PDA

View Full Version : My thoughts on Pol Pot



Kim Jong Il
02-15-2005, 11:05 AM
You still can't possible uphold Pol Pot. He was a genocidal maniac, even Juche followers acknowledge him as bullshit.

Quite probably, and I am not even that fond of Juche – I only chose the name »Kim Jong Il« so it would fit together with the joke post about living in wheelchairman's pants. I think I made a poor choice.

I should have chosen »Pol Pot« as my nickname, because not only was he a communist, he was a pure and true communist, he was the epitome of communism, much more than even Karl Marx, because Pol Pot put into action a much better form of communism and that which worked, all the communism that Marxism preached failed miserably when put into action, only the communism instituted by Pol Pot has beared most fruit.

Pol Pot was the least tyrannical leader of all time, because he was the only leader in history that allowed the majority of the people that he ruled to do as they please in coformity with their class-consciousness and class-ambitions, the class being the peasantry. I admit that I acknowledge that the leadership of Pol Pot allowed the peasants to exterminate a third of the population of the country (Democratic Kampuchea) so as to exterminate the oppressive and parasitic classes, for the peasantry are truly the only class that is not parasitic and has been most oppressed in all of human history and has remained humble and productive without being a parasite, like all other classes.

By elevating their power to that of dictators, they dictated to their oppressors after the April 1975 revolution that brought them to power under the leadership of Pol Pot and his organization, the Khmer Rouge. The oppressors of peasants were first and foremost the land-lords and then the urbanites and cities and towns themselves, since they were a directly parasitic and repressive toward the peasantry and their existance.

Just because a lot of humans were killed "under the watch" of Pol Pot, that does not necessarily automatically make Pol Pot into a tyrant leader. Anyone that thinks that Pol Pot is among the most tyrannical leaders of all time, needs to seriously read the facts on Pol Pot, not just base their opinion on Pol Pot on the basis of how unpopular he is with the ruling-classes that propagate their anti-polpot rhetoric on television, internet, radio, and etc. for obvious reasons as aforementioned, such as that they must belong to those oppressive and parasitic classes that were greatly exterminated in Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia 1975-1979).

So as I've said before, I see nothing wrong with the killings, because that was the will of the the masses, the overwhelming majority of whom were the peasants and who were oppressed by these urbanites and their technologies and machines and urban living and flirting with foreigners as industrialism requires, this is why I despise the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat are slaves to foreign countries for sources of raw materials to maintain the industries. The definition of proletariat is industrial workers that sell their labour for wages used for purchasing goods for meager existance, though "better" than that of peasants in terms of the proletariat having to do less physically vigorous labour.

Kim Jong Il
02-15-2005, 11:09 AM
Democratic Kampuchea under the leadership of the peasant masses achieved many great things:

End of capitalism
End of unemployment
End of pollution
End of overpopulation centers (cities and towns)
End of feudalism
End of bureaucracy
Abolition of money
Abolition of tyranny of religion
Abolition of restrictions of marriage
Abolition of tyranny of privacy
Abolition of tyranny of family
Instituting autarky (freeing the Nation economically)
Instituting nationalist leadership with re-education of the masses accordingly (freeing the Nation politically)
Elevating all people of the Nation to the noble level of peasant and most unparasitic of creatures: peasantry
Ending dependence on machines
Building of lakes for efficiency of agricultural production
Collectivization of all land and labour, for the maximum self-sufficiency of the Nation and its working-masses.
Liberating women from the economic tyranny of the bourgeois men.
Converting overpopulation into underpopulation, through simply evacuating the towns and cities and distributing the populace over the vast and uninhabited countryside for farming as a means of self-sufficiency, and hence increasing resources through simply appropriating the populations of the cities and towns (where overpopulation is always centered).
Trying to get back foreign (Vietnamese) colonized historical National lands (Irredentism).

Kim Jong Il
02-15-2005, 11:11 AM
And a good quote by brother Hou Youn on the commercial system:

"We can compare the establishment of commercial organization in the colonial period to a large spider's web covering all of Kampuchea. If we consider the peasants and the consumers as flies or mosquitoes which get trapped in the web, we can see that the peasats and the consumers are prey to the merchants, and the spider which spins the web. The commercial system, the selling and exchanging of agricultural production in our country, suppresses production and squeezes the rural areas dry and tasteless, permanently maintaining them in their poverty. What we habitually call "cities" or "market towns" are pumps which drain away the vitality of the rural areas. Any type of goods that the cities and the market towns provide for the rural areas are just bait. The large rural areas feed the cities and the market towns. The cities--the market towns with their fresh and up-to-date appearance--live at the expense of the rural areas--they ride on their shoulders.

Those who work the land, ploughing, harvesting, enduring the entire burden of nature, under the sun and in the rain, getting gnarled fingers and cracked skin on their hands and feet, receive only 26 percent as their share . . . whereas the others, who work in the shade, using nothing but their money, receive a share of up to 74 per cent . . . The rural areas are poor, skinny and miserable because of the commercial system which oppresses them. The tree grows in the rural areas, but the fruit goes to the towns."

SicN Twisted
02-15-2005, 11:16 AM
My problem with Communism is that it justifies mass murder at the hands of the State, which is completely ridiculous. How do your morally justify the murder or not only bourgeois scholors, but anyone who appeared in any way educated or intelligent? Pol Pot was far from a true Communist leader, because he never created a society controlled by the working classes. Pol Pot's Cambodia was ruled by a militia who restrained every detail of individual life and murdered thousands of completely innocent people. Just the fact that you can rationally justify this shows the flows of Marxism in general.

Kim Jong Il
02-15-2005, 11:20 AM
My problem with Communism is that it justifies mass murder at the hands of the State, which is completely ridiculous.

What rubbish. I thought you were an anarchist.


Just the fact that you can rationally justify this shows the flows of Marxism in general.

Pol Pot has nothing to do with marxism.


How do your morally justify the murder or not only bourgeois scholors, but anyone who appeared in any way educated or intelligent?

The difference is as I already aforementioned (in my previous posts) that the people with glasses (the so-called intellectuals) that they were killing were studious white-collar workers whom were anti-peasantry and anti-country (country as in rural, as in countryside). And also the urban white-collar workers were much more pro-foreigner than pro-peasantry even though the majority of the people were peasants. The Urban white-collar workers were pro-foreigner, such as by promoting foreign economics (capitalism) and foreign language (french) and foreign culture (luxury and laziness) and etc.


Pol Pot was far from a true Communist leader, because he never created a society controlled by the working classes.

Not in the marxist sense of the word, of course. Pol Pot was a national non-marxist communist.


Pol Pot's Cambodia was ruled by a militia who restrained every detail of individual life and murdered thousands of completely innocent people.

Have you read my posts?

RXP
02-15-2005, 12:20 PM
There is no point arguing with you. I raised some points in one of the other threads and you completely ignored them. I find myself laughing at realising guys like Sic are normal compared to true extremists like you.

Murder for no reason is never right even if the masses demand it. The masses in Germany demaded the jews exterminated, are you trying to argue that that was just? He had huge support.

Words cannot describe how deluded and stupid you are. For someone who has done so much reading to be so stupid is quite something.

"Like a lovely generator"
02-17-2005, 09:45 AM
Reading this thread has just made me unbelievably depressed. I have the upmost admiration for Sic and all the other sane posters who have very different viewpoints but still stop short of agreeing with your indorsment of mass murder. Talking about it as "Extermination" and using buzz words to cover up the reality of the situation makes me physically sick. The depression comes because I realise that you're not going to take any notice of this post and will probably plan to "Exterminate" me when the revolution comes. I, however, maintain that no Totalitarian system can ever be morally right. If you do choose to ignore this post, that is up to you, I just hope that the world is not full of extremists like you who will distort reality to the extent that you have.

RXP
02-17-2005, 10:18 AM
Don't worry hardly anyone is like him. And there will be no revoultion.

I can see his viewpoint though. When I was really depressed the world just seemed so cruel, so awful that a nuclear holocaust seemed good to me. That no one would live and there would be no pain if there was no life.

I still think that, it's obviously true. BUt when you're happier regiemes like his ideal don't appeal.

In all honesty I feel sorry for him.

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 12:09 PM
My problem with Communism is that it justifies mass murder at the hands of the State, which is completely ridiculous. How do your morally justify the murder or not only bourgeois scholors, but anyone who appeared in any way educated or intelligent? Pol Pot was far from a true Communist leader, because he never created a society controlled by the working classes. Pol Pot's Cambodia was ruled by a militia who restrained every detail of individual life and murdered thousands of completely innocent people. Just the fact that you can rationally justify this shows the flows of Marxism in general.
When did socialists ever deal with 'morals'?
Mass-murder from a socialist point of view, would be avoidable only under socialism. I don't understand how Anarchists plan on eliminating class contradictions just by declaring all private property to be eliminated.

Class Warfare is the same as real warfare. I am not a fan of Pol-Pot, nor would I ever sign a death-warrant. Simply because that gives the state a power of the people that it should not have and because concepts like 'death as punishment' etc, are as moralistic as saying Death is Wrong.

SicN Twisted
02-17-2005, 12:09 PM
What's wrong with an anarchist opposing State genocide? Yes, I've read your posts, and they're filled with arbitrary rhetoric and absolutely no substance. I ask again, and please state it in layman's terms, because your posts have explained nothing - how was Pol Pot beneficial toward the Cambodian people?

SicN Twisted
02-17-2005, 12:11 PM
Death is definately not wrong, I'm not one for vague moral shots. I do however believe that death at the hands of the State is wrong, which probably goes under my belief that the State in general is wrong.

And I never denied the severity of the class war. I just think the workers struggle should actually be fought by the workers, not some bourgeois intelligensia who has complete power OVER the workers.

Mota Boy
02-17-2005, 01:00 PM
how was Pol Pot beneficial toward the Cambodian people?

From what I gather, it appears that Kim seems to hold more allegiance to his personal ideas on how the world should work than to their effect on the people his government would oversee. It doesn't matter how the peasants feel about the way that they live, just that they live that way.

It seems that what matters most is that Pol Pot implemented the measures he did, not their ultimate result (complete failure).

RXP
02-17-2005, 01:36 PM
From what I gather, it appears that Kim seems to hold more allegiance to his personal ideas on how the world should work than to their effect on the people his government would oversee. It doesn't matter how the peasants feel about the way that they live, just that they live that way.


Quoted for truth. Spot on.

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 01:43 PM
Arguably, he could've had the people's support. It's simple math, if one third of the population was killed, it would've taken quite a few people to kill them, not just a small group with guns, it would've taken mass action, especially in a country like Cambodia, where weapons were rather equally dispersed among the population etc. This wasn't the holocaust where things were done in secret or Jonestown where everyone drank poisoned punch.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate mind you.

Mota Boy
02-17-2005, 01:57 PM
But as a semi-Libertarian (I kinda like to call myself a Socialist Libertarian, just for the fuck of it) I personally think that the despair you bring to a third of the population by, you know, murdering them, offsets the joy it may give the murderers.

Genocide, in my opinion, can never be carried out with the people's support.

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 02:02 PM
But as a semi-Libertarian (I kinda like to call myself a Socialist Libertarian, just for the fuck of it) I personally think that the despair you bring to a third of the population by, you know, murdering them, offsets the joy it may give the murderers.

Genocide, in my opinion, can never be carried out with the people's support.
Okay, I suppose it would be more correct to say it was done with the 'support of the survivors.' Who still remain to be the majority of the population.

Socialist libertarians are cool, have known quite a few myself. Generally seem to have a strong tolerance towards alcohol.

sKratch
02-17-2005, 03:15 PM
Yeah well... if you kill almost everyone who disagrees, won't the majority of the survivors agree amongst themselves...?

SicN Twisted
02-17-2005, 03:19 PM
I'll take that as a compliment, since libertarian socialist is basically another word for anarchist.

There is no way to know weather the majority of the population supported Pol Pot because of the political situation at the time. Most villagers in Cambodia didn't even know there was a Cambodia, all they knew was they had a village, and a few miles away there was another village. It's a non-issue, because I believe that there is no possible rational justification for murdering one third of the population of a country. For the sake of argument, let's pretend we're debating weather this particular genocide was okay, without even bringing up the question of genocide in general (Kim doesn't seem to acknowledge the idea that genocide as a practice might have some practical, along with moral, reprocussions on a society). Any form of socialist believes that to end the class war workers, or peasants, should cease the assets of their labor and usurp power of capital from the bourgeois. Murdering the entire bourgeois wouldn't be a productive thing to do, even if murdering an entire class is morally acceptable, which it obviously is to most Communists.

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 03:43 PM
Again, you bring morals into this where you shouldn't bring morals into Sic. I thought anarchists were nihilists in the area of morals and ethics, you know, different from Christian Socialists for example.

Again you bring meaningless slander against communists as well. You'd be hard pressed to find a communist supporting genocide theoretically. We are of the believe that killing the man does not kill the ideal. (Arguably you could say that Stalin thought this was to the contrary, but even Maoists see that he was wrong here.)

SicN Twisted
02-18-2005, 08:35 AM
For one, alot of anarchists believe that although morals are reletive, a collective morality is the only thing that can unite the people since no state or party has the legitimate right to represent anyone.

And now, completely forget any sort of debate as to whether or not the ends justify the means. I'm trying to say that murder at the hands of the State, under any cirumstance, under any ideal, amounts to the exact same thing - murder, and should not be judged based on it's ideological motive - it should be seen as a harsh violation of the liberty and rights of man.

I'm not slandering communists - I could be called a communist myself. I'm slandering Marxists for the main reason you mentioned, the fact that it's the right of the State, or Party, to kill any ideal. I happen to believe competition for capital and the mindless pursuit of success is a horrible idea, but anarchists and Marxists differ when it comes down to the fact that while it's not only a right but a duty for the working people to seize control of their factories and win the class, no institution has any right to try and outlaw any sort of ideal, because absolute freedom to develope and publisize thoughts is as much as a neccesity as social equality, and essentially, there can't be one without the other.

wheelchairman
02-18-2005, 09:11 AM
That's a tenant of Marxism-Leninism, not marxism in general.

It has to do with the proper application of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat under Russian conditions at the time. And I think it was perfectly justified. When you have foreign invaders on your soil, plus a civil war, then the last thing you need is your 'allies' working against you.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Marxist-Leninist parties worked inside the rammifications of most parliaments in the 20th century, and most in parliament never argued for the silencing of all other parties as one of their goals.

And in the instance of Cuba, for example, it's even more necessary, what with the 611 eleven attempts to kill Castro since the revolution.

SicN Twisted
02-19-2005, 12:41 PM
Supressing thought to stay in power is never okay, it just shows that the government needs to consilidate it's right to rule. And please stop saying dictatorship of the proletariate because I don't remember any factory workers making up the central committee.

What you'd refer to as "allies working against you" is what I'd refer to as natural political change. If a party attempts to violently force social change on a society by imposing of an absolute idea, there's gonna be problems. If the party is outlawing other parties (which they did) and trying to control peoples ideas, you can't call them a peoples state.

Castro probably does need to supress peoples thought because he's a petty dictator and it's getting harder and harder for him to rule his island. As for the attempts to kill him, I wish they'd be succesful already. Any man who holds prisoners of conscience is as illigitimate as a capitalist who holds prisoners of class.

wheelchairman
02-20-2005, 04:20 AM
Supressing thought to stay in power is never okay, it just shows that the government needs to consilidate it's right to rule. And please stop saying dictatorship of the proletariate because I don't remember any factory workers making up the central committee.

What you'd refer to as "allies working against you" is what I'd refer to as natural political change. If a party attempts to violently force social change on a society by imposing of an absolute idea, there's gonna be problems. If the party is outlawing other parties (which they did) and trying to control peoples ideas, you can't call them a peoples state.

Castro probably does need to supress peoples thought because he's a petty dictator and it's getting harder and harder for him to rule his island. As for the attempts to kill him, I wish they'd be succesful already. Any man who holds prisoners of conscience is as illigitimate as a capitalist who holds prisoners of class.

The party was made up of a majority of Soldiers, Peasants and Workers. And there were leaders of the Central Committee that most certainly had worker's background. Perhaps you meant Politbureau. Although, you being one of the most fervent agitator's for proletariat revolution, you aren't a worker yourself, I don't think you should be throwing rocks at a glass house.
However, political control of the workers was sustained, after the merger of the workers and peasant soviets, the workers were given political priority while the peasants still maintained a highly influential voice. (unless you are arguing for a purely proletariat form, which would be foolishly Lassallean.)

Allies working against you, like when the Social Revolutionary shot Lenin. That is not a normal political change now is it?

In 1994 there was a huge demonstration in Cuba. The Western media said it was the end of Castro's regime. What Castro did was fly over to the demonstration. Gave a passionate speech, and suddenly they were shouting revolutionary slogans and willing to build a socialist state. And after my own personal trip to Cuba, I think it's clear that the Cuban people want Castro to stay in power. They are terrified of the alternatives.

You should also do some research on Cuban parliamentary elections, they have a very interesting system.

As for the prisoners. I find it justified. More often than not they are in the pay of the United States. Are you aware how much of the US budget is set aside for the overthrow of Castro?

SicN Twisted
02-20-2005, 02:38 PM
Regardless of this, people aren't in jail for treason or attempting to overthrow their government, they're in jail for rallying, publishing zenes, and speaking out against a dictatorship who doesn't let them chose their leaders. Unless you value political and intellectual freedom and an inalienable right like I do, I can see your justification as valid.

I personally cannot excuse holding prisoners of conscience under any circumstances, even though the US funds most anti-Castro groups.The majority of Cubans prefer having Castro in power because they're rightly afraid that upon his overthrow, Castro would be replaced by a corrupt Batista like leader who is payed off by American corperations and allows investments so all money goes into Casinos and away from the people. Castro's society is alot better then this, which is the situation in alot of the Carrbiean, and I respect him for not selling out his ideology. His society and still not free and the people are not free to govern themselves, or even leave their island for that. This negates any of Castro's redeeming qualities because a government can only be legitimate for and by the people, and Castro is a dictator. Tell me - if Cubans love Castro so much, then how come he won't hold elections? How come he won't allow other parties? Any petty dictator will find fervant supporters at his rallies, but that doesn't make them any less petty dictators.

As for the Russian Revolution, you need to start looking at neutral and historical accounts of Lenin's Russia, not Communist Party propaghanda. The Politburos which contained central committes were comprised of small numbers of people who made every desision regarding the lives of the Russian people. The SOviets were NOT independent unions or sydicates, they were managed by Party officials. Unless workers themselves elect representetives in free and fair elections, and representetive power lies within independent unions and syndicates, your Marxist Leninist state is just another top down society of the oppressors and the oppressed. I still can't understand your touting of the State that doesn't let workers have a say in who their leaders are as a workers state.

wheelchairman
02-21-2005, 08:53 AM
And who says they aren't trying to overthrow their government? Themselves? That's what I'd say too. It's simply not believable. With the countless American-backed attempts at overthrowing Castro, it's ridiculous to think that they were just harmless critics of the system. Because critics of the system do exist, and are vocal, I mean the state funded the film Chocolate Strawberries, which was a blatant critique of the system, yet the director isn't in prison, omg!

You really should check the Cuban parliamentary system. There are no political parties. And the communist party certainly isn't the one holding power. The Cuban parliament system is based upon electing members of certain organizations into parliament, unions etc. Castro is head of state, he doesn't play the legislative or judicial role in anything.

Yes, apparently I am reading propaganda of the Russian communist party. Yet you are the one who got the politburo and central committee backwards. It is the politburo that is made up of members of the larger central committee. And I've read very little party propaganda. I started by reading Robert Conquest, Leonard Shapiro, Bertram Wolfe, all of them outspoken critiques of soviet communism.

And what is your obsession with working class power? If you wanted that, you wouldn't have had a democracy in the USSR. The working class was less than 10% of the population. It wasn't until Stalin's industrialization that, that changed. Personally, I wouldn't implement a system like that of Lenin's. But I'm willing to allow for the fact that the first worker's state in history was bound to make mistakes, and not just vehemently deny any connection to it at all, I find that distasteful. In-party Democratic Centralism was functioning well, and the party was made up of mostly workers and peasants. That is simply undeniable. If they supported Lenin's line then they did and that's just that. Not to mention that outside the party was a peripheral of attached unions and groups and organizations etc.

Kim Jong Il
02-21-2005, 12:20 PM
It seems that what matters most is that Pol Pot implemented the measures he did, not their ultimate result (complete failure).
Success is judged on subjective means anyway, there will be no empirical evidence that supports any basis of success or failure, other than the subjectively decided definition. Therefore, my judgement of Pol Pot's success holds just as little water as your judgement of his failures. I will expand on this a little bit later.

SicN Twisted
02-21-2005, 12:29 PM
attached union? Don't you know that if a union is fused with the State, that defeats it's purpose as aunion entirely. This argument seems to be going over to semantics when I'm purely basing mine on values. I believe the working class should control the factories and their own assets. Another thing I believe in is absolute freedom for every citizen, and euqal representation for capitalists as communists, since my ideal society the factories would be secured under Union power and the capitalists couldn't touch them.

About Cuba, I'm fully aware of the parliamentary system. You must know that Castro has absolute power to vetoe any judicial desisions - this isn't unique, American presidents have the same power. Cuba is still not democratic in any direct form Cuban workers are not allowed to unionize or even represent themselves, and the state controls all assets of production. Have you looked at Amnesty International's records of dissidents arrested in Cuba? Amnesty International has no allegience to the CIA, they're just hardcore human rights campaigners. Castro's jailed hundreds, and at one point thousands of dissenters who manufacture independent zenes critisizing his tyranny. The excuse that dissenters are trying to overthrow the government is a typical one that's been used by all dictators. A government funded movie that's mildly critical of certain policies is not a good example. Castro said in responce to what extent he'll allow freedom of speech is - "within the revolution, everything. outside the revolution, nothing." Essentially freedom of speech is allowed as long as you're critisizing elements of the revolution, but advocating democratic elections or capitalism is considered subversive and illegal. Amnesty International documents individual people who are in jail for advocating democracy in Cuba and have been denied fair trials. Just because the government claims they were working with the CIA doesn't make it true.

sKratch
02-21-2005, 12:48 PM
Ok explain this to me, because I've always had a problem with it. To establish communism is to overthrow the government. But then communism suppresses revolution, which is a fundamental principle of the system itself. How is that not hypocritical?

SicN Twisted
02-21-2005, 05:35 PM
Because anti-Communist Revolution is counter-revolution, and Communism establishes an absolute State that determines right and wrong for the people, so once Communism is in power it's only opponents are the bad guys.

Mota Boy
02-21-2005, 06:45 PM
Success is judged on subjective means anyway, there will be no empirical evidence that supports any basis of success or failure, other than the subjectively decided definition. Therefore, my judgement of Pol Pot's success holds just as little water as your judgement of his failures. I will expand on this a little bit later.

In a sense, that is true. I could measure success in terms of the percentage of the population that is killed, or the amount of rats in the country, or the average color of the papayas grown in that country, and each could, in one perspective be equally valid.

But to assert objectively that they are all valid is fairly crazy, IMHO (which, ironically, implies that I know my opinion is subjective). A good measure is the increase in GNP, the increase in overall happiness, and, most damning, the longevity of the institution relative to contemporaries. Campbodia no longer holds to Pot's theories (as I understand it), which lasts shorter than the regimes of the nearby Chinese, Indians or Vietnamese (I don't know of the Thai, Burmese, etc.).

I'm also willing to bet that many neighboriing nations also enjoy higher objective standards, such as longer longevity, lower infant mortality rates, higher personal calorie consumption, higher literacy levels, etc.

To argue that all of those are subjective, however, enters the realm of philosophy (as opposed to political philosophy).

Oh, and I'm quite glad to see that you've returned.


/post-tequila I probably won't remember the specifics of what I said in the morning.

sKratch
02-21-2005, 08:33 PM
Because anti-Communist Revolution is counter-revolution, and Communism establishes an absolute State that determines right and wrong for the people, so once Communism is in power it's only opponents are the bad guys.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic.
Uhh if there is a decent amount of "bad guys" wouldn't the first revolution be illigitimate, not representing the will of the people?

SicN Twisted
02-22-2005, 12:03 AM
I'm being completely sarcastic. There will always be a large number dissent to any type of state because no state can represent the interests of the absolute majority, since State's exist mainly to control the masses - the masses were all in agreement there'd be no purpose for any sort of repressive government.

sKratch
02-22-2005, 07:45 AM
Alright so you're with me on it being completely ridiculous that just about every communist state to exist to date has been extremely repressive?

wheelchairman
02-22-2005, 08:07 AM
Sic, fine we'll move from the semantics to the values and ideals. Although by attached unions, I did not mean party controlled unions. Take the unions that openly show support for the social-democratic, or socialist, or communist parties in Europe today, like that.

As far as your values go, it would not work. In your state the workers would control the factories, that goes completely against capitalism. A liberal government would of course reverse this gain. It's a class war, make no bones about it, it's been waged against the workers without them knowing it, and it doesn't mean that the capitalists get nicer when they are threatened, they get meaner. That is the historical tendency of the fascist movement.

I generally distrust Amnesty International, but I have been to their site. I prefer the HRW, despite it being a UN-based organization. But you have to understand how AI gets it's information. It's from people who are already dissenters, these are the people who know the people who know the people who are arrested, it's not 100% reliable information.

And what Castro said, is something I stand by. Salvator Allende is the proof that as long as America as military hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, marxism elected into power will be crushed by the brutality of the capitalists. If there wasn't this constant threat from America, (in which Cuba is far more open to victimization because of how close it is to the states that Chile), I don't think any criticism of leadership can go to the leadership. If there stopped being a US government that didn't periodically invade countries for a good period of time, and Cuba was still a dictatorship, I'd agree with you.


Ok explain this to me, because I've always had a problem with it. To establish communism is to overthrow the government. But then communism suppresses revolution, which is a fundamental principle of the system itself. How is that not hypocritical?
Communism rests on the revolution of the working class, the working class taking power. The Capitalist class taking power from the worker's would be the exact opposite of what communism stands for. You have to take the rise of communist parties in their context. Class analysis is what communists are for. Not just revolution, but working class revolution.

In Europe for example, when communists get good election results in that parliamentary system, so do the more fascist parties. This is because the general population is able to see that the 'grand old parties' don't do much. However, fascism in Europe has a historical tendency to hate and attack communists. In Denmark alone, my party is having a lot of problems with fascists and their scare-tactics. In England the fascist party even put 'spies' in the Communist party of Britain. Whenever it even looks like a communist party is getting popular support, the right-wing forces divert their energies into violently harming these communists. And that's how it is with most communist revolutions as well, since Castro took power there have been 611 assassination attempts from America alone. When the bolsheviks took power in Russia, 8 foreign nations invaded to aid the whites.

There was always strict in party democracy (which is how for example, the USSR could go from Socialist nation to State-capitalist in the 1950's, and with China in the late 70's or early 80's.)

SicN Twisted
02-22-2005, 09:47 AM
Have I implyed at any point that I believe in "capitalism" or a"liberal form of government?" Absolutely not, the only way I differ from you in my thinking is that I believe the class struggle should actually be fought by the workers.

With your logic on Castro, and by the way thank you for openly admitting you believe it's okay to repress freedom of speech, now everyone's out in the open - have you ever noticed that you're speaking of the government and the people as separate entities? You're speaking of the State like a higher form of power and the people don't control and certainly don't comprise? So doesn't that make a contradiction - in a "peoples state" the people aren't allowed to critisize the state? This is why I've always been skeptical of Communism - because a powerful State looms over the people and controls them, and cannot be trusted to accurately represent them.

wheelchairman
02-22-2005, 02:06 PM
No, but you said that you would allow liberals to be represented in your future society. I assumed that you meant you'd allow them to participate in elections, and even possibly take power in your 'anarchist socialist society'. That would suggest a total reverse of everything your revolution gained wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be odd? How would you deal with that eventuality?

And don't try to mark me up as if I'm anti-free-speech for all countries, that would be ridiculously superficial of you. I find it to be justified in the conditions of the Cuban revolution. And I don't think Cuba is to blame for this, you can't expect democracy in a country whose sovereignty has been abused for the past 40 years in such a way, that would be ridiculous and the revolution would go to waste.

But let me ask you something. You admit that Castro's government is far more progressive than Batista or any government that is a possible alternative at that moment, then why do you want America to succeed in his assassination? Or was that something you said to provoke me?

You're getting far too utopian with your idea of rights for everyone etc. etc. The Socialist state was never meant for rights for everyone. Not for the people. Heavens no, we fight for the interests of the working and peasant class. The rest are of no interest, and the reactionary bourgeois class is our direct enemy. History has proven that with every revolution. Not a people's government, a worker's and peasant's interests government. Make no mistake of that.

Now I can definitely see where you are coming from, that these governments don't serve the interests of the Worker's and Peasant's (I'm assuming this is the foundation of your argument, you exchange the words 'workers' and 'people' so often it's hard to see exactly what you mean) interests. I would simply disagree, these revolutions got into power on the backbones of the worker's and peasants support. The worker's and peasant's still support Castro, perhaps not through bourgeois democratic practices, but I've explained the threats to Cuba's sovereignty before. And now we have Russia where the Worker's and Peasants want the revolutionary worker's state back. (It's gone unnoticed in the media, but there has been huge protests in most Russian cities, general strikes reminiscient of 1905 or even 1917 going on, because of Putin's cuts on social benefits, and tax hikes, and gas price hikes.) There has never been more support for the KPRF and unfortunately the NBP since perhaps 1993.

SicN Twisted
02-22-2005, 10:34 PM
So many points that I need to do the quote thing.


No, but you said that you would allow liberals to be represented in your future society. I assumed that you meant you'd allow them to participate in elections, and even possibly take power in your 'anarchist socialist society.' That would suggest a total reverse of everything your revolution gained wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be odd? How would you deal with that eventuality?

They'd be represented as in they'd be allowed to speak their minds, publish anything they want and try to appeal their views democratically. They wouldn't be participating in elections because post revolutionary societies ideally don't need elections. My kind of revolution would completely destroy the State, nobody would have to elect representetives because they'll basically have representetives. The only form of social structure would exist in trade unions are workers syndicates, and the idea of a liberal capitalist being elected to represent a trade union is proposterous - Worker collectives would elect representetives amongst their own ranks, workers and peasants. Where we disagree with Marxists is that we don't think the working class needs to represented by bourgeois intellegensia.


And don't try to mark me up as if I'm anti-free-speech for all countries, that would be ridiculously superficial of you. I find it to be justified in the conditions of the Cuban revolution. And I don't think Cuba is to blame for this, you can't expect democracy in a country whose sovereignty has been abused for the past 40 years in such a way, that would be ridiculous and the revolution would go to waste.

No country can ever ben justified in supressing the voices of people, because nation's are comprised of the people and shouldn't exist to serve any other purpose then it's people. I hate to quote William F. Buckley Jr. because I generally think he's a douche, but I agree with him that "bread without freedom is no better then freedom without bread." Cuba is certainly not to blame for many of measures it took, especially seeking aid from the USSR to compensate America's illegal trade embargo. But allowing the people who don't agree with the revolution to have their voices heard goes along with the spirit of revolution, and I'd say the revolution would go to waste if this didn't happen.


But let me ask you something. You admit that Castro's government is far more progressive than Batista or any government that is a possible alternative at that moment, then why do you want America to succeed in his assassination? Or was that something you said to provoke me?

I'd support Castro's assasination like I'd support Bush's assasination. I consider providing for your citizens but taking their voice as horrible a crime as letting them speak but not providing for them. Castro led a progressive revolution but then betrayed it with his own desire for power and emerged a tyrant. No dictator can be justified under any circumstances.


You're getting far too utopian with your idea of rights for everyone etc. etc. The Socialist state was never meant for rights for everyone. Not for the people. Heavens no, we fight for the interests of the working and peasant class. The rest are of no interest, and the reactionary bourgeois class is our direct enemy. History has proven that with every revolution. Not a people's government, a worker's and peasant's interests government. Make no mistake of that.

That's where we disagree. While Marxists believe what you're saying, their are many socialists, including me, who believe in seizing power over the economy, which is based heavily even now on industrial and agrarian labor, from the bourgeois and giving it to workers and peasants because they deserve to control the products of their labor. If power is seized from the bourgeois, they'd have no reason to exist and class entirely would wither away. Socialists believe in creating a classless society, not flip-flopping the power structure, because as long as their is a power structure of any kind, class will exist and the state will never wither away.


Now I can definitely see where you are coming from, that these governments don't serve the interests of the Worker's and Peasant's (I'm assuming this is the foundation of your argument, you exchange the words 'workers' and 'people' so often it's hard to see exactly what you mean) interests. I would simply disagree, these revolutions got into power on the backbones of the worker's and peasants support. The worker's and peasant's still support Castro, perhaps not through bourgeois democratic practices, but I've explained the threats to Cuba's sovereignty before. And now we have Russia where the Worker's and Peasants want the revolutionary worker's state back. (It's gone unnoticed in the media, but there has been huge protests in most Russian cities, general strikes reminiscient of 1905 or even 1917 going on, because of Putin's cuts on social benefits, and tax hikes, and gas price hikes.) There has never been more support for the KPRF and unfortunately the NBP since perhaps 1993.

This is where your logic baffles me. You actually believe the USSR is a State that truly represents the workers and peasants. What I'm trying to say is that no State can possibly represent the people, and I use the people without thinking of class, because class is something that we both mean to abolish. But from a Marxist point of view, which is basically another means to an end, these revolutionary governments represent the workers and peasants. This is flat out wrong. the USSR, even before it implimented State capitalism, did not give workers or peasants any sort of a say in the structure of their societies - policies were made entirely by leaders who apparently for some tacitly understood reason know exactly what's best for workers and peasants (like shooting them when they strike, breaking up their unions, determining their wages and controlling the assets of their labor) so that's just so much easiler then allowing workers and peasants to represent themselves. Let me ask you something simple - how come the working class doesn't physically have power itself after a revolution? Is it because they're incapable, is it because they're stupid and can't organize? How come power isn't entirely vested in the people (in this sense I mean the working people)? Again, socialist revolutions aren't meant to put power in the hands of a different class, they're meant to destroy class altogether. Anarchists believe this can be done by destroying power.

"Like a lovely generator"
02-24-2005, 12:38 PM
Sorry for interupting you two in mid argument. I've read all you've had to say and agreed with both of you to some extent. Weelchairman? I'm interested (Even though i'm not Danish) in your party and wondered if you've got a website. I've been reading up on Communism, Socialism and Marxism for a while now and your theories and dreams for society seem insanely close for two people arguing so intensely. Your argument has dropped into semantics a few times and I reckon you will agree to disagree soon. What you're saying is fundamentally the same though I would agree with Sic about the balance of power in a communist society (a very tricky scenario). I'd also like to find out more about how anarchy relates to the argument and how Sic would sum up his beliefs. One last point, I admire Castro. Not his regime, which is one of the least corrupt socialist/communist systems i've seen but, yet stll denies important freedoms, but the man. He has done a large amount for Cuba and seems to have great love for his country and his countrey has love for him. Myself and some friends are interested in left-wing organisations as we're so disillusioned with middle of the road politics so could someone give us hints on where to go?

wheelchairman
02-25-2005, 03:12 AM
Sic I'll reply to this tomorrow or later tonight.

Like, yeah no problem www.dkp-ml.dk is our party's site. It's in Danish though, so it probably won't help you much.

wheelchairman
02-26-2005, 04:48 AM
They'd be represented as in they'd be allowed to speak their minds, publish anything they want and try to appeal their views democratically. They wouldn't be participating in elections because post revolutionary societies ideally don't need elections. My kind of revolution would completely destroy the State, nobody would have to elect representetives because they'll basically have representetives. The only form of social structure would exist in trade unions are workers syndicates, and the idea of a liberal capitalist being elected to represent a trade union is proposterous - Worker collectives would elect representetives amongst their own ranks, workers and peasants. Where we disagree with Marxists is that we don't think the working class needs to represented by bourgeois intellegensia.
So you believe in a society where they can open their mouths but should they chance any form of action to accompany there words, well what would happen then?



No country can ever ben justified in supressing the voices of people, because nation's are comprised of the people and shouldn't exist to serve any other purpose then it's people. I hate to quote William F. Buckley Jr. because I generally think he's a douche, but I agree with him that "bread without freedom is no better then freedom without bread." Cuba is certainly not to blame for many of measures it took, especially seeking aid from the USSR to compensate America's illegal trade embargo. But allowing the people who don't agree with the revolution to have their voices heard goes along with the spirit of revolution, and I'd say the revolution would go to waste if this didn't happen.
Yes, and criticism does happen. I've mentioned that film. You kinda just brushed it off as not being critical enough (which is rather odd, cause it took direct shots at party members and things like that). People are allowed to criticize. But they certainly aren't allowed to work for organizations funded by a certain nearby foreign power. Which is true of most countries.


I'd support Castro's assasination like I'd support Bush's assasination. I consider providing for your citizens but taking their voice as horrible a crime as letting them speak but not providing for them. Castro led a progressive revolution but then betrayed it with his own desire for power and emerged a tyrant. No dictator can be justified under any circumstances.

You say you understand the Cuban Parliamentary system, yet you believe Castro is a tyrant? I personally don't think Castro had this 'desire to power' (will to power if you wish) and personally I think Cuba is on the right path. Where I, and most Communists will probably differ from your point of view, is not everything is black and white for us. It's blatantly obvious to us that there are several degrees of difference between Bush and Castro.


That's where we disagree. While Marxists believe what you're saying, their are many socialists, including me, who believe in seizing power over the economy, which is based heavily even now on industrial and agrarian labor, from the bourgeois and giving it to workers and peasants because they deserve to control the products of their labor. If power is seized from the bourgeois, they'd have no reason to exist and class entirely would wither away. Socialists believe in creating a classless society, not flip-flopping the power structure, because as long as their is a power structure of any kind, class will exist and the state will never wither away.
Materialistically the bourgeois will cease to exist. But do you honestly believe they will stop fighting for bourgeois interests? The emigré Cuban bourgeoisie in Miami is still fighting for their property 40 years after the revolution. The bourgeoisie will always form a counter-revolutionary problem. That is in there nature, the best you can hope for is that they'll integrate into proletarian society, but that is not always possible, as history has proved over and over.

Personally I think power should be given directly to the working class. That is my opinion, and the opinion of several in my party. None of this student-intellectual nonsense and stuff. This was a mistake of past revolutions that should be corrected in future ones. The idea behind the past revolutions, was that the party couldn't exist without support from the workers (and from the bolsheviks onwards, the party was always a group of elite activists, from all classes).

SicN Twisted
02-26-2005, 12:29 PM
Any human being should be allowed to fight for their interests, whether they're communists, anarchists, capitalists, or monarchists. I consider this right fundemental. In a society where trade unions take the place of the State, which I believe is a tool for the powerful, the bourgeois wouldn't be able to make too much progress because the working people will be directly represented.

I've never seen the film, but I know enough about it to know that it takes direct shots at Party members and certain aspects of Cuba's system but does not bltantly attack the revolution in general. Thousands of people are still in jail in Cuba right now and there's no proof or evidence of any kind that they're waking for foreign or internal counter revolutionary organizations - most of them didn't recieve fair trials. I don't see most things in black in white, but Fidel Castro has direct judicial power of veto and has been the leader of Cuba since the revolution, imposing his party as the only legal one. If one political party has dictatorial control, there's absolutely no reason for the government to work in the interests of the working people, or anyone for that that matter, accept the party themselves. As I've said numerous times, if revolutions continued to be supported by the working people, then why deny the workers their voices. Why deny them the right to participate in any sort of state desisions regarding them. In Cuba, as well as in the USSR, the workers had absolutely no say in the parliaments or central committes. Until working people have direct democratic control of their governments, no peoples states can be legitimate.

We agree on your last points - past revolutions have made the mistake of giving direct control to a party, I only believe in taking it a step further and not even having an existing party, because party's only serve their own agenda, and plan paths for the revolution, when I believe that revolutions should occur somewhat spontanious and go the course the oppressed people take it.Party's used to believe that revolutiosn need the support of the people, but most communist parties have ceased power and held it with an iron fist without any material or even idealistic support from the working people. Also, the bourgeois will always be fighting for their interests, or for at least enough generations that families hold their bourgeois values. As long at this lasts, I think they should be allowed to because society is vibrant and there will always be conflict. I'm no advocate of creating an ideological utopia where everyone thinks the same way, changing the thought current is not on my agenda. As long as power is vested where it's supposed to be and there's no existing state to govern me, I'd accept human conflicts of interests to the point where they can't get so prevelent that anyone can gain enough power to oppress or rule anyone else.