw materials.
So did Imperial Russia (which was hardly a model of capitalist republican virtue, but far better than the USSR). The USSR's much-vaunted industrialisation is far less rapid than that today of India and China as a result of free market reforms.

What the Soviet Union lacked - because of geography, mainly, was the same thing Russia has ALWAYS lacked - (reliable) food.
Russia exported food before the revolution, so this is dishonest. THe USSR had huge food problems, largely because of its collectivised state agriculture - the 1% of farmland allowed to be owned privately produced almost a third of the USSR's agricultural output http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Agriculture.

The easy solution to that in the US, for example, is to trade with your neighbours - if you have corn but no cotton, and they have cotton, but no corn - you trade them out.

The west had industrialisation, but a hunger for more. It also had control of major food markets - which it embargoed Soviet access to.
The US embargoed grain to the USSR for only two years (80-81) due to the Afghanistan invasion, during which time the USSR simply imported from the third world. (Though honestly, you're criticising capitalism because the capitalist states were being too socialist by imposing tarrifs and embargoes? At least try to maintain consistency)

Despite all this, the USSR beat the west into space - running the same race uphill, they still reached the finish line first - so it's dishonest to say that the model was totally inherently flawed.
That's really not a good criteria on which to judge free markets against socialism, given that people do not really value space very much as individuals (particularly propaganda pissing contests) and practically all money spent on space until quite recently has therefore been spent by governments. It's hardly surprising the USSR had more available at first, given that practically the entire economy was owned by the state. Still, when it became a proper propaganda pissing contest the West had far more wealth and technical knowledge to pit against the Soviets, and by the time Apollo 11 landed the USSR had no realistic capability to match it in the near term.

The USSR had shedloads of resources. But people can't eat iron ore.

They also have some of the best farmland in the world, the Ukraine. That too is a resource.

The USSR had shedloads of resources. But people can't eat iron ore.

Well, although trade was not particularly important to Russia, it did have people to trade with. It had other communist countries, and those in the eastern bloc, it had the third world, and it did in fact trade with the west. The USSR often borrowed heavily from the west as well, I don't think we ever completely cut them off.

Or not.

The 'major one under Lenin' occurs right where it should, according to the historical cyclical famine.

This is just categorically wrong. One of the major things I learnt was how the Red Terror, and the civil war caused the famine, many books go into this very specifically. About how farmers were scared to grow more food than could feed their family, because of grain requisitioner's, that would also burn their house if they weren't happy. About how insane amounts of inflation caused money to be worthless, so there was no incentive for farmers to sell their grain. About how much of a huge strain the civil war was on the Russian economy. And so on... Seriously, any coincidental timing is just that, coincidence. Not only that, but it still killed far more than any previous famine, regardless.

They also have some of the best farmland in the world, the Ukraine. That too is a resource.

Also known as the 'Bread Basket'.

Exchanging your goods with outside markets makes you 'not communist'? How?

Dear God.

Because a market is a function of capitalism...? A market presupposes a free flow of goods and services, which in communism is impossible: in communism, those goods and services allotted to one group or person by the State cannot be exchanged with another person, by the very nature of allotment. In Marxian theory, the exchange of goods and services by the people naturally leads to exploitation of the worker—that's why there is a central distributive authority in the first place. Bypassing that authority by trading on the street makes it redundant and useless, and therefore capitalism naturally supplants tyrannical controls of the market simply by exchange.

But, that is internal, and maybe you think communism can be done internally, with trade on the global marketplace. But in fact this is even worse, because the free flow of the price system is naturally and intrinsically faster and more reliable than the prices or allotments set by GOSPLAN to the people. Thus the foreign products out-compete the slower businesses that use GOSPLAN instead of price signals to tell them what to produce, how much, how fast, and on and on. Therefore, being more efficient, by not having bureaucrats at every juncture in the price system and instead replacing them with free-flowing currency (the existence of which also presupposes a marketplace, as in the first few pages of Theory of Money and Credit), the foreign companies out-compete the domestic, sluggish companies, and undermine the national economy so long as it remains slow. Labor as a good is naturally drawn away from less secure jobs, but in communist societies, they are not allowed to leave, thereby preventing yet another sector of the market from functioning, replacing it with yet more centralist controls. I could go on and on like this, but I think now is a good place to pause for a breather.

What are you talking about?

I could have responded to the next two points, but I realized I'd have said the same thing three times over, with slight variations.

And here's exactly what I'm talking about.

Then you can't criticise the capitalist West either because even the USA wasn't/isn't perfectly capitalist. And out of these two imperfect experiments (the American and Russian revolutions) liberty and democracy was created and maintained to a far greater extent in the the USA than the USSR.

This is just categorically wrong. One of the major things I learnt was how the Red Terror, and the civil war caused the famine, many books go into this very specifically. About how farmers were scared to grow more food than could feed their family, because of grain requisitioner's, that would also burn their house if they weren't happy. About how insane amounts of inflation caused money to be worthless, so there was no incentive for farmers to sell their grain. About how much of a huge strain the civil war was on the Russian economy. And so on... Seriously, any coincidental timing is just that, coincidence. Not only that, but it still killed far more than any previous famine, regardless.

It's a coincidence that there wasn't enough food during a famine that falls in line with a historical cycle of famines...

...because you read somewhere about how farmers burned their excess.

Um. Yeah. I can't see any way to argue with that.

Then you can't criticise the capitalist West either because even the USA wasn't/isn't perfectly capitalist. And out of these two imperfect experiments (the American and Russian revolutions) liberty and democracy was created and maintained to a far greater extent in the the USA than the USSR.

Did I criticise the 'capitalist West'?

All I've talked about is how the scales were tipped. And an experiment run with someone's thumb (hell, their whole arm, at times) on the scale, doesn't intrinsically (and shouldn't) encourage faith in the results.

Or not.

The 'major one under Lenin' occurs right where it should, according to the historical cyclical famine.

source ?

It's a coincidence that there wasn't enough food during a famine that falls in line with a historical cycle of famines...

...because you read somewhere about how farmers burned their excess.

Um. Yeah. I can't see any way to argue with that.
He's saying it's not a coincidence there was a famine just when someone told the army to destroy all the farmland and kill millions of farmers. Shurely shome mishtake?!

It's a coincidence that there wasn't enough food during a famine that falls in line with a historical cycle of famines...


Again, even if it did contribute, the cyclical famines NEVER caused anywhere near as many deaths.


...because you read somewhere about how farmers burned their excess.


This is pretty much the historical consensus. Even Marxist historians barely disagree with this, they only emphasise that it was the 'greedy Kulaks hoarding their grain'. This is not from one book, but from multiple sources. Also, another thing that helps indicate how much war communism failed, was because the majority of food came from the black market. The Russian government tried to suppress it, but failed.

Grave_n_idle, I'm really fascinated as to what sort of scientific education you've supposedly had.

...a free flow of goods and services, which in communism is impossible:

...in communism, those goods and services allotted to one group or person by the State cannot be exchanged with another person, by the very nature of allotment.

But, that is internal, and maybe you think communism can be done internally, with trade on the global marketplace.

...but in communist societies, they are not allowed to leave

...replacing it with yet more centralist controls.


Just cataloguing some of your false assumptions, as an illustration of why your conclusion is useless. If that.


I could go on and on like this, but I think now is a good place to pause for a breather.


You 'could go on and on like this' for the same reason that diarrhoea just seems to go on and on - an unrestricted flow of shit.


I could have responded to the next two points, but I realized I'd have said the same thing three times over, with slight variations.

So you made some nonsensical mumbling about centralism and revisionism, as an alternative to repetition?

I admire the function, even if there's nothing to admire in the form.

Did I criticise the 'capitalist West'?

Well, you pointed out their 'blocking' of communism. My point is that no political system is put into practice completely but we can tell by the attempted application of the particular ideology what it's results tend to be.


All I've talked about is how the scales were tipped. And an experiment run with someone's thumb (hell, their whole arm, at times) on the scale, doesn't intrinsically (and shouldn't) encourage faith in the results.

The American Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances which preserved liberty (relatively) compared to the Russian Bolsheviks who created a system which allowed the state too much power over the people. We will see if democratic socialism works in Venezuela .

It is just what I quoted, except I posted it in english on the forum, instead of in Romanian. So that all could understand. Don't be a jerk. I posted the English translation of the quote which was in Romanian. Are you trying to be obtuse?

Those are your translations? Do you honestly think I'm going to believe your translations?

By the way, calling someone obtuse and a jerk is flaming. You don't want to get modded in your own thread again, do you?

Not irrelevant to the overall situation that people want the communists out. Voter fraud is just one part of this.
You have yet to provide any evidence that more than a handful of rioters have any serious complaint with the government.

Nor have you provided any evidence of voter fraud.

I suggest you work on supporting your arguments with evidence.

Those are your translations? Do you honestly think I'm going to believe your translations?

What do you mean you rob old women in the street? That's disgusting. And don't try to take it back, I see you admitting it right here, clear as day.

You 'could go on and on like this' for the same reason that diarrhoea just seems to go on and on - an unrestricted flow of shit.


I have to admit, that was pretty funny.

Who are pretty much riddled with every political problem imaginable, and are on a constant path towards full forced collectivization.

If you will post like you don't know ANYTHING of what you're talking about, you'd do well to hold your peace not to humiliate yourself further!

Those are your translations? Do you honestly think I'm going to believe your translations?
Not that I really know what you're talking about, but surely you could just run it through google translator to verify he isnt making things up? The grammar won't be very good but it'd be pretty obvious if he was changing the entire meaning.

So no, I don't approve.

Moldova's elections are not yours to approve. Neither were Chile's, Brazil's or any other country's.

You 'could go on and on like this' for the same reason that diarrhoea just seems to go on and on - an unrestricted flow of shit.
What a shrewd scientific mind! You must be beating Nature off with a stick.

Not that I really know what you're talking about, but surely you could just run it through google translator to verify he isnt making things up? The grammar won't be very good but it'd be pretty obvious if he was changing the entire meaning.

I thought of that, but the difference in meaning is too nuanced. The question is whether or not the Russian contingent in the election monitors had too much influence compared to the rest of the monitors. This is, in my opinion, too subtle for a computer translation to pick up. I would not expect anyone to trust my translations ude to the subjective nature of translation work, and I don't think I should be expected to take his interpretation at face value either.

We need a neutral third party to translate it then. But who!? :eek:

Interesting thread.

Was life in the Eastern Bloc 'good'? You mean - while it was being starved and attacked by the West, and it's government was following the same route embargoed governments followed?

What if the US had found peace with the USSR, and trade had flowed across borders? What would life have been like in the USSR, better?

Um, the U.S. did trade with the U.S.S.R.

Fail.

Um, the U.S. did trade with the U.S.S.R.

Fail.

And if I give you one of my hundred apples, we shared, right?

And if I give you one of my hundred apples, we shared, right?

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about?

Are you telepathic?

Are you telepathic?

If you're going to babble nonsense, fine. I'm done here.

If you're going to babble nonsense, fine. I'm done here.

It's like you're reading my mind...

A slightly different (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/026241.html) take on things.

Yes, it's a blog. But it raises some interesting questions.

A slightly different (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/026241.html) take on things.

Yes, it's a blog. But it raises some interesting questions.
Yes, it does.

Didn't I tell just yesterday it was at attempt at a Saakhasvili-in-Moldovan-sauce?

Yep, I did.

I would remind everyone that this isn't a revolt against a communist government... BECAUSE in Moldova there isn't a communist economy!
Would you call the regional governments of, let's say, Emilia-Romagna or Lombardy from the '70s through the '80s "communist governments" because the Communist Party had the majority within a liberal-democratic frame?

Also, when people attack the seat of a parliament even before eventual recounts are made, well, this shows how much they care about democracy.

Agents provocateurs, if not downright putschists.

It's also hardly like the communist bloc didn't attack the West, which didnt collapse. If you have to build a wall manned by guards with machineguns to lock people into a system, it probably isn't great.Certainly, the Soviet system wasn't great.
It wasn't a communist system either, but we're agreed that it wasn't great.

Personally I have no problem with collectivism if its voluntary.Of course, 'voluntary' usually means playing by the rules of a capitalist system.

Dear God.

Because a market is a function of capitalism...? A market presupposes a free flow of goods and services,No, it doesn't. If this were the case, then there would be no need for the term "free market", as it would be redundant. You could have an unfree market, for instance, or perhaps a form of market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)).

which in communism is impossible: in communism, those goods and services allotted to one group or person by the State cannot be exchanged with another person, by the very nature of allotment.In communism, there is no state.

In Marxian theory, the exchange of goods and services by the people naturally leads to exploitation of the workerWhen it is the exchange of goods and services between a worker and an employer, yes, because the employer deprives the worker of the "product of his labor" (according to the Labor Theory of Value). An exchange of goods and services is not in and of itself inherently exploitative.

—that's why there is a central distributive authority in the first place.In Marxian theory, there is no "central distributive authority" in communism. You might recall that part in the Communist Manifesto about when the state "withers away"? After that point is when you have communism. Prior do it, (according to Marxian theory), you have socialism.

Labor as a good is naturally drawn away from less secure jobs,Uh, if you're still talking about the Soviet Union here, the Soviet Union had full employment. Capitalist systems did not. The risk of unemployment is what makes a job insecure.
Further, if you're not talking about the Soviet Union, but about communism, the worker would most likely be making more since they would be receiving a greater portion of the profits due to there not being a superfluous business owner skimming money off.

Of course, 'voluntary' usually means playing by the rules of a capitalist system.
Yes its obviously inconceivable that a band of like-minded people could get together, acquire a track of land, and from there establish their preferred form of living.

Stop hiding behind the "in communism there is no state" line, because to get there apparently you have to go through brutal dictatorships, rampant despotism and mass murder, as well as violations of practically every political and individual right conceivable.

....because to get there apparently you have to go through brutal dictatorships, rampant despotism and mass murder, as well as violations of practically every political and individual right conceivable.

Actually, you don't have to go through all that. It is possible to democratically elect a government that moves toward a communist society. For evidence, please look at the OP. You know, the current discussion about the elected communists.

Yes its obviously inconceivable that a band of like-minded people could get together, acquire a track of land, and from there establish their preferred form of living. And how would they go about "acquiring" this tract of land?

Stop hiding behind the "in communism there is no state" line, because to get there apparently you have to go through brutal dictatorships, rampant despotism and mass murder, as well as violations of practically every political and individual right conceivable.Even if this was the case, the brutal dictatorships, rampant despotism and mass murder would not be communism.
However, it isn't the case, and it seems highly unlikely that the Soviet Union (for instance) ever intended to create communism.
Further, even if they did, it would mean only that Marxian communism leads to such things, and given that Marx neither owns nor originated communism, there are plenty of other theories which could potentially be used to achieve a communist system.

Actually, you don't have to go through all that. It is possible to democratically elect a government that moves toward a communist society. For evidence, please look at the OP. You know, the current discussion about the elected communists.Shh...don't cause confusion by referring to the thread's topic.

...apparently you have to go through brutal dictatorships, rampant despotism and mass murder, as well as violations of practically every political and individual right conceivable.

You wanna talk apparent? Ok, these students can hurl chairs and for that they get treated like celebrities by certain press agencies, while in Iran you hurl two shoes and you get a year in the cooler.

However, it isn't the case, and it seems highly unlikely that the Soviet Union (for instance) ever intended to create communism.
They definitely did at the beginning, and frankly even at that point, the USSR before Stalin wasn't a whole lot better than what it was under it.

Yes, it does.

Didn't I tell just yesterday it was at attempt at a Saakhasvili-in-Moldovan-sauce?

Yep, I did.

I would remind everyone that this isn't a revolt against a communist government... BECAUSE in Moldova there isn't a communist economy!
Would you call the regional governments of, let's say, Emilia-Romagna or Lombardy from the '70s through the '80s "communist governments" because the Communist Party had the majority within a liberal-democratic frame?

Also, when people attack the seat of a parliament even before eventual recounts are made, well, this shows how much they care about democracy.

Agents provocateurs, if not downright putschists.

The most disturbing thing about this is I know for a fact that TAI WOULD support a coup against the government in Brazil (or in Italy, for that matter) were a Communist-in-name party to be elected.

Certainly, the Soviet system wasn't great.
It wasn't a communist system either, but we're agreed that it wasn't great.
So you claim, but let us refer to the Communist Manifesto's 10 points of policy for a society transitioning through socialism to communism:

" 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c."

I don't see how the USSR deviated from this. In fact, many of the worst alleged "abuses" of communism, such as the widespread persecution of "rebels", mandatory working determined by the state, forced collectivisation, wasteful failed 'agricultural improvement' projects are all listed there as preconditions of a socialist state!

So you claim, but let us refer to the Communist Manifesto's 10 points of policy for a society transitioning through socialism to communism:

" 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c."

I don't see how the USSR deviated from this. In fact, many of the worst alleged "abuses" of communism, such as the widespread persecution of "rebels", mandatory working determined by the state, forced collectivisation, wasteful failed 'agricultural improvement' projects are all listed there as preconditions of a socialist state!

If that's what communism is, then you can't really claim that Moldova is communist.

So you claim, but let us refer to the Communist Manifesto's 10 points of policy for a society transitioning through socialism to communism:Indeed. A socialist society that is trying to create a communist system but hasn't done so yet.

So you claim, but let us refer to the Communist Manifesto's 10 points of policy for a society transitioning through socialism to communism:

" 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c."

I don't see how the USSR deviated from this. In fact, many of the worst alleged "abuses" of communism, such as the widespread persecution of "rebels", mandatory working determined by the state, forced collectivisation, wasteful failed 'agricultural improvement' projects are all listed there as preconditions of a socialist state!

Do you argue that fertilised eggs are babies too?

Indeed, do you argue that fertilised FISH eggs are babies?

Because that's what you're doing here. Not only are you arguing that a transitional state IS the state to which it is transitioning (how you make THAT logical in your head, I have no idea), but you're arguing it about a transitional state that COULD lead to any one of many different 'offspring' - but you're arguing it for a specific one.

Obama send some CIA support there now!!

Glorious Socialist BHO (Glorious Leader) won't save the commies now.

You wanna talk apparent? Ok, these students can hurl chairs and for that they get treated like celebrities by certain press agencies, while in Iran you hurl two shoes and you get a year in the cooler.Iraq.

Umm, since when was a free market parliamentary democracy considered communism?

Much of the talk in this thread is nigh-on comparing the protests with the uprisings in Hungary, then-Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc., during the 50s and 60s. Yaay for protesting, but this is in no way a "revolt against Communism".

Umm, since when was a free market parliamentary democracy considered communism?

Since the ruling party in charge called themselves "communist," silly. It's like the Red Scare all over again.

1. Trve, how can you justify your opposition to my support of Pinochet's revolution in Chile if you will come out and state "I like Lenin", given all of the horrrrrrrrrrible crimes he commited when he came into power? Notably the mass murder and the total crackdown on freedom/ridiculous censorship?

2. Anyone here who claims to be a Communist in the sense that they believe in following Marx's vision is anti-freedom and pro-totalitarian state, even if they believe in an eventual classes/governmentless society. Because Marx clearly states that to get to that point, and to rectify wealth inequalities, there must form a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will "eventually" wither away into no state. (When pigs fly)

Thus, anyone who claims to be a Marxist supports the formation of a dictatorship.

Thus, anyone who claims to be a Marxist supports the formation of a dictatorship.

If you want to get technical about it, democracy is a dictatorship too - a dictatorship of the majority over all others.

1. Trve, how can you justify your opposition to my support of Pinochet's revolution in Chile if you will come out and state "I like Lenin", given all of the horrrrrrrrrrible crimes he commited when he came into power? Notably the mass murder and the total crackdown on freedom/ridiculous censorship?

PM.

2. Anyone here who claims to be a Communist in the sense that they believe in following Marx's vision is anti-freedom and pro-totalitarian state, even if they believe in an eventual classes/governmentless society. Because Marx clearly states that to get to that point, and to rectify wealth inequalities, there must form a dictatorship of the proletariat, which will "eventually" wither away into no state.

Its a transitionary government. You earlier were saying how you only support Pinochet in so far as he was a transitionary government. You should understand the logic.


(When pigs fly)

Oh noes! A political thoery that might not always work exactly how it is laid out in theory!:p

Glorious Socialist BHO (Glorious Leader) won't save the commies now.

Obama is not a socialist.

Anyone here who claims to be a Communist in the sense that they believe in following Marx's vision is anti-freedom and pro-totalitarian state, even if they believe in an eventual classes/governmentless society.

TAI counters himself.

Brilliant.

Given a long enough rope, you hang yourself.

Obama is not a socialist.

Sssshhh dont confuse the noob with facts.

Thus, anyone who claims to be a classical Marxist supports the formation of a power-heavy vanguard with suspect tactics for authority that would most probably, depending on one's interpretation of Marx's writings, turn into a dictatorship.
Fixed.

Fixed.

Pedant.




:p

If you want to get technical about it, democracy is a dictatorship too - a dictatorship of the majority over all others.

No it's not. A "dictatorship" where free and fair, open electionst take place, where economic freedom exists and freedom of speech exists lacks the required elements of the term "dictatorship" in political science.

It's not about getting technical. It's about the fact that, politically, economically and socially (and philosophically) you cannot compare a free liberal democracy with what Marx proposed as a government in order to rectify the inequalities in order to form his communist utopia, which was a dictatorship of the proletariat, under which freedoms are curtalied and destroyed (or simply "not considered freedoms", which is ridiculous) in order to form said government.

Isn't communism (final stage, world anarchy with no police, everything free, no state) just an arbitrary idea with no grounding in reality and human nature? Like a secular version of heaven.

Pedant.
I think you'll find I'm more of a nit-picker.



;)

Glorious Socialist BHO (Glorious Leader) won't save the commies now.

Wikipedia was created to help people like you.

...blablabla...Marx...blablabla...dictatorship...blablabla...curtalied ...blablabla...government.

So, any evidence of voter fraud yet?

No it's not. A "dictatorship" where free and fair, open electionst take place, where economic freedom exists and freedom of speech exists lacks the required elements of the term "dictatorship" in political science.


You keep talking about 'freedom' (like it means something), and then you talk about how a tyranny of the majority is unlike a dictatorship.

No it's not. A "dictatorship" where free and fair, open electionst take place, where economic freedom exists and freedom of speech exists lacks the required elements of the term "dictatorship" in political science.
Depending on your meaning of "free and fair", a dictatorship of the majority could well fit the above.

It's not about getting technical. It's about the fact that, politically, economically and socially (and philosophically) you cannot compare a free liberal democracy with what Marx proposed as a government...
Marx hardly proposed anything as a government. His writings on what communism would 'look like' are incredibly sparse; really only a couple of paragraphs spread over a number of articles.

So, in a sense, you're right: we can't compare liberal democracy with what Marx proposed, for the former is a 400-odd year-old political philosophy with a voluminous amount of work and theory behind it, while the latter is a couple of vague allusions to a state of affairs that Marx himself didn't want to outline.

You keep talking about 'freedom' (like it means something), and then you talk about how a tyranny of the majority is unlike a dictatorship.

A democracy can be tyrannical if civil and economic liberty isn't enshrined by law to protect minorities (with the smallest minority being the individual). The US founders had a lot to say against democracy, which back then meant direct democracy, and favoured a constitutional republic instead.

while the latter is a couple of vague allusions to a state of affairs that Marx himself didn't want to outline.

Hence my earlier post about communism being arbitrary and not grounded in reality and human nature.

Hence my earlier post about communism being arbitrary and not grounded in reality and human nature.

That doesnt mean this however. It just means that Marx didnt claim to have crystal ball capabilities.


Would you have taken him more seriously if he had?

That doesnt mean this however. It just means that Marx didnt claim to have crystal ball capabilities.


He almost did, he liked to talk about how empirical and scientific it was.

Hence my earlier post about communism being arbitrary and not grounded in reality and human nature.
The debate over Marx's assessment of human nature is a valid one, but his talk of communism is hardly arbitrary.

It's the culmination of a formidable theory of history and technology. There's a clear line of thought.


He almost did, he liked to talk about how empirical and scientific it was.
Well, Engels liked to stress that Marx was creating a scientific system, but I can't think of a specific instance of Marx using the word 'scientific' or 'science' in relation to his theories; though there may well be one.

Point being, he didn't prescribe a certain, specific future. He thought communism was inevitable, or at least that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, and that socialism would replace it and lead to communism. But what form this communism would take, how long it would get there, and what it would actually be like, he says very little of.

It's a deterministic theory, not prophetic one.

(Interestingly, Marx doesn't entertain the possibility that we could slide back to, say, mercantilism or feudalism, even though this would seem to be a possibility within his theories.)

Moreover, in his Preface to A Critique of Political Economy there's a sort of 'get-out clause' in his works: if technology is constantly developed and accepted in capitalism, it's possible that the conditions for revolution will never arise.

Well, Engels liked to stress that Marx was creating a scientific system, but I can't think of a specific instance of Marx using the word 'scientific' or 'science' in relation to his theories; though there may well be one.


Perhaps there wasn't, but he was very... absolute. Engles was worse though, and treated other theories as absolute lies at times, for instance, see what he has to say in regards to Malthus.


Point being, he didn't prescribe a certain, specific future. He thought communism was inevitable, or at least that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, and that socialism would replace it and lead to communism. But what form this communism would take, how long it would get there, and what it would actually be like, he says very little of.


Agreed.

He thought communism was inevitable, or at least that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable...

And, he's probably right.

At some point in our societal development, it is likely that the characteristics and trappings of 'capitalism' will eventually become vestigial, or entirely atrophied.

And, he's probably right.

At some point in our societal development, it is likely that the characteristics and trappings of 'capitalism' will eventually become vestigial, or entirely atrophied.

All economic systems change with the times; we no longer follow mercantilism, or feudalism, or hold to the Biblical proscriptions against usury. Two goats and a chicken are no longer considered an acceptable dowry for your nubile fourteen-year-old daughter.

Will the system change? Sure. Will it change so that individual inequalities in societal wealth distribution are evened out by a central authority (as opposed to individual property exchange)? Perhaps, although I think the technology to do it doesn't exist yet, and that any attempt to do it would be overly invasive of the individual liberties we prize here in the 21st century.

I personally think that market-like systems will be with us for a long time to come, but markets, like governments, are emergent systems based on individual exchanges (the one of property, the other of power for responsibility), and that as emergent systems they do not necessarily have the best interests of the individual in mind (any more than you have the interests of individual neurons at mind) and must therefore be opposed by suitable checks and balances.

Two goats and a chicken are no longer considered an acceptable dowry for your nubile fourteen-year-old daughter.

Wish you'd told me that before I bought those damn goats. :(

Crowds gathered again on Wednesday in the city’s main square, but it was a chastened group of around 1,000, a fraction of the 10,000 to 15,000 estimated on Tuesday. During Tuesday’s protests, 193 people were arrested, Ms. Meleka said. Moldova’s Prosecutor General’s Office announced that it would investigate each case and pursue criminal charges against organizers.

The half dozen young activists who enlisted Twitter, Facebook and text messages to organize a “flash mob” on Monday have withdrawn from the protests entirely. In an interview, one activist, Natalia Morar, 25, said that she expected to face charges, and that she and other organizers had received phone calls that were “not so much threats as warnings that we will be in very big danger during the next few days.”

What bothers her the most, she said, is the suggestion that she and her friends somehow contributed to the violence, which she watched on television. “Believe me, there is nothing at all enjoyable about it,” she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/world/europe/09moldova.html?scp=3&sq=moldova&st=cse

There are indications that the violence has been counterproductive, and that they have dissuaded the majority of protesters to show up for more protests. It could also indicate that the opposition doesn't have the strength / popular support like we've seen in Ukraine and in Georgia relatively recently.

New rallies are planned for Friday and Sunday (although opposition leaders have distanced themselves from these plans), so we'll see if the protesters can keep up the pressure...

Also, in case it hasn't been mentioned after someone posted that a recount was imminent: The Central Election Commission has rebuffed opposition demands for a recount.

Thus, anyone who claims to be a Marxist supports the formation of a dictatorship.

Back again TAI eh? Should have known better than to think you'd scurry away for good. You support the formation of dictatorships and mass murder in capitalist trappings as well as violence to topple democratically elected governments, so your fabricated moral outrage is as empty as your ethics.

The Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia?

I think youre thinking of The Soviet-Afghanistan War...Its acknowledged as the "Soviet Vietnam"

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

Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviet equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War.

Do you argue that fertilised eggs are babies too?

Indeed, do you argue that fertilised FISH eggs are babies?

Because that's what you're doing here. Not only are you arguing that a transitional state IS the state to which it is transitioning (how you make THAT logical in your head, I have no idea), but you're arguing it about a transitional state that COULD lead to any one of many different 'offspring' - but you're arguing it for a specific one.
I don't think your analogy is a good one. What's happening here is more akin to you claiming that a baby is less like an adult than a foetus.

Marx regarded the socialist transitional phase as a progressive improvement over capitalism, and the communist final phase as being substantively the same as the socialist phase only without the need for instruments of coercion to maintain it (the 'withering away of the state').

The evidence seems to bear out two things, which together are pretty much fatal to the socialist position:

1. The socialist phase is worse than the capitalist phase (and, in some places, such as Cambodia, worse than any condition in recorded history).

2. Socialism not only did not lead to the state withering away as people decided that the socialist prescriptions were superior; rather, even the limitless brutality the state had at its disposal was unable to do so much as maintain approximations of them against widespread civil disobedience, even amongst people who were born and raised in the socialist society surrounded by pro-socialist propaganda..

Its a transitionary government. You earlier were saying how you only support Pinochet in so far as he was a transitionary government. You should understand the logic.

There is absolutely no comparison between the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat and Pinochet's Chile, because the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is actually (formally) a democracy.

Because Marx clearly states that to get to that point, and to rectify wealth inequalities, there must form a dictatorship of the proletariat
I think that you're mixing Karl Marx with Lenin here...



Thus, anyone who claims to be a Marxist supports the formation of a dictatorship.

False. I'm a communist and I don't support the formation of a dictatorship.
wiki: eurocommunism, just to have a hint. or wiki: prague spring .

1. The socialist phase is worse than the capitalist phase

Strikingly, actually, the "socialist" phase (I am not myself inclined to call it "socialist" by Marx's or any other useful standard) in no place occurred where the "capitalist phase" was actually in full swing.

And Lenin's biggest problems were, after all, with the peasantry.

Edit: And, without denying or downplaying the immense and horrific atrocities committed by Leninism around the world, I think you would find this argument (even adjusted in accordance with my comments) far more difficult to maintain than you seem to think. Was the average person in Russia really worse off in 1960 than in 1910?

I think that you're mixing Karl Marx with Lenin here...




False. I'm a communist and I don't support the formation of a dictatorship.
wiki: eurocommunism, just to have a hint. or wiki: prague spring .

Strikingly, actually, the "socialist" phase (I am not myself inclined to call it "socialist" by Marx's or any other useful standard) in no place occurred where the "capitalist phase" was actually in full swing.

And Lenin's biggest problems were, after all, with the peasantry.


You two...Dont let things like "facts" get in the way of a good Kommie BASHING!! Dont ya no nutin!

I'm a communist and I don't support the formation of a dictatorship.

You do realize this will make you an "untermensch" who deserves torture and your civil rights taken away, in TAI's eyes, right?

Indeed, TAI would gladly support a dictatorship to take any power away from you.

You two...Dont let things like "facts" get in the way of a good Kommie BASHING!! Dont ya no nutin!
Send those facts to the gulag! Long live Marxist-Leninism!

Long live Marxist-Leninism!

Being a Grammar Marxist-Leninist, I wish to note that the proper term is "Marxism-Leninism."

Send those facts to the gulag! Long live Marxist-Leninism!

Y se a Franco no le gusta...

Y se a Franco no le gusta...

Que pasa?

Ariba!

Taco!

Malvinas soy Britannia!

Que pasa?

Ariba!

Taco!

Malvinas soy Britannia!

You see, what I said actually made some sense.

You see, what I said actually made some sense.

Sense is relative, ;)

You do realize this will make you an "untermensch" who deserves torture and your civil rights taken away, in TAI's eyes, right?
Do I care?

Indeed, TAI would gladly support a dictatorship to take any power away from you.
Wait. I have any power right now? Wow!

Do I care?


Wait. I have any power right now? Wow!

You have the power to make me read your posts, :tongue:

Do I care?

Te ne frega? :p

Gosh damn it, I demand Libertarian poll options.

Ditto......

PM.
Damn:p I wanted to be able to use that against you. :p

Its a transitionary government. You earlier were saying how you only support Pinochet in so far as he was a transitionary government. You should understand the logic.
The difference, however, is that Pinochet's transitionary government was in order to return economic prosperity and political stability to Chile, which he viewed the Communists as having destroyed. Pro-Marxists favor a transitionary government which will destroy economic prosperity and create political instability by waging class war. It's the exact opposite.


Oh noes! A political thoery that might not always work exactly how it is laid out in theory!:p
They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results . . . so why keep trying Communism? :p
TAI counters himself.
No, I didn't. You just didn't understand.
Fixed.
Whatever floats your boat and finds your lost remote. Call it what you want, it doesn't change the point.
You keep talking about 'freedom' (like it means something), and then you talk about how a tyranny of the majority is unlike a dictatorship.
Communism works against Freedom in order to achieve maximum equality. The two do not mix, in reality, only in theory . . . and even that is debatable.
Depending on your meaning of "free and fair", a dictatorship of the majority could well fit the above.
Look, Communism and Freedom are opposites. Communism seeks to create maximum equality. But the balance between Equality and Freedom is like a tug of war. If you pull hard on equality, you will gain it but at the expense of freedom. Freedom results in inequality, and communism seeks to rectify that by reducing freedom in order to increase equality. Obviously the doesn't work, because an unfree people revolt. To be fair, on the other side you cannot have a totally free society with no equality, because mass inequality also causes revolt.

What you do do, then, is try to find the perfect mix of both. Liberal Democracies, Canada, America, UK, Australia, have favored higher freedom at the expense of greater inequality, but realize that inequality cannot be allowed to get too extreme, for fear of revolt. On the other hand, Social Democracies like Scandinavian countries and Germany have opted for a higher level of equality at the expense of freedom, but realize that they must allow a somewhat high level of freedom or else they will risk lacking in innovation, competition and in general, lower quality of life.

So the point is, that everything in political-economics is about finding the perfect socio-political balance between Freedom and Equality. Communism is an extreme in which it demands max equality and removes freedom to achieve it. That doesn't work, in reality, because as Reagan said, "No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

Marx hardly proposed anything as a government. His writings on what communism would 'look like' are incredibly sparse; really only a couple of paragraphs spread over a number of articles.
He proposed a transitionary dictatorship of the proletariat that would work to re-distribute wealth in order to increase equality. That kind of wish cannot be realized without a very large state with very high autonomy and capacity.


So, in a sense, you're right: we can't compare liberal democracy with what Marx proposed, for the former is a 400-odd year-old political philosophy with a voluminous amount of work and theory behind it, while the latter is a couple of vague allusions to a state of affairs that Marx himself didn't want to outline.
We can, however, compare the reality of what theoretical Capitalism and theoretical Communism have resulted in, and it's quite obvious which system has failed in application and which has thrived. . .


Also, in case it hasn't been mentioned after someone posted that a recount was imminent: The Central Election Commission has rebuffed opposition demands for a recount.
A recount has been called.

Back again TAI eh? Should have known better than to think you'd scurry away for good. You support the formation of dictatorships and mass murder in capitalist trappings as well as violence to topple democratically elected governments, so your fabricated moral outrage is as empty as your ethics.
I support opposition to Marxism. Call that whatever emotionally charged word you'd like.

The difference, however, is that Pinochet's transitionary government was in order to return economic prosperity and political stability to Chile, which he viewed the Communists as having destroyed. Pro-Marxists favor a transitionary government which will destroy economic prosperity and create political instability by waging class war. It's the exact opposite.

No.

The difference is, The Atlantian Islands agrees with Pinochet's notion of an "ideal" economic system and disagrees with the opposition's.

You don't disagree with their means, you disagree with their ends.

Well, correction: You only disagree with their means if you disagree with their ends. If you agree with their ends, you agree with their means.

Now I need a volunteer with a better track record than mine own to name the word that defines this kind of thought.

Now I need a volunteer with a better track record than mine own to name the word that defines this kind of thought.

Human Nature?

Human Bias?

We all do it, only sometimes it's more pronounced than other times.

Human Nature?

Human Bias?



It DOES start with an H.

It DOES start with an H.

Face it H2, we're all hypocrites at times. Even me, as hard as that is to believe.:D

Face it H2, we're all hypocrites at times. Even me, as hard as that is to believe.:D

YOU said it, not me. :D

Do I care?
If you think I granted Heikoku permission to speak for me, you've got another thing coming. . .:p

I think that you're mixing Karl Marx with Lenin here...
No I'm not. I'm describing Marx's theory of the evolution of government and the transformations and revolutions it must go through to re-distribute wealth and eventually "dissolve". . .



False. I'm a communist and I don't support the formation of a dictatorship.
wiki: eurocommunism, just to have a hint. or wiki: prague spring .
http://www.tamagothi.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/alle_wege_des_marxismus_faoehren_nach_moskau.jpg

If you think I granted Heikoku permission to speak for me, you've got another thing coming. . .:p

I wasn't speaking for you, I was applying basic pattern recognition of the way you think.

On the other hand, Social Democracies like Scandinavian countries and Germany have opted for a higher level of equality at the expense of freedom, but realize that they must allow a somewhat high level of freedom or else they will risk lacking in innovation, competition and in general, lower quality of life.

So wouldn't a system where the removal of some freedoms while retaining the status of a "free" society and having a higher quality of life be preferable? You know, since the Scandinavian countries rank above both the US and Canada in some indexes (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf)?

And what exactly is the noticable difference in the level freedom when comparing Canada and Scandinavia?



A recount has been called.
I guess you must be unhappy about that turn of events, since you apparently don't see any point to linking to the developments happening after my post?

President Vladimir Voronin asked the constitutional court to order a full recount of last Sunday's election, won by the ruling Communist Party.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7993547.stm

Must be a new tactic. I can't recall anybody ever winning an election through election fraud, only to call for a recount a week later after protests.

Look, Communism and Freedom are opposites.

Communism seeks to create maximum equality. But the balance between Equality and Freedom is like a tug of war. If you pull hard on equality, you will gain it but at the expense of freedom.

Freedom results in inequality.
Before we get anywhere, you need to define:
communism
freedom
equality

Otherwise, your talk is too vague to have any real meaning.

It's not about "views I don't like", stop trying to simplify things.


But it is, and why should anyone else when you won't?

If you think I granted Heikoku permission to speak for me, you've got another thing coming. . .:p
No, I don't think so. I was actually joking.

No I'm not. I'm describing Marx's theory of the evolution of government and the transformations and revolutions it must go through to re-distribute wealth and eventually "dissolve". . .

from wiki:dictatorshp of the proletariat , you may have a better description of the what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels meant for "dictatorship of proletariat", and compare with its Leninist implementation ("vanguard" party dictatorship), or with what Stalin called "dictatorship of proletariat" (where by "proletariat" he really meant "its charismatic leader").



The term "dictatorship" describes control by an entire class, rather than a single individual (dictator rei gerendae causa). According to Marx, the bourgeois state, being a system of class rule, amounts to a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.' When workers take state power into their hands, they become the new ruling class and rule in their own interest, temporarily using the state machinery to prevent the bourgeoisie mounting a counterrevolution.

Although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, he pointed to the Paris Commune as a model of transition to communism. He stated that:

“ The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.[2] ”

This social order with its emphasis on recallable delegates and maximal public participation in governance has many similarities to the modern conception of direct democracy.

Friedrich Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, stated that "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." He criticized what he saw as corruption among politicians and stated that "the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs.

Before we get anywhere, you need to define:
communism
freedom
equality

Otherwise, your talk is too vague to have any real meaning.

TAI has been specifically avoiding being defining when it comes to the labels. It's the sort of weaseling he does in order to blather about how mass murder to establish capitalism is better than letting communism come about.

A democracy is needed for freedom, surely, but opposition to communism is also vital because Communism and freedom can never go hand in hand. Also, the commies commited voter fraud.

(my highlighting)

Quite correct!

We all know voter fraud is only acceptable when it is carried out by the right. Like in Florida 2000.

Communism works against Freedom in order to achieve maximum equality. The two do not mix, in reality, only in theory . . . and even that is debatable.

Look, Communism and Freedom are opposites. Communism seeks to create maximum equality. But the balance between Equality and Freedom is like a tug of war.Incorrect. For the populace to be perfectly equal, they must also be perfectly free. If they are not equally free, this would require some higher authority above them restricting their freedom. If there is a high authority above them, they aren't equal.

We can, however, compare the reality of what theoretical Capitalism and theoretical Communism have resulted in, and it's quite obvious which system has failed in application and which has thrived. . .
Two things:
Firstly, communism has been applied a scant few times, and usually in times of war. They failed because they were conquered by stronger forces, not (necessarily) because of something wrong with the system itself.
Secondly, the fact that a system "thrives" does not (in and of itself) make it better. For how many thousands of years did we have slavery?

The difference is, The Atlantian Islands agrees with Pinochet's notion of an "ideal" economic system and disagrees with the opposition's.
I agree with a free-market democracy and disagree with an unfree marxist totalitarian state?! Wow! How hypocritical of me!:rolleyes:

So wouldn't a system where the removal of some freedoms while retaining the status of a "free" society and having a higher quality of life be preferable? You know, since the Scandinavian countries rank above both the US and Canada in some indexes (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf)?
A very fair question. Now I'll answer it fairly. A society that favors equality over freedom, yet values both (as an example Germany or Scandi countries) often lacks the economic freedom necessary to inspire innovation and entrepreneurship thus suffers. In these countries government tends to restrain the ease of starting a company, of realizing new ideas and of being able to behave flexibilly (economically) due to the often unflexible labor laws/regulations that are in place in order to provide "job security" for the workers. Countries that favor freedom over equality, though value both, tend emphasize entrepreneurship and economic/social mobility as the key to keeping a vibrant and progressive society, where as Social Democracies favor more big business capitalism and social "security" . . . which means that you're much more likely to be born comfortably, live comfortably and die comfortably, but much less likely to start a business, introduce new technologies or revolutionize an industry.

The point is though, that that is just a matter of opinion of priorities, because under both systems freedom and equality both exist to reasonable levels. Where as, under Communism, freedom does not exist at all because of the demand of extreme equality.

And what exactly is the noticable difference in the level freedom when comparing Canada and Scandinavia?
Well, for example greater personal freedom means a smaller role for the state and limits on its powers to redistrubte income through welfare, taxes and regulations.

Strictly speaking, economically:

Canada is ranked 7th for economic freedom while Sweden and Norway are ranked 26th and 28th. Denmark is ranked 8th but it isn't exactly the same model of the scandinavian welfare state that Sweden and Norway are.

I guess you must be unhappy about that turn of events, since you apparently don't see any point to linking to the developments happening after my post?
Don't read too far into it. I just read in the news that they were going to do a recount, not that a recount had been made. . . thus no "turn of events".


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/10/President-of-Moldova-seeks-recount/UPI-66311239396127/

Before we get anywhere, you need to define:
communism
freedom
equality

Otherwise, your talk is too vague to have any real meaning.
It would be my pleasure.

Freedom:
The ability of an individual to act indepedently, without fear or restriction or punishment by the state or other individuals or groups in society. It compasses such concepts as free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, economic freedom and other civil liberties.

Equality:
Refers to a shared material standard of individuals within a community, society, or country.

Inequality increases as a result of individual freedom trumping the desire for greater collective equality.

Equality decreases freedom when demand for greater material equality leads the government to take greter control of private/personal wealth or property in the name of redistribution for "the good of equality."

Communism: A system that rejects the notions of freedom, which they call the freedom to be exploited by the bourgeois economically and politically, because they claim that an increase in freedom does not lead to an increase in prosperity, just an increase in exploitation. Under Communism free speech, voting and economic freedom are meaningless when "the bourgeois control the wealth of society". Thus Communism advocates total state control and total destruction of freedom in order to redistrubte and create complete equality, which would then (theoretically) lead to the disolving of the state.

Since more freedom always leads to less equality, however, individual freedom would give way to the demands of the state.

Communism seeks to re-define concepts to legitimize its self. "We are not un-democratic when we are living under a dictatorship of the bourgeois. We are not against freedom when "freedom" means the "freedom" to be exploited. . . etc"
TAI has been specifically avoiding being defining when it comes to the labels.
No I haven't.
Incorrect. For the populace to be perfectly equal, they must also be perfectly free. If they are not equally free, this would require some higher authority above them restricting their freedom. If there is a high authority above them, they aren't equal.
No. For a population to be equal, individual freedom must be eliminated because individual freedom leads to inequality because humans are by nature not equal in ability and desire.

Two things:
Firstly, communism has been applied a scant few times, and usually in times of war. They failed because they were conquered by stronger forces, not (necessarily) because of something wrong with the system itself.
Communism has been applied in almost half the world. Just because it's not exactly the version of Communism that you yourself like or claim to be 'the one true communism" (reminds me inter-religious bitching), doesn't mean that those systems weren't applied communism.
Secondly, the fact that a system "thrives" does not (in and of itself) make it better. For how many thousands of years did we have slavery?
Slavery does not cause a society to thrive. Slavery doesn't cause economic prosperity when Africans do it, when the South did it or when Communists do it.

I agree with a free-market democracy and disagree with an unfree marxist totalitarian state?! Wow! How hypocritical of me!:rolleyes:

You agree with subverting and destroying democracy for the sake of the economic system you agree with or even when you think the other system isn't capitalistic "enough" (as Jango and Allende, and even the current Moldova government aren't communistic or socialistic by any stretch of the word). You cry foul when it's for the sake of the other economic system.

You support bloody coups when it's for your team, but cry foul about supposed vote fraud when you disagree with their platform. And it's not when they are communist - As shown by your support of bloody coups against Allende and Jango themselves.

There's a reason nobody here takes you seriously.

Pinochet was a fascist dictator. That anyone holds him up as an example of "free-market democracy" is laughable at best and fucking offensive at worst.

Pinochet was a fascist dictator. That anyone holds him up as an example of "free-market democracy" is laughable at best and fucking offensive at worst.

And given that I'm a South American, it's no laughing matter to me.

And given that I'm a Southern American, it's no laughing matter to me.

That hurts the language center of my brain, :p

You agree with subverting and destroying democracy for the sake of the economic system you agree with or even when you think the other system isn't capitalistic "enough" (as Jango and Allende, and even the current Moldova government aren't communistic or socialistic by any stretch of the word). You cry foul when it's for the sake of the other economic system.
1. You are trying to make your argument look better by claiming that Allende wasn't a marxist but just "not capitalist enough." It's not only false, but pathetic.

2. Supporting one kind of political economy and not supporting another that is direct opposition and indeed seeks to replace the former is not hypocrisy. It is taking a stance. It's not being a-political.

Pinochet was a fascist dictator. That anyone holds him up as an example of "free-market democracy" is laughable at best and fucking offensive at worst.
Pinochet was not fascist. . .

1. You are trying to make your argument look better by claiming that Allende wasn't a marxist but just "not capitalist enough." It's not only false, but pathetic.

2. Supporting one kind of political economy and not supporting another that is direct opposition and indeed seeks to replace the former is not hypocrisy. It is taking a stance. It's not being a-political.

1- The "ZOMG MARXIST!!!" fantasy has been rebuffed time and again by nigh everyone here.

2- Supporting a COUP D'ETAT for your side of the argument when you cry foul about HYPOTHETICAL ELECTION FRAUD for the other is the definition of hypocrisy.

Pinochet was not fascist. . .

Yes he was.

That hurts the language center of my brain, :p

Fixed, thanks.

Yes he was.

Indeed, I must agree with H2. Pinochet was a fascist.

Yes he was.
No he wasn't. You can't just deny/change political/economic definitions because you think "he was a fascist!" will make him sound soooo eviillllll.

Pinochet was not a fascist.
1- The "ZOMG MARXIST!!!" fantasy has been rebuffed time and again by nigh everyone here.
Allende is considered 'the first marxist ever to be elected to the national presidency of a democracy." Do you deny that he was a Marxist? If so you deny reality. Do you then agree he was a marxist? If so then you just made a fool of yourself in your last post.

2- Supporting a COUP D'ETAT for your side of the argument when you cry foul about HYPOTHETICAL ELECTION FRAUD for the other is the definition of hypocrisy.
Stop posting in all caps. It makes you look too emotional . . .

Supporting one kind of political economy and not supporting another that is direct opposition and indeed seeks to replace the former is not hypocrisy. It is taking a stance. It's not being a-political.

Indeed, I must agree with H2. Pinochet was a fascist.

To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism

The regimes of Franquist Spain, Augusto Pinochet's Chile and Alfredo Stroessner's Paraguay participated together in Operation Condor, which targeted political opponents worldwide. During the Cold War, these international operations gave rise to some cooperation between various neo-fascist elements engaged in a "Crusade against Communism".

Allende is considered 'the first marxist ever to be elected to the national presidency of a democracy."

By whom?

Stop posting in all caps. It makes you look too emotional . . .

Stop posting the kind of crap you post, it makes you look hypocritical.

Supporting one kind of political economy and not supporting another that is direct opposition and indeed seeks to replace the former is not hypocrisy. It is taking a stance. It's not being a-political.

It's not about "supporting X and not Y", it's about supporting atrocities committed in the name of X and crying foul about minor crimes supposedly committed in what you claim is the name of Y.

You claim I'm calling you hypocritical because of your stance towards the ends. I'm not. I'm calling you hypocritical for your stance towards the means.

I don't support coups in the name of capitalism, and I don't support coups in the name of communism. I don't support coups in the name of any ideology, mine or not. You support coups in the name of capitalism, but cry foul when voter fraud is committed by a group that's not even communist, simply not capitalistic "enough".

THAT'S the difference between us.

Pinochet was not fascist. . .

Oh, just a dictator then?

To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism

1. Neo fascism is ridiculously vague and your wiki article states it.

2. Chile is not listed as one of the neo-fascist countries in your wiki article.

Pinochet's Chile was created in order to eliminate communism and re-institute free market economics by giving economic power back to the people. It then allowed free elections to be made, which it claimed were only outlawed until society could be stabilized.

That social/political/economic ideology is quite different than what Fascism seeks.

Study political science. Your throwing of charged words such as 'fascist and neo-fascist!" simply for the emotional shock is getting old when it doesn't conform to reality.

By whom?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece

Allende was the first Marxist anywhere in the world to win power through the ballot box. He was unlike any stereotype of a Marxist leader. During his visits to Havana in the 1960s, he had been privately mocked by Castro's entourage for his aristocratic tastes: fine wines, expensive objets d’art, well-cut suits and elegantly dressed women. Allende was also a womaniser. Gabriel García Márquez described him as “a gallant with a touch of the old school about him, perfumed notes and furtive rendezvous”.




You support coups in the name of capitalism
I support a coup in the name of freedom in an unfree or illiberal or communist regime.

Oh, just a dictator then?
Must one be a fascist to be authoritarian???

Must one be a fascist to be authoritarian???

I guess I just missed the part where dictatorship = democracy.

I guess I just missed the part where dictatorship = democracy.

What if its democratically elected dictatorship?

The ads are funny on this thread. Free Newt! First reaction was is Newt Gingrich in jail or something?

What if its democratically elected dictatorship?

Saddam was elected....

Stop posting in all caps. It makes you look too emotional . . .

ALTHOUGH it's quite ANNOYING, he's right. Pinochet was fascist, and you're being a hypocrite.

What if its democratically elected dictatorship?

Well my friend under your theory the problem is once they have democratically elected a dictatorship they can never change thier minds and un-elect it because its a dictatorship for life, lol.

Your throwing of charged words such as 'fascist and neo-fascist!" simply for the emotional shock is getting old when it doesn't conform to reality.

You want some reality, then? Very well.

***Bankai: Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou***

In Chile, Brazil, Argentina and most of South America, thousands of people were tortured.

The reality you wish, TAI, is as follows.

People had broomsticks shoved up their asses until they bled. Electrodes connected to their testicles and turned on. Women were raped. Their fingernails were ripped off, after a long while with bamboo shards being shoved under them. Their hands and feet were shoved in glass shards, destroying their skins and severing some tendons. They were cut, marked with hot iron, and beaten with sticks, while being kept tied up and suspended from the ground. And that, among other things. They were beaten to within an inch of their lives. Many were beaten past it, and their bodies were found later or not found at all. And that, besides the fact that entire countries lost their civil rights.

That's what Pinochet, Stroessner, Castelo Branco, Médici, Costa e Silva and Geisel ordered. That's what your idol, Henry Kissinger, supported. That's reality.

Had enough of it yet?

I guess I just missed the part where dictatorship = democracy.
It doesn't at all. Except if you're a Communist then "dictatorship of the proletariat" does. . .

However Pinochet's coup was transitionary in order to rebuild and stabilize a society and economy that was to be free and democratic.

There were many things that happend in those between years that I do not support. However, one can still support something overall without supporting every aspect of it.

The point is, now we can see that Pinochet's coup, which was designed to, like I said, rebuild society as a free one and safeguard democracy until Chile was stable enough for it, did exactly just that.

You want some reality, then? Very well.

***Bankai: Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou***

In Chile, Brazil, Argentina and most of South America, thousands of people were tortured.

The reality you wish, TAI, is as follows.

People had broomsticks shoved up their asses until they bled. Electrodes connected to their testicles and turned on. Women were raped. Their fingernails were ripped off, after a long while with bamboo shards being shoved under them. Their hands and feet were shoved in glass shards, destroying their skins and severing some tendons. They were cut, marked with hot iron, and beaten with sticks, while being kept tied up and suspended from the ground. And that, among other things. They were beaten to within an inch of their lives. Many were beaten past it, and their bodies were found later or not found at all. And that, besides the fact that entire countries lost their civil rights.

That's what Pinochet, Stroessner, Castelo Branco, Médici, Costa e Silva and Geisel ordered. That's what your idol, Henry Kissinger, supported. That's reality.

Had enough of it yet?
Unless your point is that a government that uses torture = fascism, then no I havn't had enough yet, because you haven't made a single valid point.

Saddam was elected....

Yeah, and I guess Iraq certainly wasnt a democracy then, I was merely saying that for the sake of argument...

The ads are funny on this thread. Free Newt! First reaction was is Newt Gingrich in jail or something?

I was thinking they were giving a way literal Newts, lol...

The point is, now we can see that Pinochet's coup, which was designed to, like I said, rebuild society as a free one and safeguard democracy until Chile was stable enough for it, did exactly just that.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unless your point is that a government that uses torture = fascism, then no I havn't had enough yet, because you haven't made a single valid point.

My point is that you support regimes who did that.

ALTHOUGH it's quite ANNOYING, he's right. Pinochet was fascist, and you're being a hypocrite.
Pinochet's aim was not to transform society into a fascist one in which everything goes to benefit the state. His aim was to rebuild society into one that the individual prospers and benefits.

Fascism is an ideology with a set vision for society. That vision is not what Pinochet wished for Chile, nor what Chile was during Pinochet's years, nor what Chile became after Pinochet.

I support a coup in the name of freedom in an unfree or illiberal or communist regime.

You support a coup in the name of an economic theory you agree with, no matter what that coup does.

His aim was to rebuild society into one that the individual prospers and benefits.

His aim was to stay in power.

My point is that you support regimes who did that.

So to support a government you must support every single action that government takes? ? ?

You really aren't that different from the extreme authority-lovers you claim to oppose, as I've already showed you.

Given up on "Allende was not a marxist" and "Pinochet was a fascist" then, huh? ;) Good call.

Unless your point is that a government that uses torture = fascism, then no I havn't had enough yet, because you haven't made a single valid point.

It does say that these people you supposedly support are not supporters of a Free Populace, and by saying that Communism is inherently Anti-Freedom, yet supporting regimes that strip people's rights and freedoms, is hypocrisy at its worst...

You want some reality, then? Very well.

***Bankai: Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou***

In Chile, Brazil, Argentina and most of South America, thousands of people were tortured.

The reality you wish, TAI, is as follows.

People had broomsticks shoved up their asses until they bled. Electrodes connected to their testicles and turned on. Women were raped. Their fingernails were ripped off, after a long while with bamboo shards being shoved under them. Their hands and feet were shoved in glass shards, destroying their skins and severing some tendons. They were cut, marked with hot iron, and beaten with sticks, while being kept tied up and suspended from the ground. And that, among other things. They were beaten to within an inch of their lives. Many were beaten past it, and their bodies were found later or not found at all. And that, besides the fact that entire countries lost their civil rights.

That's what Pinochet, Stroessner, Castelo Branco, Médici, Costa e Silva and Geisel ordered. That's what your idol, Henry Kissinger, supported. That's reality.

Had enough of it yet?

Actually it seems to have been the M.O. in the region, regardless of ideology.

His aim was to stay in power.
Assuming that this false statement has any grouding in reality (huge assumption btw), why would he allow elections to take place then?

So to support a government you must support every single action that government takes? ? ?

You really aren't that different from the extreme authority-lovers you claim to oppose, as I've already showed you.

Given up on "Allende was not a marxist" and "Pinochet was a fascist" then, huh? ;) Good call.

1- In the case of a dictatorship in which torture was part of the political ideology, yes.

2- Shut up, Hannibal. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShutUpHannibal)

3- You so far have an old NYT article claiming that about Allende. And you so far have nothing to the claim that Pinochet was not a Fascist.

Actually it seems to have been the M.O. in the region, regardless of ideology.

And TAI supports it.

It does say that these people you supposedly support are not supporters of a Free Populace, and by saying that Communism is inherently Anti-Freedom, yet supporting regimes that strip people's rights and freedoms, is hypocrisy at its worst...
No. The difference is the dictatorship was transitional and created to repair the devastion caused by Allende's government. It was never meant to the end game, the permenant government. And it wasn't.

Assuming that this false statement has any grouding in reality (huge assumption btw), why would he allow elections to take place then?

So he could keep up the appearance of Democracy? The Oh-so-Hated Soviets had elections too...

However Pinochet's coup was transitionary in order to rebuild and stabilize a society and economy that was to be free and democratic.

Ha.

You held him as an example of "free market democracy."

It's nice that you have ready a bunch of pale, limp wristed excuses for Glorious Leader's coup, but it's irrelevant to the fact that you are plainly wrong.

There were many things that happend in those between years that I do not support. However, one can still support something overall without supporting every aspect of it.

Picking cherries. Mm, double standards, YUM!

The point is, now we can see that Pinochet's coup, which was designed to, like I said, rebuild society as a free one

Also he really liked kittens. Kittens are really nice: this proves he was too.
Why do you hate kittens?

No. The difference is the dictatorship was transitional and created to repair the devastion caused by Allende's government. It was never meant to the end game, the permenant government. And it wasn't.

So, transitional regimes that last about 20 years?

Please. The "transitional" crapola was used by the same dictators you support. Indeed, the "transitional" crapola is used by socialists as well. Should we believe them?

1- In the case of a dictatorship in which torture was part of the political ideology, yes.
No. There were various supporters of Cuba's Communism, for example, that still wouldn't support the human rights violations and torture etc. You are trying to simplify things. It isn't working.

3- You so far have an old NYT article claiming that about Allende.
So was Allende a Marxist or not?
And you so far have nothing to the claim that Pinochet was not a Fascist.
I already explained to you that Pinochet's view and model for Chilean society was not in line with Fascism. Fascism exists to empower the state. Pinochet tried to reduce the power of the state by bringing economic power to the individual, for example. (And eventually totally reduced the power of the state by allowing an election).

So now prove that he was Fascist.

And TAI supports it.

How unfortunate.

Assuming that this false statement has any grouding in reality (huge assumption btw), why would he allow elections to take place then?

Why would Saddam allow elections? Clearly, Saddam Hussein was not a dictator, but a champion of democracy. Free market democracy, at that!

And if we just ignore all the killing and oppression, he's not so bad at all!

So he could keep up the appearance of Democracy? The Oh-so-Hated Soviets had elections too...
Dude, I'm sorry but that is so false. Pinochet allowed himself to be voted out of power and allowed political parties that opposed him to run.

The Soviet elections you are speaking of allowed neither. True or false?

So, transitional regimes that last about 20 years?
Power corrupts and bad shit happend. Doesn't change the need for the anti-Allende revolution in the first place and doesn't change the sucessful outcome for Chilean society.

No. There were various supporters of Cuba's Communism, for example, that still wouldn't support the human rights violations and torture etc. You are trying to simplify things. It isn't working.


So was Allende a Marxist or not?

I already explained to you that Pinochet's view and model for Chilean society was not in line with Fascism. Fascism exists to empower the state. Pinochet tried to reduce the power of the state by bringing economic power to the individual, for example. (And eventually totally reduced the power of the state by allowing an election).

So now prove that he was Fascist.

1- Again, the torture of political opponents was part of the ideology of the dictatorships you support.

2- No, he wasn't. The NYT idiocy proves jack shit. And even if he was, it's irrelevant: Nobody had the right to remove him from power save for a majority of Chileans.

3- Pinochet granted to the state the power to capture and torture people without trial. Done.

Power corrupts and bad shit happend. Doesn't change the need for the anti-Allende revolution in the first place and doesn't change the sucessful outcome for Chilean society.

Oh well - power corrupts and bad shit happened with the 1917 revolution too. Doesn't change the need for the anti-Tsarist revolution in the first place and doesn't change the successful outcome for Russian society.

Power corrupts and bad shit happend. Doesn't change the need for the anti-Allende revolution in the first place and doesn't change the sucessful outcome for Chilean society.

1- I wish it had happened to you. I hope it someday happens to you. You deserve everything you support and everything you make excuses for.

2- No, the coup - not a revolution - was not needed. The successful outcome of the Chilean society is DESPITE it, not BECAUSE of it.

At least dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile for all his crimes of power allowed a referendum on his rule with safeguards for himself should he loose, lost and respected it.

When former Cuban political dissident prisoner Oswaldo Paya's organization collected 10,000 + signatures for a referendum on democratic reforms as allowed for under the Cuban constitution Fidel countered with an amendment petition to the Cuban constitution with only one choice declaring Cuba's economic, political and social system irrevocable.

Which according to the Cuban government about 99 % of all Cuban elegible voters supported. Passed by the Cuban National Assembly Parliament by all members for none against. Change you can believe in.

In fact if Raul were to change Cuba he would be violating that amendment to the Cuban constitution and could in theory, lol be impeached and convicted, lol.

Fidel who has been recovering for over two years now, visited by friendly world leaders, shown in pictures but not seen in public. Even met with the African American liberal democratic democrats Caucaus who came back with praise for Cuba and its democratic government . They were shown on TV meeting with Raul but were not shown meeting with Fidel.

Besides who is running Cuba anyways Fidel, Raul or both? Change you can believe in.

Snip.

I hope Castro and his brother die soon so some people won't have an excuse to support Pinochet.

Too easy. :D

1- Again, the torture of political opponents was part of the ideology of the dictatorships you support.If I say I suppot the revolution against Communism and the return of economic power into the hands of the individual, tell me where I say that I support torture.

2- No, he wasn't. The NYT idiocy proves jack shit. And even if he was, it's irrelevant:
So Allende wasn't a Marxist?

On November 4th, the first freely-elected Marxist president was inaugurated.
http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=671

So was he or wasn't he a Marxist? :p
3- Pinochet granted to the state the power to capture and torture people without trial. Done.
1. That already existed under Allende.

2. That does not equal Fascism. If that is your explanation for how Pinochet was Fascist, I'd have to ask you if you know what Fascism is. Was East Germany fascist? Was the Soviet Union fascist? Is Cuba fascist? ? ?

I hope Castro and his brother die soon so some people won't have an excuse to support Pinochet.

I hope Castro and his brother die soon so some people wont have an excuse to support, deny or excuse the Cuban dictatorship elite for life.

I agree with you do you agree with me?

I hope Castro and his brother die soon so some people wont have an excuse to support, deny or excuse the Cuban dictatorship elite for life.

I agree with you do you agree with me?

I agree with you.

1- I wish it had happened to you. I hope it someday happens to you. You deserve everything you support and everything you make excuses for.
Man up. Say it. What do you hope happens to me?
The successful outcome of the Chilean society is DESPITE it, not BECAUSE of it.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has proved that. I know it sounds catchy, but it's false. Prove it.

Oh well - power corrupts and bad shit happened with the 1917 revolution too. Doesn't change the need for the anti-Tsarist revolution in the first place and doesn't change the successful outcome for Russian society.
1. The anti-tsarist revolution was in order to bring about Communism, which in direct opposition to freedom. However, you won't find me supporting Tsarist Russia either, so whatever.

2. Lol, sucessful Russian society? Says who?

Dude, why should anyone try to "prove" anything to you? You've already made up your mind. You're as delusional as the communists and the Holocaust deniers. You make excuses, cherry pick the results to justify and then make jokes about how it's "too easy" with your stupid little emoticons. Yes, it's too easy to be a complete dipshit and ignore it when you get your ass handed to you.

You don't have a single fucking argument that withstands the light of reason. You don't have one that can't be equally applied to excuse, justify, rationalize any of the greatest crimes against humanity. Any dictatorship.

Why don't you man up, TAI. Admit you're wrong. Or do you not have the fucking balls for that either?

Man up. Say it. What do you hope happens to me?

I said it. What you support and make excuses for is what you deserve. Nothing less.

Dude, why should anyone try to "prove" anything to you? You've already made up your mind. You're as delusional as the communists and the Holocaust deniers. You make excuses, cherry pick the results to justify and then make jokes about how it's "too easy" with your stupid little emoticons. Yes, it's too easy to be a complete dipshit and ignore it when you get your ass handed to you.

You don't have a single fucking argument that withstands the light of reason. You don't have one that can't be equally applied to excuse, justify, rationalize any of the greatest crimes against humanity. Any dictatorship.

Why don't you man up, TAI. Admit you're wrong. Or do you not have the fucking balls for that either?
Please. You're making me blush with pride by showing me that you can't debate me so you result to name calling, flaming, swearing and in general lying. Don't let me raise your blood pressure too high. Better go sit this one out. ;):p

1. The anti-tsarist revolution was

Necessary in order to end the dictatorship of the Tsars.

in order to bring about Communism, which in direct opposition to freedom.

You have some balls waxing poetic about freedom when you support a fucking fascist dictator. Oh, yeah - I forget you were ignoring any time you make a stupid claim and it falls flat on its face. Ignore this too then.

However, you won't find me supporting Tsarist Russia either, so whatever.

Why not? They were Anti-Communist.


2. Lol, sucessful Russian society? Says who?

It's more successful now than it was under the Tsars. Keep laughing, kid.

Dude, I'm sorry but that is so false. Pinochet allowed himself to be voted out of power and allowed political parties that opposed him to run.

The Soviet elections you are speaking of allowed neither. True or false?

There's your problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet

Confronted with increasing opposition, notably at the international level, Pinochet legalized political parties in 1987 and called for a plebiscite to determine whether or not he would remain in power until 1997

and, that is not the point, the point is, that just because there are elections, doesnt mean the regime in question is not a dictatorship...

2. Lol, sucessful Russian society? Says who?

The Soviet Union was far more successful then Tsarist Russia. They were a world superpower, where as no one took Tsarist Russia seriously anymore. The Communists also brought Russia into the 20th century, modernized the country, and initially provided the average Russian with a far better lot in life.

I said it. What you support and make excuses for is what you deserve. Nothing less.
Are you saying you hope I am tortured?

Btw, ignoring this?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14691497&postcount=428

Please. You're making me blush with pride by showing me that you can't debate me so you result to name calling, flaming, swearing and in general lying. Don't let me raise your blood pressure too high. Better go sit this one out. ;):p

I already debated you. You ignored it. You're ignoring the argument here too.

You lost.

Are you saying you hope I am tortured?

I'm sure he's only saying he hopes you undergo a necessary transition for freedom and democracy.

Why, do you hate democracy and freedom?

The Soviet Union was far more successful then Tsarist Russia. They were a world superpower, where as no one took Tsarist Russia seriously anymore. The Communists also brought Russia into the 20th century, modernized the country, and initially provided the average Russian with a far better lot in life.
Sure, because the Soviet Union industrialized an otherwise non-industrialized society. However the sucessful society in question would be the current Russian one (like the current Chilean one), and I'd argue that the main gains in Russia in terms of social sucess came from Glasnost and Perestroika, when the Soviet Union tried to implement policy in direct opposition to Communism. That led to the creation of the modern Russian state, who's economic growth cannot be attributed towards Communism nor the USSR in general.

There's your problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet
And so what? Who gives a shit about international opinion? Dictators who want to stay in power don't care. They just stay in power. If he wanted to just stay in power, he could have cracked down on opposition, not legalize opposition parties.


and, that is not the point, the point is, that just because there are elections, doesnt mean the regime in question is not a dictatorship...
I never claimed that Pinochet's government wasn't a dictatorship. I just said it also allowed Chilean society to become a free-market economy, by allowing itself to be voted out of power.
Necessary in order to end the dictatorship of the Tsars.
I don't really care though, because Tsarist society sucked too, so what is your point? Communsim wasn't the answer though.


You have some balls waxing poetic about freedom when you support a fucking fascist dictator.
I do have some balls. Two, in fact. Again with the fascism huh?




It's more successful now than it was under the Tsars. Keep laughing, kid.
Yes, industrialized societies tend to be more sucessful than non-industrialized ones that are basically living in the 1800's. That has little to do with Communism/Russia and more to do with industrialization.

I never claimed that Pinochet's government wasn't a dictatorship. I just said it also allowed Chilean society to become a free-market economy, by allowing itself to be voted out of power.

And I can say the same about the Soviet Union. And plenty of delusional communists might do so. What's making me blush with pride here (:):):):):)) is that you think there is a difference between your apologetics and theirs.

I don't really care though, because Tsarist society sucked too, so what is your point? Communsim wasn't the answer though.

Pinochet's dictatorship wasn't "the answer" either. Yeah, but I guess this is the part where you remind everyone how ultimately it was for the greater good.

Comrade.

I do have some balls. Two, in fact.

This is true; unfortunately they seem to Pinochet's, dangling in your mouth.

Yes, industrialized societies tend to be more sucessful than non-industrialized ones that are basically living in the 1800's. That has little to do with Communism/Russia and more to do with industrialization.

Industrialization that happened as a result of the Communist regime. Therefore Communism was a good thing, just like Pinochet's "transitional" dictatorship.

And I can say the same about the Soviet Union. And plenty of delusional communists might do so. What's making me blush with pride here (:):):):):)) is that you think there is a difference between your apologetics and theirs.
Except you are mising the fact that Pinochet stated the the only point of his revolution was to rebuild the capitalist market and safeguard society until it was stabilized enough for a democracy. So his ultimate goals were a free-market and a democracy.

The Soviet Union's ultimate goals were not it's forced collapse into an (arguably) democratic and free society.


Pinochet's dictatorship wasn't "the answer" either. Yeah, but I guess this is the part where you remind everyone how ultimately it was for the greater good.
Pinochet's revolution was the answer, though.


This is true; unfortunately they seem to Pinochet's, dangling in your mouth.
Another flame.

Industrialization that happened as a result of the Communist regime. Therefore Communism was a good thing, just like Pinochet's "transitional" dictatorship.
Well if you'd like to make that argument, it's Communism's fault that industrialization in the USSR was so done so shitty while industrialization in the West was done much better. Compare industrialization in a free market society with industrialization under Mao or Stalin's command economies to see my point.

Are you saying you hope I am tortured?

That's the beauty of language, isn't it? Meanings are constructed by both parties. In other words, how you choose to interpret what I say is none of my concern, nor my responsibility. I said I hope what you support and make excuses for happens to you. Nothing more and nothing less.

I think its ironic that Im getting Anne Coulter ads from this thread, these things are psychic, lol...

Except you are mising the fact that Pinochet stated the the only point of his revolution was to rebuild the capitalist market and safeguard society until it was stabilized enough for a democracy. So his ultimate goals were a free-market and a democracy.

Oh, Pinochet said so. What a fantastic argument.

Also, Hitler said he was doing what he did for the greater good of Germany. Obviously, therefore, what Hitler did was for the greater good!

The Soviet Union's ultimate goals were not it's forced collapse into an (arguably) democratic and free society.

Did Pinochet ever state that his goal was the collapse of his own regime?

Not that it matters. He's a fucking fascist dictator without a single bit of credibility, especially with regards to his own motives.


Pinochet's revolution was the answer, though.

As was the Communist Revolution. It toppled the Tsars - just like Pinochet toppled Allende - and it paved the way for a later democracy - just like with Chile.

You're rejecting your own argument here. Probably because it's a vapid bunch of sophistry that fails even the most rudimentary tests.

Another flame.

Another whine. Can dish it out; can't take it.

Well if you'd like to make that argument, it's Communism's fault that industrialization in the USSR was so done so shitty while industrialization in the West was done much better.

I'm glad you recognize that Communism brought about industrialization in Russia and paved the way for freedom and democracy. Maybe in a few days when you calm down you'll see that Communism and Pinochet are directly comparable for the reasons you've stated.

Probably not though, any more than Communist apologists will start thinking highly of Pinochet. You're both the same - you WANT to be right, and if your own reasoning proves you wrong, why... who cares!

Compare industrialization in a free market society with industrialization under Mao or Stalin's command economies to see my point.

An irrelevant point that you haven't actually made either.

I think for the sake of clarity we should call people like Pinochet and Franco 'conservative dictators' because they rejected the radical elements of fascism in favour of maintaining the status quo. Fascism is used as such a broad term these days to mean nationalism and authoritarianism that you could also apply it to communist dictators like Castro, Stalin and Mao because of the weight they placed on national interests, or 'socialism in one state'.

Edit: I don't mean that we should use it to describe commie dictators if that's unclear by what I said above. I mean that conservative/communist/fascist dictatorships are all different.

No. For a population to be equal, individual freedom must be eliminated because individual freedom leads to inequality because humans are by nature not equal in ability and desire. Humans do not have to be identical (in ability and desire) in order to be equal.

Communism has been applied in almost half the world. Just because it's not exactly the version of Communism that you yourself like or claim to be 'the one true communism" (reminds me inter-religious bitching), doesn't mean that those systems weren't applied communism.The fact that those systems don't meet the definition of communism means those systems weren't communism. You do realize you don't get to pick what the definition of an ideology is, and neither do any of its opponents.

Slavery does not cause a society to thrive. Slavery doesn't cause economic prosperity when Africans do it, when the South did it or when Communists do it.Slavery absolutely caused societies to thrive. The Roman Empires, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Egypt come to mind. You know those big pyramid thingies they have? Couldn't have been done without a thriving society.

No he wasn't. You can't just deny/change olitical/economic definitionsWhy not? You did.

Humans do not have to be identical (in ability and desire) in order to be equal.

^This.

the solution is I need to be put in charge of this country. so I can reeducate them about the evils of communism.

the solution is I need to be put in charge of this country. so I can reeducate them about the evils of communism.Will you have camps specifiically designed for this reeducation? ;)

Will you have camps specifiically designed for this reeducation? ;)

Yes and those who can not be reeducated will be dropped in the sea.
I will make Argentina in the 1970's feel like the paragon of human rights.

That's the beauty of language, isn't it? Meanings are constructed by both parties. In other words, how you choose to interpret what I say is none of my concern, nor my responsibility. I said I hope what you support and make excuses for happens to you. Nothing more and nothing less.
The beauty of language is that you can both call for my torture and still cowardly hide behind what you are calling for. Beautiful, huh? ;)

Now watch this. . . I'm going to TAI up the two posts below . . . (thank you for the idea Conservative Morality ;) )

Oh, Pinochet said so. What a fantastic argument.
Well, since I understand your mistrust of Pinochet, let's test his claim, shall we?

Pinochet's claim: I am taking power in order to bring stability, remove Communism, re-introduce capitalism and give economic power back to the people away from the government and safeguard democracy until the country is stable enough for it.

The result of Pinochet's regime: Stability. Removal of Communism. Re-introduction of capitalism. Mass privitazations. Democracy re-instated.

Thus, we can see that Pinochet was true to his claims.



Did Pinochet ever state that his goal was the collapse of his own regime?
His regime didn't collapse. He allowed himself to be voted out of power. Is it possible that you cannot see the difference?



As was the Communist Revolution. It toppled the Tsars - just like Pinochet toppled Allende - and it paved the way for a later democracy - just like with Chile.
No. Pinochet's goal was a capitalistic and democratic Chile, where as the Bolsheviks goal was not a capitalistic and democratic Russia/Soviet Union.


Another whine. Can dish it out; can't take it.
I'm sorry? You seemed to imply that I was flaming you, which is why you responded in flaming me. I'd love to see where I "dished it out" / flamed you. . .

I'm glad you recognize that Communism brought about industrialization in Russia and paved the way for freedom and democracy. Maybe in a few days when you calm down you'll see that Communism and Pinochet are directly comparable for the reasons you've stated.
I've showed you why economic and political freedom where the goals of Pinochet's regime while economic and political oppression were the goals of Communism is Russia. Of course they didn't call it that, though.


Humans do not have to be identical (in ability and desire) in order to be equal.
If you want to eliminate inequality, as Communism strives to, one must forcefully curtail the individual freedoms that create inequality. Man must be oppressed to be equal, to the extent that they are desired to be in Communism.

The fact that those systems don't meet the definition of communism means those systems weren't communism. You do realize you don't get to pick what the definition of an ideology is, and neither do any of its opponents.
Given that, as other Communists/pro-Communists have shown in this thread, there is no single explanation of how Communism will come about (what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat will look like) it can be claimed (and indeed it was) that all those states were simply in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage and thus, were Communist in ideology, or on the road to Communism.


Slavery absolutely caused societies to thrive. The Roman Empires, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Egypt come to mind. You know those big pyramid thingies they have? Couldn't have been done without a thriving society.
Right but during that time slavery was considered ok by general society. You are judging the morals of the past by the views of today. Wars of territorial aggression (taking their land 'cuz we can) used to be a perfectly natural way of state-expansion, but is looked upon negatively today.

The beauty of language is that you can both call for my torture and still cowardly hide behind what you are calling for. Beautiful, huh? ;)

Now, now, no putting words about what I may or not hope you undergo in my mouth.

Now, now, no putting words about what I may or not hope you undergo in my mouth.
Well I guess we're ok because I have called for Economic and Political Freedom.

You hope I will endure economic and political freedom, then? :p

That's awfully caring of you but I already 'endure' that. Quite alot of it, thank you. Much more so than you probably do in your, eh, developing country.

Thus I'll hope you endure economic and political freedom. You're in more need of it than I am.

Well I guess we're ok because I have called for Economic and Political Freedom.

You hope I will endure economic and political freedom, then? :p

That's awfully caring of you but I already 'endure' that. Quite alot of it, thank you. Much more so than you probably do in your, eh, developing country.

Thus I'll hope you endure economic and political freedom. You're in more need of it than I am.

Well, as I said, my statement is yours to interpret as you see fit, is it not?

As for me? I'm a freelancer. You don't get more economically free than that without living in an anarchy.

Well, as I said, my statement is yours to interpret as you see fit, is it not?
I've interpreted it above.
As for me? I'm a freelancer. You don't get more economically free than that without living in an anarchy.
I didn't ask your profession. I told you that you live in a developing country that could use alot more economic freedom.

Brazil's economic freedom score is 56.7, making its economy the 105th freest in the 2009 Index. Its modest gain in financial freedom was largely offset by poorer government spending and fiscal freedom scores. Brazil is ranked 21st out of 29 countries in the South and Central America/Caribbean region, and its overall score is well below the regional average.

Brazil is a regional economic power and has achieved moderate but stable economic growth. Lower inflation has contributed to macroeconomic stability, and high commodity prices have helped export performance. Bank credit has continued to grow as well.

However, the state presence remains heavy in many areas of the economy. The efficiency and overall quality of government services remain poor despite high government spending as a percentage of GDP. The overall tax burden is high in comparison to other developing countries. The high cost of credit and frequent regulatory changes impede private investment. Regulatory inflexibility makes starting a business take much longer than the world average. The judicial system and other areas of the public sector are inefficient and vulnerable to corruption.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Brazil

Well, since I understand your mistrust of Pinochet, let's test his claim, shall we?

Pinochet's claim: I am taking power in order to bring stability, remove Communism, re-introduce capitalism and give economic power back to the people away from the government and safeguard democracy until the country is stable enough for it.

The result of Pinochet's regime: Stability. Removal of Communism. Re-introduction of capitalism. Mass privitazations. Democracy re-instated.

Executions. Torture. Dictatorship. Sounds like democracy and freedom to me!

Sorry, both you and Pinochet appear to be 100% full of shit. You're like "right to lifers" who are into bomb abortion clinics. You apparently cannot - or choose not - to see the obvious, blatant hypocrisy.

Thus, we can see that Pinochet was true to his claims.

I think what "we" are really arguing with is your psychological defense mechanisms.

His regime didn't collapse. He allowed himself to be voted out of power. Is it possible that you cannot see the difference?

Is it possible that your endless series of gushing fanboy euphemisms don't mean a thing to anyone but yourself?

No. Pinochet's goal was a capitalistic and democratic Chile, where as the Bolsheviks goal was not a capitalistic and democratic Russia/Soviet Union.

So, Pinochet "deliberately" brought capitalism and democracy to Chile (through brutality and dictatorship), while the Communists "accidentally" brought capitalism and democracy to Russia (through the same thing). Ooh, what a huge difference.

I'm sorry? You seemed to imply that I was flaming you, which is why you responded in flaming me. I'd love to see where I "dished it out" / flamed you. . .

What you choose to think I imply is a product of your own flawed reasoning. No surprises there.

You gladly push people's buttons - flamebaiting, if you want to get mod-technical, begging to be flamed, and then "blushing with pride" and spamming happy-emoticons when you get what you wanted.

And since you chose to focus on that - to the exclusion of argument - it seems like dishing it out (passive-aggressively, of course) is what you're about here. And frankly that makes more sense than the idea that anyone - even you - could honestly believe the dribbling horseshit that you're spewing.

I've showed you why economic and political freedom where the goals of Pinochet's regime while economic and political oppression were the goals of Communism is Russia. Of course they didn't call it that, though.

You've showed me self-serving, moronic lies from the filthy mouth of a fucking criminal dictator. Do you think that's any more persuasive than someone like Andadras bleating on about Stalin's awesome awesomeness?


Given that, as other Communists/pro-Communists have shown in this thread, there is no single explanation of how Communism will come about (what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat will look like) it can be claimed (and indeed it was) that all those states were simply in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage and thus, were Communist in ideology, or on the road to Communism.

Yeah, funny how the Communists have this "dictatorship phase" they think is necessary, and Pinochet had a "transitional phase" of dictatorship you think is necessary. Yet another connection you share - defense of brutal dictatorships based on half-baked pseudo-ideology. Both trying (pathetically) to convince people that hey, dictatorship wasn't so bad, hey, it wasn't really a dictatorship, hey, the dictator himself said it was cool.

Fuck that with a knife.

This whole thread is an example of how you are every bit as bad as the communists you pretend to be superior to. The only marginal difference you've managed to point out? - the communists didn't pretend to support freedom. So congratulations - you're a hypocrite AND you support dictatorships.

I didn't ask your profession. I told you that you live in a developing country that could use alot more economic freedom.

I didn't ask your opinion of how my country's economy would fare better or worse. That's up to Brazilians.

I didn't ask your opinion of how my country's economy would fare better or worse. That's up to Brazilians.
Well, technically, it's not "up to Brazilians" anymore than it's "up to Americans" how America's economy does or up to "English" how the English economy does, we are all part of world trade and a globalized economy.

And to be honest, call this whatever you want, an apology or a moment of weakness, but I didn't mean to sound like such a jerk when I said the previous post you are replying to. I re-read it and it sounded much more condescending than I was comfortable with.

Brazil actually has been doing rather well with its export business and I really think its wonderful that its coming around to realizing that its very important to protect the Amazon.

And to be honest, call this whatever you want, an apology or a moment of weakness, but I didn't mean to sound like such a jerk when I said the previous post you are replying to. I re-read it and it sounded much more condescending than I was comfortable with.

Brazil actually has been doing rather well with its export business and I really think its wonderful that its coming around to realizing that its very important to protect the Amazon.

Duly noted.

Duly noted.
Good. A bit of a neutral stiff reply but a non-negative reply nonetheless. . .

I think I shall try a new phase called "thaw the ice of the TAI-Heikoku relationship". . .If Reagan and Gorby could do it, why can't we?


I call Reagan, you Commie:p

If you want to eliminate inequality, as Communism strives to, one must forcefully curtail the individual freedoms that create inequality. Man must be oppressed to be equal, to the extent that they are desired to be in Communism.Incorrect. In order to eliminate inequality, one must create the individual freedoms that currently don't exist and therefore causes inequality.

Given that, as other Communists/pro-Communists have shown in this thread, there is no single explanation of how Communism will come about (what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat will look like) it can be claimed (and indeed it was) that all those states were simply in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage and thus, were Communist in ideology, or on the road to Communism. Certainly, there is no single explanation of how Communism will come about. This, however, does not detract from the definition of what communism is.
A system is not equal to the process used to create the system. As people have tried to explain to you when comparing Pinochet to the Bolsheviks.

Right but during that time slavery was considered ok by general society. You are judging the morals of the past by the views of today. Wars of territorial aggression (taking their land 'cuz we can) used to be a perfectly natural way of state-expansion, but is looked upon negatively today.Your argument earlier seemed to be that if a system thrived, it is good. I gave a counter-example of a system thriving.
Should I now take it that you believe that simply because a system thrives, it isn't good?

Pinochet was a fascist dictator. That anyone holds him up as an example of "free-market democracy" is laughable at best and fucking offensive at worst.

Pinochet wasn't a fascist. A right-wing tyrant, but not a fascist; it's possible to be the former without also being the latter (although he was a big admirer of Francisco Franco).

Saddam was elected....

Only once, in 1995, after being in power 16 years. Even then, he was the only candidate.

I didn't ask your opinion of how my country's economy would fare better or worse. That's up to Brazilians.

^ This.

Good. A bit of a neutral stiff reply but a non-negative reply nonetheless. . .

I think I shall try a new phase called "thaw the ice of the TAI-Heikoku relationship". . .If Reagan and Gorby could do it, why can't we?


I call Reagan, you Commie:p

Just like Roosevelt and Stalin?

Pinochet wasn't a fascist. A right-wing tyrant, but not a fascist; it's possible to be the former without also being the latter (although he was a big admirer of Francisco Franco).

Same as Chávez is. He is an admirer of Franco and that people can admire such a tyrant makes me want to hurl.

Same as Chávez is. He is an admirer of Franco and that people can admire such a tyrant makes me want to hurl.

Really!? Maybe its just the US Propaganda or something, but Ive been led to believe he's a Commie, :confused:

Really!? Maybe its just the US Propaganda or something, but Ive been led to believe he's a Commie, :confused:

Who, Hugo? I'm not sure, really. All I know is that he admires Franco, and that, in my book, is bad enough.

Who, Hugo? I'm not sure, really. All I know is that he admires Franco, and that, in my book, is bad enough.

Yeah, Hugo, and, cant argue with you there, nobody wants to glorify Fascist Spain that Ive met...

Yeah, Hugo, and, cant argue with you there, nobody wants to glorify Fascist Spain that Ive met...

Well, I'm not sure if Hugo is a commie, as you stated. Sometimes I think he is, but his country isn't classified as a Communist country, at least not that I know of. Perhaps Aelosia can shed more light into this.

Some Spaniards from the ''Old Guard'', as we call them, do wish to glorify Fascist Spain. To the chagrin of many who wish to forget, of course.

Some Spaniards from the ''Old Guard'', as we call them, do wish to glorify Fascist Spain. To the chagrin of many who wish to forget, of course.

Please tell me these idiots are mocked.

Please tell me these idiots are mocked.

They are and more. But they exist. It's rather sad.

They are and more. But they exist. It's rather sad.

Oh, "and more"? Tell me more. :D

Oh, "and more"? Tell me more. :D

They're ignored and mostly ostracized. Sometimes, if the place in question was hit hard by Franco's policies, people there refuse to attend to these Fascist glorifiers. It can be sad, you know. A lot of people that suffered directly under Franco are still alive and it infuriates them that some Spaniards glorify Franco.

Sometimes, if the place in question was hit hard by Franco's policies, people there refuse to attend to these Fascist glorifiers.

If some of these places are hospitals, the problem should soon solve itself.

If some of these places are hospitals, the problem should soon solve itself.

Oh no. With hospitals there's the ethics problem. They can't refuse to assist them in they need medical help. One can dream, though.:D

Oh no. With hospitals there's the ethics problem. They can't refuse to assist them in they need medical help. One can dream, though.:D

Okay: If some of these places sell food...

Okay: If some of these places sell food...

Lace the food with poison. LOL!

Lace the food with poison. LOL!

I was thinking starving them, but I see you're one step ahead.

Same as Chávez is. He is an admirer of Franco and that people can admire such a tyrant makes me want to hurl.

While less intelligent, is not Chávez as much of a dictator as Castro? :confused:

Who, Hugo? I'm not sure, really. All I know is that he admires Franco, and that, in my book, is bad enough.

A socialist who admires Franco? Did he not use "fascist" as an insult against Spain's Prime Minister, prompting Juan Carlos to tell him to "shut up"?

While less intelligent, is not Chávez as much of a dictator as Castro? :confused:

Not quite. Venezuela has opposition parties, freedom of movement, relatively free speech (Venezuelans criticize the government all the time online with impunity), freedom of religion (although Cuba has admittedly improved in this area, for the most part, since the early 1990s), etc. Venezuela is hardly a shining beacon of liberal democracy, but it's a lot freer than Cuba.

Please tell me these idiots are mocked.

Not to worry, H2, fascists in Spain are an extremely tiny and inconsequential minority - a mere nuisance, at worst.

A socialist who admires Franco? Did he not use "fascist" as an insult against Spain's Prime Minister, prompting Juan Carlos to tell him to "shut up"?

Castro was once a Mussolini admirer, and IIRC he honored Franco after his death.

Just like Roosevelt and Stalin?
Nah, Roosevelt and Stalin came together only for the moment in the face of danger from a larger threat.

I picked Gorby and Reagan because they represented different ideologies, different worlds, yet decided to change the relationship between their two nations.

To be honest, I've realized how absurd it is to have such tension (or whatever you want to call it) exist over the internet between two people who don't actually know each other.

The point is, I am saying that how things are now, the constant bickering, it doesn't actually improve anything. Thus I am taking the first action in realizing that all our fighting does is derail otherwise interesting threads, go nowhere, and in general piss people off along the way. It is juvenile and rude, and I see no reason why Heikoku and I must engage each other like two immortal swordsmen, stabbing at each other until judgement day.

So as a gesture of peace, Heikoku I extend the olive branch. What happens now is in your hands.

http://images0.cafepress.com/product/199061910v15_350x350_Front.jpg

http://www.france24.com/en/20090412-opposition-vows-new-protests-over-alleged-election-fraud-voronin

Reports from The Electoral Commission states "voters who died 15-20 years ago" in the voter list:

Moldova's opposition vowed Saturday to hold new protests against election results after riots earlier this week, amid charges that journalists and students were detained during demonstrations.

The opposition also rejected President Vladimir Voronin's proposal for a recount of the parliamentary polls, as members of the electoral commission alleged that dead people appeared on voter lists.

Voronin also faced pressure from the United States and European Union to respect the right to protest following post-election rioting on Tuesday which saw nearly 200 arrests.

An alliance of opposition parties said they were calling new demonstrations in the capital of this impoverished ex-Soviet state on Sunday morning against the official results of last weekend's polls.

Voronin on Friday called for a recount to restore trust in the process following the polls to choose a new parliament that will select his successor.

But on Saturday opposition leaders said the problem was less with the count than with other irregularities such as the inclusion on voter lists of numerous deceased residents.

"The opposition is not interested in the vote recount that the president of Moldova's Communist Party, Vladimir Voronin, demanded," said the leader of the Alliance Our Moldova, Serafim Urekian, at a joint opposition news conference.

"This is a trick intended to play for time," he said.

He said the election commission agreed to let the opposition inspect voter lists, but the four days allowed was insufficient for the task.

The Communists cemented their eight-year dominance of Moldovan politics in the weekend polls, gaining 60 of the 101 seats in the new parliament.

The electoral commission approved Saturday the final results of the polls, which will be handed to the constitutional court. But three of the panel's nine members charged that there were "serious violations."

One of the three members, Mikhail Busulac, said voter lists included people who "died 15 to 20 years ago" and denounced the "abusive use of administration resources by the party in power."

The unrest has caused anxiety in the EU over the potential for instability in this divided eastern European nation.

"I welcome the return to calm in the streets of Chisinau," EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said in a statement on Saturday.

"At this stage, it is important that all involved keep avoiding the use of force or inflammatory rhetoric, and that the Moldovan authorities guarantee full respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, including the rights of peaceful assembly, access to information and expression, in line with Moldova’s international commitments," she said.

The opposition claims that hundreds of young activists were arrested during the rioting and many of them beaten, in some cases in apparent retaliation for helping foreign journalists. The authorities have not responded to the claims.

"We are concerned particularly about detention of journalists and students without apparent basis and about pressures on teachers to prevent their students from participation in demonstrations," US Ambassador Asif Chaudhry said in an interview with the Moldovan news agency Infotag.

"We saw credible television reports about cases when journalists and students had been detained and beaten. Such cases, including mistreatment and intimidation of journalists or any other citizen, should not take place in a democracy."

The US and EU diplomats welcomed Voronin's proposal to hold a recount and the electoral commission's decision to let the opposition review voter lists.

"Both are important steps to consolidate confidence and need to be conducted in appropriate conditions," Ferrero-Waldner said.



http://www.france24.com/en/20090412-opposition-vows-new-protests-over-alleged-election-fraud-voronin

Same as Chávez is. He is an admirer of Franco and that people can admire such a tyrant makes me want to hurl.

So when he called Aznar a fascist it was a compliment? Really?

Edit: I did not look very carefully, but the Google references I found that were relevant at all seemed only to reference the incident with the Spanish King, with Franco mentioned in the context of Juan Carlos's history. I'm fairly sure that Chávez is not an admirer of Franco. Among other things, it breaks entirely with the explicit connections he has sought to make with the historic left: the Spanish Civil War is a bit of an icon.

Voronin also faced pressure from the United States and European Union to respect the right to protest following post-election rioting on Tuesday which saw nearly 200 arrests.Do the protestors have the proper permits?

I was thinking starving them, but I see you're one step ahead.
Shut up

So when he called Aznar a fascist it was a compliment? Really?

You're talking about Spain's current leadership.

Edit: I did not look very carefully, but the Google references I found that were relevant at all seemed only to reference the incident with the Spanish King, with Franco mentioned in the context of Juan Carlos's history. I'm fairly sure that Chávez is not an admirer of Franco. Among other things, it breaks entirely with the explicit connections he has sought to make with the historic left: the Spanish Civil War is a bit of an icon.

Yes, Hugo is an admirer of Franco. He has always been an admirer of El Caudillo de España.

You're talking about Spain's current leadership.

No, I'm talking about Chávez. If he were actually an admirer of Franco, calling Aznar a fascist would presumably be a compliment.

Yes, Hugo is an admirer of Franco. He has always been an admirer of El Caudillo de España.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

Hmm, what about this (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/la-fg-chavez17nov17,0,3044463.story)?

"On Wednesday, Venezuela's state-run television channel replayed documentary footage showing Juan Carlos standing in the 1970s with Spain's fascist ruler, Francisco Franco, and describing the king as the late dictator's lackey."

So this wasn't actually an attempt to smear Juan Carlos after he told Chávez to shut up? It was actually actually a goodwill compliment to the King and his steadfast loyalty to the good of Spain?

Out of curiosity, do you have any evidence at all for your statement?

No, I'm talking about Chávez. If he were actually an admirer of Franco, calling Aznar a fascist would presumably be a compliment.

He called Aznar a fascist because he alleges Spanish businessmen sponsored the failed 2002 coup.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

Currently looking for the source in English.

Currently looking for the source in English.

Spanish will do.

Spanish will do.

http://unatemporadaenelinfierno.net/2006/12/04/hugo-chavez-heredero-de-franco-y-las-traduciones-absolutistas-y-fascistas/

CULTO A LA MUERTE Y CAUDILLISMO FRANQUISTA

¿Cómo analiza entonces a Hugo Chávez, a quien se acusa de mucho de lo que acaba de mencionar?

Lo que hace Chávez en Venezuela es lo mismo que hizo Perón en 1955 y tiene mucho que ver con las dictaduras del cincuenta. Algunos piensan que es de izquierda, pero Chávez tiene características más de la derecha, más del fascismo, que exalta al caudillo carismático: monopoliza el discurso, divide la sociedad en dos… Como decía el fascismo: el que está en contra del fascismo está en contra de Italia. Lo mismo hace Chávez: el que está en contra del bolivarianismo está en contra de Venezuela.

También está presente en Chávez el culto a la violencia, el culto a la muerte, el negar la división en partidos… ¿Sabés cuál es la diferencia cuando un liberal, un conservador y un populista se enteran de que la mujer les ha sido infiel? El conservador la mata a la mujer y a lo mejor se suicida; el liberal se divorcia y sigue siendo amigo de la mujer; y el populista se va a apedrear la embajada norteamericana. Insisto: el populismo es la forma moderna del patrimonialismo.

No me acuse de populista, pero eso que acaba de decir también me hace recordar algún discurso reciente estadounidense.

Es que sí, tiene algunas cosas de izquierda, pero tiene más de derecha. Y el populismo es buscar un enemigo afuera, difuso y decirle a la gente: “Hay un enemigo foráneo, y yo los voy a defender a ustedes”. Y eso, para volver a lo mismo, es español también. Franco era así: “Caudillo de España por la gracia de Dios”.

Chávez is known and he calls himself as ''El Caudillo de América''. And he was a fan of La Falange.

Chávez is known and he calls himself as ''El Caudillo de América''. And he was a fan of La Falange.

What does that mean?

http://unatemporadaenelinfierno.net/2006/12/04/hugo-chavez-heredero-de-franco-y-las-traduciones-absolutistas-y-fascistas/

So by "Chávez is an admirer of Franco" you mean "Third parties quoted in an interview have accused him of being similar to Franco in his political style"?

Chávez is known and he calls himself as ''El Caudillo de América''.

I'm not sure if this is true either, but I also know that "caudillo" is a term with a history of its own in Latin America.