Member
And it's true: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38114953
I told my parents and aunt minutes after the news broke and they were like... "what the fuck?" We're all in shock. We're not Cubans or anything as they're Honduran and I'm Honduran-American but we're like "the fuck?" The CIA tried to have him killed for so many years. Yeah, a bunch of Cuban-Americans are going to party tonight probably. Well, let's see if they can survive Trump.
Banned
more like fidead Castro amirite
Throbbing Member
a good communist is a dead communist.
Member
I'd rather be a Communist than a Fascist, capitalist fuck-head.Originally Posted by Sallos
tempus est umbra in mente
Throbbing Member
Ron Glass dies at the age of 71.
Seriously, Fuck this year and, all of it's horrible bullshit.
Trollhunter
Agreed. RIP Ron Glass
Re Member
r.i.p el commandante
Throbbing Member
Then you're either very ignorant or you just say those types of things to shock people.
Active Member
Totally me, especially bumming rides off people.
Stubby Member
Fuck. I just finished watching all eight seasons of Barney Miller, and watched Firefly for the first time a couple months ago - wonderful actor, seemed like an all-around classy guy; sad to see him go...
Active Member
Man, and here I thought you were both playing that game.
Throbbing Member
Touché
10char
Bite me
I've seen The Godfather Part II about 20 times, no shit, with the Jewish Mob having taken over Cuba, with the Meyer Lansky character (Hyman Roth) telling Michael Corleone "we're bigger than U.S. Steel" robbing Cuba of its resources; and then the giant Revolucion and the overthrow of that horrible Batista (who was in the U.S.'s back pocket) and Batista fled the country with over $380 million leaving Cuba poor and hungry, and the U.S. cut off Cuba of all trade via an embargo that continues to this day; Castro meant well but, as what happens with all men in power, the power went to his head. But the U.S. has Cuban blood on its hands.
Oh, yeah, and THE TRUTH ABOUT CHE GUEVARA
Last edited by allegro; 11-26-2016 at 06:35 PM.
Throbbing Member
Seeing as this thread is titled Dead souls....Communist regimes killed 94 Million people during the 20th Century. Mostly in China and Soviet Union.
thats the biggest loss of human life other than the Bubonic Plague....
Bite me
Experts in "Communism" would tell you that this is not real "Communism"
http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...talitarianism/
Watch some readily-available videos about this from Noam Chomksy, for instance.
Last edited by allegro; 11-26-2016 at 07:02 PM.
Throbbing Member
Communism is never real communism for communists, reason being, it fails miserably every time. Communism has never been a success stroy, and never will be, for the simple fact, that communism is not an better alternative to capitalism. I'm not even sure it would be a better alternative to feudalism. And i know for a fact that it's not better than fascism.
Throbbing Member
i know...Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong would have been Karl Marx worst nightmare.....that book Communist manifesto did a lot of good for the world...we have free healthcare in the UK because of it...European leaders picked parts out of it and used elements of Marxs work in their governments...but it also influenced a lot of the most horrific dictators imaginable. Marx did influence them too.
Bite me
"Influence" is a strong word. The Bible influenced slave-owners. People can twist words to serve their own manifesto.
There is a religious sect in the American South that are snake-handlers; they believe that anyone who can handle snakes without getting bitten and without dying are truly holy. This is because the Bible (Luke 10:19) says "I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you."
Last edited by allegro; 11-26-2016 at 07:33 PM.
Bite me
Because of human's inability to avoid the temptation of greed. It's why labor unions fail, too. The "brotherhood" always ends up being every man out for himself.
The Bible's big lesson in Genesis: The reach for Wisdom (the apple in the tree) but also the greediness of wanting more. We had "everything" we wanted or ever needed in "Paradise" but it wasn't enough. So we fell.
Last edited by allegro; 11-26-2016 at 07:31 PM.
Throbbing Member
Individualism has brought more happiness and prospect to this world. That coupled with what you said, is reason enough to know better. And bottom line, communism is theft.
Bite me
I disagree with you; socialism has been much more successful combined with capitalism, a free-market capitalist structure combined with socialist programs (like we have in the U.S.). But I don't believe that Marx (as much as I believe in a LOT of the other things he has said) is correct in that communism can ever be a realistic ultimate goal after socialism (what you see as examples of "communism" have never been "communism"). I wish we could all join in, together, in jointly-held companies like his vision. That would be great. But, I've seen labor unions and how they abysmally fail; Karl, I love you, but that will never happen. Humans are imperfect and too concerned with wealth, power, and greed.
Last edited by allegro; 11-27-2016 at 01:22 AM.
Throbbing Member
True....but you can forgive people for being wary about Communism when 94 MILLION dead within a 70 year time frame.....1917-1991...jesus ...those numbers..staggering.
The word Communism feels dangerous...
Bite me
Again, that's not "communism" -- that TERM is used as the reason but it's just fear-mongering in order to make people AFRAID OF communism. The true culprit is TOTALITARIANISM. Communism doesn't have that kind of sole control that kills people. That's not what communism is about.
Stalin was NOT a communist. He created a TOTALITARIAN state and he was a dictator.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
Last edited by allegro; 11-27-2016 at 01:15 AM.
Throbbing Member
Communism calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat, class warfare and the abolishment of private property, that's totalitarianism, and the culprit is communism.
Also a lot of the death toll attributed to communism also comes from hunger, something they excel at.
Throbbing Member
Russia and China were both failed states when they turned to communism...both big, backwards....they got their asses kicked by smaller more developed countries...Germany and Japan...
both China and Russia took their baggage with them...
I dont know how different it would be if more industrialized countries say...the U.S or U.K or France had turned to Communism...maybe it could have been successful..???
seems like a dangerous experiment either way...
Throbbing Member
Communism never reached power through democratic elections, always through force. U.S, U.K and France, having strong democratic and freedom values would never opt for it, if of course, given the choice.
Throbbing Member
Imperfect? Don't see how. And i have to say its quite scary that you wish "we could join all together in his vision" as if we're all mindless drones, like insects all tied to a single entity*. Strengthening the individual has proven to be more successful than creating an artificial sense of community. We being imperfect and all, might have to do with that.
*for those who play games, reminds me of System Shock 2 The Many.
Last edited by Sallos; 11-26-2016 at 08:16 PM.
Bite me
THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE
Why did Communism inevitably lead to dictatorship and totalitarianism?
It seems like Communist nations inevitably devolve into totalitarian dictatorships. Why does a left-wing pro-labor philosophy always turn out the same way?
Short answer: Because that's exactly what a communist government is intended to be.
Long answer (go fetch a cup of tea and some biscuits):
We must make a distinction between a proper "communist government" (indeed we should say "revolutionary government") and a government formed by a communist party. The latter is a democratic, elected government that will most likely abide by the Constitution and laws that are in place and will behave well, if not disturbed by reactionary agitation and "golpismo" (read my "huge, behemot answer" on What are the examples of democratic countries overthrowing their own democratically elected government by coups? to understand what this pesky word means). Such government, if powerful enough, will probably implement a lot of social, political and economical reforms (including some really and properly labelled "communist") but, since it will work under the constraints of a Constitution, it will most likely step down peacefully in the event of an electoral defeat. This type of "communist government" will not become a single party government or a dictatorship. There are plenty of examples of "communist parties" running democratic countries (usually in coalition) without much damage to democracy: Italy, Nepal, India, Brazil (our commies are currently part of the government coalition) and Greece are the ones that come to my mind. If you extend the label of "communist" to all parties left of the centre, then the examples are even more abundant: Spain (PSOE), Portugal (PS), Bolivia (MAS), Venezuela (PSUV), Greece (Syriza), France (PS), Germany (SDP and Die Grünen), Iceland, Canada ...
But if you mean that a "communist government" is one that is implemented by a revolution, then things are different.
You don't feel required to share power that was not shared with you. If you and a fried cooperate in a task, both of you feel entitled to share the pay. But if you have worked and your friend walked away, only coming back to claim his share, then you don't think it is fair to share your hard-earned bucks with him. That's more or less what happens in revolutions.
If the government shares power opportunities with every party and each has real and fair chances of governing the country and implementing his policies (that is, if such party gathers enough support) then no party will seek violent means to overthrow the government. Revolutions breed when a large and organised part of the population is denied access to power. You can avoid them by sharing power or by forcefully disbanding and clamping down on their organisations. Power sharing is more usual in Europe and European-style democracies. Disbanding popular organisations by force them is the usual in the USA (saludos, Occupy Wall Street).
However, to kick-start a revolution you need more than this. You need a government that is both corrupt, incompetent and cruel. Corrupt, so people lose respect for its institutions. Incompetent, to become unable to defend itself (weakness is a form of incompetence). Cruel, to anger enough people and convince them that only a violent reaction is effective. Review your history books and you will notice that revolutions happen against governments that are all of the three: the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, the Shah regime of Iran, the Spanish monarchy, the Porfirio Diaz government of Mexico, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, the Romanian Revolution, etc.
When such a situation comes by, there are three possible positions: to embrace the revolution, to fight against it, or to remain "neutral". Those who embrace the revolution will have to choose between forming a common front (unite) or lose the fight divided. This is the same choice of the ones that fight against. Whoever wins the revolutionary war will be unwilling to share power with the losers (these will be eliminated, if possible) or with the neutrals (these will be despised as cowards and opportunists).
Since the winners have reached all their military goals, they will feel entitled to implement all of their ideas. Why should they refrain from anything if they have won a war against all the rest? Fidel Castro fought a bloody six-year war against Batista's army. Batista was a cruel dictator (he once castrated a student leader and sent his penis and testicles to his fiancée) and shared no power with anyone. In Castro's view (which is actually reasonable), Batista's supporters were criminal, corrupt and unpatriotic (due to Batista's closeness with US interests). He then proceeded with the implementation of his measures, assuming that anyone who opposed them was actually defended the policies of his predecessor. You may think this is gross, but that's how revolutions work, and that's why every citizen of a democratic country should to his best to preserve democracy and prevent revolutions from happening.
An afterthought.
Even if this was not the case, a government that reaches power through a revolution under the banner of Communism will most likely pursue a Marxist-Leninist agenda, which is based on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a means to bypass the "bourgeois society" and achieve "communism".
Marx theorised that the "bourgeois state" was inherently adverse to the working class (he never knew any truly democratic states, as he died before the turn of the XX century). A "bourgeois" is a member of the merchant elite, the 1%, (the word is French and mentions the social origins of the elites of capitalist states, the mediaeval villages, bourgs, instead of the castles of the nobles). A bourgeois state is one that is controlled by the 1%, the owners of the "means of production", one in which the workers are either denied participation or can participate only limitedly. For instance, one in which working-class people are allowed to vote, but have no realistic chances of ever being elected.
Lenin took to extremes Marx's idea that the "bourgeois state" could only be defeated by an oppressive regime in which the interests of the working class where forced down on the bourgeois institutions. "Proletariat" means the working class, those who are totally, or almost totally devoid of property and political power. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" means a state that will do only what benefits the working class, either ignoring or directly damaging the interests and the position of the elite.
Communism is the goal of communist parties, it is a future society, after the dictatorship of the proletariat has finished dismantling the bourgeois state. In the communist society there will be no nation-states, no organisation above local community level (hence "communism", from the French "commune", which means "community", in the sense of place). To reach this state it is necessary to abolish all non-state institutions that exist across borders. Capitalism will be dismantled because corporations bypass state borders. If you dismantle the state without dismantling capitalism, then corporations will have more power than the people, because these will be divided across small communities. Corporations and capitalism have to be disbanded because their very existence prevents communism from being feasible.
To dismantle capitalism you have to seize the control of the "means of production" (land, real estate, machinery, factories, gold reserves, technology) and either pulverise it (land reform, for instance) or preserve it whole, under collective ownership (kolkhoz and sovkhoz as land structures in the USSR). After seizing the "means of production", the bourgeois state ceases to exist, but communism is still impossible, because production is still centralised. Communism is only possible, then, after factories, farms and everything else are evenly distributed, so that every region can provide for its own needs. While this is not achieved, the intermediate situation is called, diversely "Socialist State", "People's Republic" or something like that.
As you may have noticed, nothing of it can be agreed upon. That's why a revolution uses violent means to achieve its goals.
It is, of course, much better if the people can have their grievances heard and addressed by the government without the need of blood spilling. But some governments seem to disagree.
Last edited by allegro; 11-26-2016 at 09:11 PM.
Active Member
Former NFL player Joe McKnight shot to death in appparent road rage incident.
http://deadspin.com/former-nfl-playe...sia-1789578322
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
