Fuck Ché Guevara

Discussion in 'Communism' started by goldmund, Jan 26, 2005.

  1. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think banning free speech, free press, freedom of association, and having a dictator run the country for decades before handing power over to his brother is “bad”.
    Yes.
    Yes, Che was more extreme, orthodox left.
    Look at Taiwan or South Korea compared to China or North Korea - similar (or divided) countries where one half was communist and the other capitalist. The communists killed the rich people and "freed" the protelariat, while in Taiwan and South Korea, US friendly dictatorships and capitalism ruled. Five decades later, the US allies are prosperous, free, and democratic. They are among the biggest development success stories in recent history. On the other hand, the communists - China and North Korea - were disasters.

    So when you look at Cuba, ask yourself why the country couldn’t have turned out like Chile or Costa Rica? Ask why you are blaming a regime from half a century ago to justify continuing repression and economic stagnation?
    Take a step back – you are celebrating the execution of class enemies by firing squad. Is this the glorious revolution you are looking forward to?
    That is, beyond the slightest doubt, complete and utter crap. You know its crap. Anything published in Cuba can be read in the US. Is the reverse true? NO. You need a permit to have an internet connection in Cuba, if you access the internet without a permit you can get a five year prison sentence (not that anyone can access it anyway, with one of the lowest rates of internet penetration in the world and by far the lowest in Latin America), your usage is restricted and monitored. Are you trying to tell me that Cubans should feel sorry for YOU because YOU have it so much harder than them with “consumerised” media? That’s beyond ridiculous.

    There is NO free press in Cuba, 26 journalists are currently in prison there. Yet you praise this regime.
    Why don’t yu think Cubans deserve the freedoms you enjoy? That’s what I want to know.
     
  2. floydianslip6

    floydianslip6 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's all of it in a nut shell right there. Most people that idolize him are ignorant of what he actually did anyways. Che's legacy and symbol have everything to do with fighting for what you believe in, correct or neigh.
     
  3. duckandmiss

    duckandmiss Pastafarian

    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    1

    Che was in no way a war monger. When the revolution was over he threw himself headlong into his assigned proletarian job ( it was in a mill? I forget) like a true Communist. He was a headstrong idealist that sought to show a true Communist example to those around him. He did not enjoy the bougiose posts of government because he felt as though the change that came from that way was too slow. His leaving cuba many years after the revolution was in order to spearhead revolutionary campaigns in the Congo and Bolivia, countries that had already began Communist revolutions. The thing about Che was that through his life actions he showed that he deeply believed in the communism he was fighting to replace the deeply corrupt American puppet government with.

    Che was the arm of Castro.
    “ Che convinced Castro with competence, diplomacy and patience. When grenades were needed, Che set up a factory to make them. When bread was wanted, Che set up ovens to bake it. When new recruits needed to learn tactics and discipline, Che taught them. When a school was needed to teach peasants to read and write, Che organized it. ”

    — Time Magazine: "Castro's Brain", 1960 [23]
     
  4. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why did he go fight wars in other countries?

    He enslaved Cuba, and when that job was done he tried to enslave other countries.

    Being a communist is no better than being a Nazi.
     
  5. duckandmiss

    duckandmiss Pastafarian

    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    1

    You may have heard that the US has an embargo in place against Cuba. US companies may not trade with Cuba. US citizens are prohibited from travelling to Cuba (except under special circumstances). Congress has passed a bill that makes the embargo even stronger, and imposes sanctions against any country that trades with Cuba.

    A embargo is something that we normally do in times of war. Sometimes we use an embargo against a country whose misconduct has been condemned by the international community, but that is not the case with Cuba. Why are we at war with Cuba?

    We have taken the most drastic measures imaginable against a country that poses virtually no threat to us. We have invaded Cuba (more than once), we have tried to asassinate Fidel Castro (many times), we have a naval base at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba (how would you feel if Russia had a military base on the US mainland?). We are attempting to starve children and other civilians. Why?

    I am not a communist, and I am not defending Cuba or its political and economic systems. I just don't understand why we are at war with them. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get even a plausible answer to why we have an embargo against Cuba. Here are some of the (not so plasible) answers that I have come up with.

    Because they are communist.
    Well, China is communist and we trade with them (China even has most favored nation trading status, and until after Nixon went there we wouldn't even recognize them as the legitimate government). We trade with Vietnam and most other communist countries (what's left of 'em). We even traded with the Soviet Union back when they were our sworn enemy.

    Because they are close friends of the evil Soviet Empire, and are only 75 miles from our coastline.
    Someone forgot to tell the US State Department that there isn't an evil Soviet Empire anymore. We are even giving aid to Russia now. And the Soviet Union itself was closer to the US than Cuba is (honest! only a few miles from Alaska).

    Because they make really good cigars.
    Hey, this one is actually almost plausible. After all, a major sponsor of the bills to make the embargo stronger is Jesse Helms, the (wacko) senator from North Carolina (a state whose economy is dependent on tobacco). Go figure.
    We have hated them for so long, we have forgotten the reasons.
    If we suddenly changed our minds and started trading with Cuba, it would be embarassing to us. We might have had reasons to hate them in the past: The Soviet Union used to rub our face in Cuba; Fidel snubbed his nose at us, and got away with it. It seems like the only thing the US government can't forgive is being laughed at. We have forgiven Russia, China, and Vietnam, but we cannot forgive Cuba.

    Politics.
    To me, this is the most likely reason. In the US, small but fanatical groups can wield disproportionate polical power (this was built into the constitution on purpose, to protect the interests of minorities). There is a large Cuban-American population in Florida that absolutely hates Fidel Castro. Many of these people have reason to hate Castro -- they were rich landowners or businessmen who had their property seized during the Cuban revolution in the late 50's, and some have had family members imprisoned or tortured. These people will automatically vote against anyone who displays any sympathy with Cuba. I have heard that if this bloc had voted against Clinton in Clinton's first run for president, then he would have lost Florida. And if Clinton had lost the electoral votes of Florida, then he would have lost the election. Because most people in the US don't care about Cuba (or even know much about it), it is easier for the politicians to appease this bloc and avoid making them angry.
    The only way this stupidity can stop is if the rest of the country wakes up and starts asking why we are at war with Cuba.

    Here are some reasons we should end the embargo with Cuba.

    Because we look stupid.
    We are interfering with the affairs of a separate country. It doesn't matter if we don't like Castro -- it is not up to us to choose the leaders of other countries. There are countries with far worse leaders, and we don't have embargos against them. If Cuban-Americans really want democracy restored to Cuba, then the last thing they should want is the US deciding who can or cannot be in charge there.

    Because it is illegal.
    The United Nations has condemned the US embargo against Cuba. The vote was every-country-in-the-world versus 2 (the US and Israel, and Israel was probably pressured by us). The embargo makes us look like a meddling imperialist bully of the worst kind.

    Because it is wrong.
    If you have ever wondered about the reasons why some people in the world don't like us yankees, here is a pretty darn good example. We are supposed to be the good guys.

    Because it isn't working.
    The effect of the embargo has been to make the Cuban people hate our government, not their government. In fact, it is pretty obvious that Fidel would be much less popular if he didn't have the US to blame for his country's problems.

    Because we are missing a business opportunity.
    Cuba is a prime market for US trade. Because we are the only country that doesn't trade with Cuba, we are missing this opportunity. Instead, Japan, Canada, and Mexico are doing lively business down there.
     
  6. duckandmiss

    duckandmiss Pastafarian

    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    1
    He fought wars in the Congo and Bolivia because there was already a Communist uprising. He left Congo because he felt the people in the revolution we not serious about it and he then went to Bolivia to aid and train and was killed in captivity by a planted CIA agent.

    Che did not enslave anyone. Where do you think all of the soldiers of the revolution of Cuba came from? They were willing volunteers who joined with Castro's army in the sierras to fight Battista's army. This is a documented fact. Che wasnt like Arnold in Commando taking down the whole island by himself. The people who wanted to leave Cuba were people who profited under Battista ( an American puppet dictator) who allowed American companies and Mob families to overrun the country.

    The communist ideal was a great idea, unfortunately the only time we have ever seen true communism in action has been in small sect of monks in Europe. Soviet and Chinese communism was flawed and even Che thought so to some degree.

    As for your last statement. Communism is quite the opposite of fascism.
    Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. Fascism is a government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition. In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.

    These are facts. Read a Biography of him. There is one called CHE thats pretty unbiased. Read bio of JFK too. Both were great men in different ways.
     
  7. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually it was significantly loosened under Clinton, the US is now Cuba's sixth largest trading partner and is the largest exporter of food to Cuba ($600m in 2007).
    We are not at war with Cuba, and in case you didn't notice Cuba's repression of basic human rights has been condemned by the international community.
    And Cuba has tried to spread its revolution and overthrow other governments too.
    The US isn't occupying the land, they are there legally.
    We are starving them by sending them $600m worth of food?
    Because Miami Cubans support it. Personally, I'm against the embargo. I have always been against it.
     
  8. mykittyhasaboner

    mykittyhasaboner Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes these things are bad, but they were done by castro

    want to be a little more specific than that? orthodox left can mean a lot of different things. che was farther left because he believed in actual socialism, while castro abandoned his cause after the revolution.


    china and north korea are not really socialist countries. just like cuba they have been socialist only in name. im not defending regimes, i have no respect for repressive regimes, quit accusing me of things i didnt say. south korea, and taiwan have only succeeded in taking a feudalist society, and dividing its people even further. the living standards raising in these countries is at the expense of their "communist" counter parts. the very reason why these capitalist countries are "successful" as you say is because of the United States, who have backed MORE oppressive regimes than cuba in latin america. (ever here of pinochet, noriega?) "democracy" in the US is bullshit. democracy means YOUR voice is heard, and YOU have a direct effect on decisions that affect YOUR life, not your electronic check on a likley tampered machine, to vote for some filthy rich politician.

    no, the someone dying is something that im not looking forward to, and nothing is 'glorious' about revolution. piss off with your petty insults.

    no, cubans should not feel sorry for me, once again, you really missed my point. cubas government is shit. i fucking know this. im pointing out that the US government is shit. no matter how much "freedoms" you think you have, that cannot justify how many innocent, and enemy lives the US has taken. cuba's charge sheet wouldnt come to close the that of the US.

    "the freedoms i enjoy" came at the expense of countless lives, and the current exploitation of the working class around the world. these petty freedoms that you speak of is not worth the countless loss of life and destruction the us has caused. you constantly accuse me of praising an oppressive machine, with out me even saying so. why are YOU supporting the one of the most murderous governments of all time?
     
  9. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think you get it, Che was not disappointed to see a totalitarian communist state, he just had disputes over what kind of totalitarian communism was best. He was a fan of Maoist China, which was a living hell.
    "Actual socialism", meaning what? Meaning a Great Leap Forward for Cuba, like Che apparently wanted?
    Yeah right! This is the standard communist apology. "You see communism is great, so if you have communism and things aren't great, then you must have done something wrong, it can't really be communism". Its ridiculous. How many countries have tried to implement communism and "oops" accidentally got it wrong and ended up with tyranny and economic stagnation if not ruin? All of them? What terribly bad luck those communists seem to have.
    That is exactly what you are doing. Making excuses for communist regimes, villifiying capitalist ones.
    This is about as far removed from reality as you can get. Do you even know what South Korea or Taiwan were like back in the 1950s? These are rich, free countries today!
    This is getting ridiculous. How is this supposed to make sense? Please explain.
    Costa Rica is wealthier and more free than Cuba because the US supported Noriega? How is that supposed to make sense?
    This kind of cheap cynicism comes easy for people who were born to and live in a free country. I really wish you could meet someone from an actual dictatorship so you can tell them how difficult it is to be in America.
    Then why are you whitewashing Che?
    Err.... no they don't. They actually have nothing to do with each other.
    This is the communism thread, we're discussing a famous communist. I think he was part of a nasty, oppressive, ruinous regime. You keep making excuses for him.
     
  10. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    So? He helped spread a totalitarian ideology. What's to celebrate about that?
    No, he was captured and killed by the Bolivian army.
    I'm not talking about his army. Yes, he had a volunteer army, and it imposed a totalitarian dictatorship on the people of Cuba.
    Who said he was? I'm talking about the people who seized power in Cuba and turned it into a communist dictatorship.
    This is delusional. You think the only people who want to leave Cuba are those who profitted from Battista? That was half a century ago and they are still leaving!

    Don't you get it? Its a dictatorship! Cubans have no freedom, none! They cannot read a newspaper, listen to radio, watch television, or surf the internet unless it is state owned propaganda! They cannot form political parties, vote in meaningful elections, demonstrate, travel, or anything without government permission! There is a vast secret police that imprisons ideological opponents, whether they be journalists or poets or academics or whatever! Even visiting dissidents can get you arrested or thrown out of the country, as Czech visitors found in 2001. And you can't imagine why anyone would want to leave the country? Would you happily listen to 8 hour speeches before lining up to collect your monthly bean quota?
    So its theoretically perfect but has no relevance to the real world, and when you try to apply it, the results are generally catastrophic? Wow, what a brilliant system.
    Flawed? You mean the mass murder was a flaw? The economic ruin? Or just the total lack of basic freedoms? Oh yes, a few flaws all right.
    I never said they were the same, I said they were both bad. Communism has been a catastrophe. You can't just say "oh they meant well" and pretend that somehow excuses the horrific reality of it.
    I look at what he did to Cuba, what he stood for. He was a tyrant who should be reviled, not hero worshipped.
     
  11. mykittyhasaboner

    mykittyhasaboner Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    when i say actual socialism, i mean worker control over the means of production. cuban workers do not have control, which means cuba is not socialist.
    it may seem like a standard communist apology, but its true. no matter what charges anti-communists like yourself pin to communism as an ideology, the charges are unfounded because these countries were NOT SOCIALIST. regimes like china, cuba, soviet union, and north korea have taken the form of state capitalist regimes. which means under the name of "socialism" the state simply abolished private property but kept using money, and hierarchy. none of them ever had complete worker democracy. as for economic stagnation, i would hardly call the industrialization of countries like the soviet union, and china from peasant farming land stagnant. the only regime i find actually could call itself socialist would be yugoslavia. it actually provided a lot of freedom for the people after a monarchy, and fascist murdering machine. so no, not ALL of them are that bad.

    no, i am not making excuses.im pointing out why these "communist countries" have exploited the working class just as bad as capitalist governments.

    so because they are rich and "free", their people arent divided?

    imperialist countries (CCCP, US) are the ones who set up the governments. north korea never had a working class revolution, they were "made socialist" by another country. the proxy wars ensued, and the US won, making the soviet union collapse. north korea was dependent on the soviet union(as alot of "socialist countries" were), thus the "rich and free" south korea came at the expense of north korea. it would be vice versa if the soviet union had won.
    i wanst saying that, i was just saying that the US supported oppressive regimes in latin america.

    "cheap cynicism"? fuck you. opposing a government that kills, and exploits me and my fellow workers is not cheap cynicism. and i HAVE met people that lived in a dictatorship, and IVE BEEN to countries that were formerly run by dictatorships, and there much worse now under capitalist imperialism.

    im not white washing che, he too has made mistakes like every other person with power. i simply appreciate che because he was committed revolutionary, who believed in the worldwide collectivity and justice. he actually tried to spark the world wide revolution, instead of becoming a beaurocratic figure head.
    Bullshit! the various european monarchies who took part in establishing the US, exterminated entire civilizations! and yes the working class is being exploited around the world, CAPITALISM HAS A HIERARCHY! the "freedoms" are for those who can afford them.

    yes che was apart of an oppressive regime, yes he took part in executions. but for supporters of collectivity and people who oppose capitalism, he is an "inspiration for every human being who loves freedom" -Mandela
     
  12. duckandmiss

    duckandmiss Pastafarian

    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    1
    In response to pressure from some American farmers and agribusiness, the embargo was relaxed by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Congress in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The relaxation allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Although Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade having even refused US food aid in the past,[8] seeing it as a half-measure serving U.S. interests, Castro began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle in November 2001. These purchases have continued and grown since then. By now (2007) The US is the largest food supplier of Cuba[9]and its 6th trading partner.
    Spurred by a burgeoning interest in the assumed untapped product demand in Cuba, a growing number of free-marketers in Congress, backed by Western and Great Plains lawmakers who represent agribusiness, have tried each year since 2000 to water down or completely erase regulations preventing Americans from travelling to Cuba. Four times over that time period the United States House of Representatives has adopted language lifting the travel ban, and in 2003 the U.S. Senate followed suit for the first time. However, each time President George W. Bush, has threatened to veto the bill. Faced with a veto threat, each year Congress has dropped its attempt to lift the travel ban. United States nationals can circumvent the ban by traveling to Cuba from a different country (such as Mexico, The Bahamas or Canada), as Cuban immigration authorities do not stamp passports. In doing so, they would risk prosecution by the U.S. government if discovered. On October 10, 2006 the United States announced the creation of a task force made up of officials from several US agencies that will pursue more aggressively violators of the US trade embargo against Cuba, with penalties as severe as 10 years of prison and thousands of dollars in fines for violators of the embargo.[10]


    So. Lets say you were a farmer and you discovered a new way to farm that you liked better. But your neighbor who also made all the farm equipment, didn't like the way you farmed in this new way so they decided not to sell you any farm equipment anymore. So all your farm equipment eventually breaks and you can fix it. Now you cant even farm the way you want on your own land anymore. So now many years later your neighbor says "hey buddy I know your having a hard time and your people need food so here's some food." Originally you say "fuck you, your the reason we can't make our own food." but eventually you give in and take the food because you know your people need it. But you still cant fix your own machines to make your own food. Just because your neighbor doesn't like the way you farm.

    Castro has even refused aid from the US at first because of the self-serving nature of the aid. If the US really wanted to be civil they would lift the embargo and allow real trade of all items just like with communist China and allow the Cuba to flourish as it would. But the US wants to see Castro vilified and the country remain in the stone age. Do we do this to China? China has hundreds of reports of human rights violations, they are murdering Tibetans, displacing families for the Olympics. But yet I still see even at work, that made on China sticker on every import, yet still can't get a Cuban cigar legally.

    Whether or not you like communism makes no difference, it is not our decision to decide what the government in Cuba does. That was our mistake in the first place with our forced coups and puppet governments in South America. We created the revolution in Cuba. There were enough volunteers and people who agreed with the revolution to make it happen.
    We were continually involved in south american affairs.

    Félix Rodríguez, a CIA operative, claims that he headed the hunt for Guevara in Bolivia.[84] On October 7, an informant apprised the Bolivian Special Forces of the location of Guevara's guerrilla encampment in the Yuro ravine. They encircled the area, and Guevara was wounded and taken prisoner while leading a detachment with Simeón Cuba Sarabia. Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson reports Bolivian Sergeant Bernardino Huanca's account: that a twice wounded Guevara, his gun rendered useless, shouted "Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead."[85]
    Guevara was tied up and taken to a dilapidated schoolhouse in the nearby village of La Higuera. Early on October 9, the day after his capture, Barrientos ordered that he be killed. The executioner was Mario Terán, a sergeant in the Bolivian army who had drawn a short straw after arguments over who would get the honor of shooting Guevara broke out among the soldiers. To make the bullet wounds appear consistent with the story the government planned to release to the public, Félix Rodríguez ordered Terán to aim carefully to make it appear that Guevara had been killed in action during a clash with the Bolivian army.[86]
    Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked if he was thinking about his own immortality. "No," he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution."[87] Che Guevara also allegedly said to his executioner, "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."[88] Terán hesitated, then pulled the trigger of his semiautomatic rifle, hitting Guevara in the arms and legs. Guevara writhed on the ground, apparently biting one of his wrists to avoid crying out. Terán shot him again, this time hitting him fatally in the thorax – at 1:10 pm, according to Rodríguez.[89]
    His body was then lashed to the landing skids of a helicopter and flown to nearby Vallegrande where photographs were taken, showing a figure described by some as "Christ-like" lying on a concrete slab in the laundry room of the Nuestra Señora de Malta hospital.[90]
    A declassified memorandum dated October 11, 1967 to President Lyndon B. Johnson from his senior adviser, Walt Rostow, called the decision to kill Guevara “stupid” but “understandable from a Bolivian standpoint.”[91] After the execution, Rodríguez took several of Guevara's personal items, including a watch which he continued to wear many years later, often showing them to reporters during the ensuing years.[92] Today, some of these belongings, including his flashlight, are on display at the CIA.[93] After a military doctor amputated his hands, Bolivian army officers transferred Guevara's cadaver to an undisclosed location and refused to reveal whether his remains had been buried or cremated. The hands were preserved in formaldehyde to be sent to Buenos Aires for fingerprint identification. (His fingerprints were on file with the Argentine police.) They were later sent to Cuba. On October 15, Castro acknowledged that Guevara was dead and proclaimed three days of public mourning throughout the island.[94] On October 18, Castro addressed a crowd of almost one million people in Havana and spoke about Guevara's character as a revolutionary.[95]


    Che also was very different than Castro despite the unified public appearances at the time. They cannot be lump into the same person. In 1965 Guevara dropped out of public life and then vanished altogether. His whereabouts were a great mystery in Cuba, as he was generally regarded as second in power to Castro himself. His disappearance was variously attributed to the failure of the industrialization scheme he had advocated while minister of industry, to pressure exerted on Castro by Soviet officials disapproving of Guevara's pro-Chinese Communist stance on the Sino-Soviet split, and to serious differences between Guevara and the pragmatic Castro regarding Cuba's economic development and ideological line. Castro had grown increasingly wary of Guevara's popularity and considered him a potential threat. Castro's critics sometimes say his explanations for Guevara's disappearance have always been suspect.



    We proclaim Che as a revolutionary for his commitment to his ideals and his belief of a better world through abrupt change and doing what he believed must be done to get there. Che represents the very Idea of a revolutionary.
    How many British did Washington and his army kill for an idea? What about Guy Fawkes? Just because it is not an idea you may agree with does not change the measure of the man. I happen to agree with this revolutionary in this case.


    A revolutionary, when used as a noun, is a person who either actively engages in some kind of revolution, or advocates the revolution, with recognition from some government or party which is effectively carrying out a revolution of the same category. The term is usually applied to political revolutionaries or social revolutionaries, and less frequently used to revolutionary scientists, inventors, and artists. In the political context, the term "revolutionary" is often used in contrast to the term reformist. While a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt change, a reformist is someone who supports more gradual change. When used as an adjective, revolutionary refers to something that has a major, sudden impact on society or on some aspect of human endeavor. Political revolutionaries may be classified in two ways:
    According to the goals of the revolution or a certain ideology. In theory, each ideology could generate its own brand of revolutionaries. In practice, most political revolutionaries have been either liberals, nationalists, socialists, communists, fascists or anarchists.
    According to the methods they propose to use. Those who advocate a violent revolution, and those who are pacifists. Perhaps the best known examples of these two types of revolutionaries are Che Guevara and Mahatma Gandhi, respectively [2].
    [edit]
     
  13. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am definitely not getting into this - there are a thousand definitions of socialism, and Marx himself didn't really spell out very well how exactly it was going to work.

    But it brings back my previous point. When COMMUNISTS try to create a COMMUNIST SOCIETY, it is always a disaster. Whether they "achieved real communism" or not is hardly the issue, the point is that in trying to get there they always end up with tyranny and economic stagnation. As I said, you are simply defining communism/socialism as a theoretical ideal, and then whenever it fails you say they must have got something wrong because in theory everything's supposed to be great.
    I could just as easily say that capitalism is supposed to be great, so all of its failings must be caused by the fact that it isn't theoretically pure capitalism.
    Yes, this is the standard excuse. As one economist put it:
    Communism has never been identical in practice - it has been tried many ways, by many societies, some rich some poor. The outcome was always the same though - disaster.
    If communism industrialised China so well, why did it end up vastly poorer than Hong Kong or Taiwan? And at the cost of tens of millions of lives? The same questions could be asked about Russia, which ended up so far behind western Europe despite the sacrifice of millions of lives to Stalinist industrialisation.
    Funny you mention Yugoslavia, since it had "money, heirarchy", and in fact also had trade, emmigration, and even borrowed money internationally. It was the closest of all the socialist states to capitalism, and not coincidentally one of the most prosperous... although it still fell far short of what capitalist countries in western europe were able to achieve.
    Much worse actually, the working class has done far better in capitalist countries. That's because capitalism works.
    You said they took a feudalist society and made it even more divided. This is ridiculous - South Korea and Taiwan are spectacular economic successes, and they are liberal, democratic societies to boot. Sneering at this is ridiculous.
     
  14. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    That makes no sense. Why would North Korea be dependent on anyone? South Korea wasn't dependent on the US. North Korea failed because it followed a failed ideology. South Korea succeeded because capitalism works.

    It makes no sense to blame communism's failings on capitalism, after all if communism was such a superior system why didn't it cause capitalism to fail, instead of the other way around?
    Then how does that explain why Costa Rica is more prosperous and more free than Cuba? The answer is simple, it isn't trying to implement a ridiculous, failed ideology. What is Cuba's excuse for sticking to tyranny and poverty?
    Yeah I'm sure you're real exploited compared to the Cuban plantation labourer who works for a monthly bean quota and dreams of getting things like a telephone. "Exploited" is a bullshit poseur word.
    Oh really, tell me all about it then.
    Except his mistake was to participate in the establishment of a 6 decade hereditary dictatorship which left the country less free than anyone in Latin America.
    But he didn't deliver justice, he delivered tyranny for Cuba and then he tried to spread tyranny.
    Capitalism has raised hundreds of millions out of poverty. It is the only economic system compatible with a liberal democracy. Capitalism works for the working class, socialism is a false promise.
    Its nice that Mandela said it, but it doesn't make much sense does it? He freed nobody, he enslaved a nation.
     
  15. duckandmiss

    duckandmiss Pastafarian

    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because a government is not set up to cause other governments to fail. But the US has a very missionary attitude towards democracy. It's almost like the belief of Christianity, that they have to convert the non-believers. England still has a Parliamentary Democracy. China is a Communist country. Other countries have monarchies. The US has consistently been anti-communist as a result of the Cold War and the Red Scare. The US does not want there too be communism and takes any possible measure to discourage it. But communism has worked for many countries when political and economic pressures have not been consistently applied by us, the biggest superpower there is currently.

    Cuba's excuse for sticking to tyranny and poverty? Most of the people who live there would rather be governed by the person they choose rather than another country. This is an evident problem throughout history.

    Like Ghandi said (another famous revolutionary) I beg you to accept that there is no people on Earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power.

    Che knew this, and knew what would eventually to Cuba as well saying, “Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel!" before he left for the Congo.
    When Cuba's people have become too fed up with Castro there will be more Che Guevera's.
     
  16. mykittyhasaboner

    mykittyhasaboner Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    you have made your point and i agree, the leninists havent done anything right. but other communists have created short lived socialist societies. short lived because capitalism forbids freedom from money and the state.

    true, but pure capitalism wouldnt be great because capitalism is exploitive in nature.
    standard excuse, but once again true.
    because Leninism doesn't work

    while they may have been closer to capitalism as you say, they had worker democracy, and had a gift economy in some areas where farms were collectivized. so you could say they were closer to communism than anyone else too.

    far worse in most cases, in other cases: the paris commune gave the working class more freedom than capitalism, and catalonia/aragon during the spanish civil war was pure collectivity and democracy. and also as i mentioned yugoslavia before. capitalism works the same way you say communism works. it works by exploiting and killing.

    the people of these countries are divided more now because theres a much larger difference in wealth between classes than there was before. while some may in these countries may have gotten richer, there are others who suffer due to capitalism's flaws like inflation and unemployment.
     
  17. mykittyhasaboner

    mykittyhasaboner Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    its true. the soviet union liberated north korea from japan, so like most of eastern europe it became a satellite state of the soviet union. the same goes for the US and South Korea. South Korea succeeded because the US won the cold war. plus north korea has horrible leadership and their "juche" ideology is bullshit.

    because capitalism is supported by thousands of years of government and hierarchy. and the Leninist states didnt eliminate elements of capitalism in their own countries.

    they have no excuse, they want to keep power, so the tyranny ensued. maybe you could say Leninism is a failed ideology, but not communism in general.

    why are you stating the obvious? this has already been established.

    he didnt deliver justice, but tried his very hardest too. thats why i have respect for him.

    it also keeps millions in poverty.

    that simply isnt true.

    he contributed to ending apartheid in South Africa.
     
  18. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    The US is anti-communist because communism is bad.
    Which is the correct approach.
    Name one.
    How can you know that? They can't vote, they can't speech freely, they have no free press, they have no freedom of association. Six decades under Castro and they have never had the chance to vote him out. Cubans who flee Cuba - the only ones free to speak about it - hate Castro with a passion.
    Every other country in Latin America chooses their own government. Cuba is the only dictatorship.
    Che supported regimes far worse than Castro's.
    Or maybe they will reach democracy through peaceful means, as people overthrew communism in eastern Europe?
     
  19. Hiptastic

    Hiptastic Unhedged

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, South Korea succeed because its economic model worked. Its not like North Korea was succeeding until the USSR failed, it was never succeeding. You are making it sound like South Korea's successful development into a prosperous, free democracy had nothing to do with its economic system or government. That makes no sense.
    This is really just dogmatic marxism. Communism works in theory, therefore its better than capitalism, even though it is capitalism that delivers freedom and prosperity in reality.
    But with so many examples of communism, tried by so many countries in so many parts of the world at so many times in history, why does it always fail? Will communism ever run out of excuses?
    This is just wishful thinking, projecting values that you want to see in him. Remember, Che supported regimes far worse than Cuba, like Maoist China. He didnt look at the disaster of Cuban communism and speak out against it, he went and tried to bring it to other countries.
    Its doing a pretty bad job of keeping people in poverty, if you actually look around the developing world.
    Then give me examples.
    Yes, but who did Che free? He helped bring about a hereditary communist dictatorship which is still opressing Cubans six decades later.
     
  20. mykittyhasaboner

    mykittyhasaboner Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    actually, NK's economy grew rapidly after the korean war. their living standards increased greatly, and were one of the most industrialized nations in Asia. BUT this into reverse after the soviet union collapsed in 91, and the country suffered floods to attribute to its economic stagnation.

    dogmatic marxism, sure. but is it not true that capitalism is supported throughout history? theres no denying that.

    Because the world is predominately capitalist. you have to remember that communism is the underdog, and capitalism has had the chance to expand much more. No, communism will never run out of excuses:D[​IMG]

    Wishful thinking maybe, but its true that he believed in the revolution, regardless of what pessimistic thinking you present.
    Are you fucking kidding me? capitalism is doing a damn good job at keeping people in economic turmoil. in the first world, minorities are reduced to predominately populating ghettos because of their immigrant status or race. also, inflation of goods is constantly making it harder to purchase goods, and the monopolies on oil arent exactly helping first world economies. as for the developing world, capitalism's invasion of africa has done nothing but create war, as did the short lived socialist economies. the middle east is being fuckin destroyed now, by capitalism, for their natural resources. the US is creating MORE turmoil in places like iraq and afghanistan. in south america, which is mostly comprised of peasants, capitalism does anything but help them develop. peasantry is not compatible with capitalism, because of the monopolies created by big business farms. keeping many other farmers from making enough money to provide for themselves and their business.

    Catalonia/Aragon during the spanish civil war, Paris Commune, and Yugoslavia had workers democracy.

    he didnt free anybody, but he tried. that was the point.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice