Communism in Prog

Behold them seated in their glory

The kings of mine and rail and soil

What have you read in all their stories

But how they plundered toil?

The fruits of the people's toil are buried

In the strong coffers of a few

In voting for their restitution

The people only ask their due

In the final conflict let each stand in her place

The international party shall be the human race

In the final conflict let each stand in his place

The Internationale unite the human race

No saviour from on high deliver

No trust have we in prince or peer

Our own right arm the chains must shiver

Chains of hatred, greed and fear

Until thieves will out with their booty

And to all give a happier lot

Each at his forge must do his duty

And strike the iron while it's hot

In the final conflict let each stand in his place

The international party shall be the human race

In the final conflict let each stand in her place

The Internationale unite the human race

http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Namiki/3684/kaihou/inte r2.htm

I still think it's a worthy cause.

Iván

The argument "it has never come close to being" is strong. however it proves nothing. imagining a system like capitalism was absolutely impossible 600 years ago. what makes you think that capitalism is not as well transitory? maybe that it suits better an abstractly defined "human nature"? could it be that the way you think the human nature is derivated from you living and having been raised and educated in a capitalist culture? and that the form that this and other concepts assume are functional to the system in which they were originated? The nowadays so despicable "nobility-clergy-peasants" strong social class-division from the Middle Ages was also supposed to correspond to the "natural order" of things. The fact is that what is "natural" is socially (mainly by the dominant classes) defined.

I don't know much about Washington, but argentinian (and so many others) patriotic history also has some "great men" with no apparent interest in personal power/fortune/etc. who set a model for the nation. but I don't think that the decision of a few men can determine the "fate" of a country. that decisons may be the symbol of modern democracy, but are not its explanation. democracy came to USA as it came to Europe (England, then France, then other countries along the nineteenth century) mainly because it is the political system which is most appropriate to the economic reality of (free-)market capitalism.

sure USA is "the most important country in the world". it's the center of the current phase of capitalism, it concentrates the biggest number of biggest companies, and based on that economic power acts as world police, starting wars, and imposing "freedom" on third-world countries (Middle East, Latin America in the 70s -maybe they'll do it again soon) directly or not: militarly, politically, economically. So I definitely don't consider it "the best country". (absolutely no offense intended by saying this, I'm only trying to describe an objective process I see.)

finally, I honestly have as well some doubts about how communism could be taken into practice seriously. I think of a true democracy, which can be participative, which favours fair economic distribution, which governs for the common of the people in reality, not only in its speech.

The argument "it has never come close to being" is strong. however it proves nothing. imagining a system like capitalism was absolutely impossible 600 years ago. what makes you think that capitalism is not as well transitory? maybe that it suits better an abstractly defined "human nature"?

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: I'm not saying that capitalism is the ultimate form of human nature. It may very well give way to something else. However, I am saying that it provides a lot of good for a lot of people when it is carried out by a representitive democracy. I'm also saying that, since communism has NEVER come close to being--except as murderous police states--maybe there's something about it that is not consistent with human nature.

 could it be that the way you think the human nature is derivated from you living and having been raised and educated in a capitalist culture? and that the form that this and other concepts assume are functional to the system in which they were originated? The nowadays so despicable "nobility-clergy-peasants" strong social class-division from the Middle Ages was also supposed to correspond to the "natural order" of things. The fact is that what is "natural" is socially (mainly by the dominant classes) defined.

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: The problem with the medieval system was that it was primarily a theocracy. Only the Church had any power to determine what was going on. No independent idea can really emerge from a state that controls all means of thought--on pain of imprisonment, or worse. In that kind of world, only one voice can say what human nature is. In our world, anyone can say what human nature is and the truth (or as close to it as we can figure out), takes shape on the ground.

I don't know much about Washington, but argentinian (and so many others) patriotic history also has some "great men" with no apparent interest in personal power/fortune/etc. who set a model for the nation. but I don't think that the decision of a few men can determine the "fate" of a country. that decisons may be the symbol of modern democracy, but are not its explanation. democracy came to USA as it came to Europe (England, then France, then other countries along the nineteenth century) mainly because it is the political system which is most appropriate to the economic reality of (free-)market capitalism.

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: Maybe Democracy would have come to Europe, maybe it wouldn't have. Maybe some of these other great guys would have rejected the power given to them, maybe they wouldn't have. George Washington (the general given most of the credit for winning the American War of Independence) was unanimously chosen to continue to serve as America's president. He was the most famous and popular guy in the country. If he claimed the presidency, no one would have complained. By essentially refusing to be made king, George Washington did what was never done in the history of mankind (to the best of my knowledge) (and if you think refusing a kingship is easy, check out every single attempt at communism). Without him doing this, there probably never would have been a USA. Without a USA, it is doubtful that any other country would have tried this experiment. 

sure USA is "the most important country in the world". it's the center of the current phase of capitalism, it concentrates the biggest number of biggest companies, and based on that economic power acts as world police, starting wars, and imposing "freedom" on third-world countries (Middle East, Latin America in the 70s -maybe they'll do it again soon) directly or not: militarly, politically, economically. So I definitely don't consider it "the best country". (absolutely no offense intended by saying this, I'm only trying to describe an objective process I see.)

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: No offense taken. I just differ with you substantially. For one, we HAVE to take the role of world police because 1) there are a lot of psychos out there and 2) no one else has the balls to step up to the plate. Second, I don't think that Freedom is something that can be "imposed." Freedom is the greatest of all ways of living. Why is freedom OK for you but for someone who is living under a military dictator? The question I have for you is why do you support the Husseins, Ahmedinejads, the Assads, the Arafats and many other people who steal from their people, kill their people, mutilate their people, gang rape their people, deny most rights to women and all rights to gays? It seems to me that you would allow these people to continue functioning the way they always have--through fear and intimidation.

finally, I honestly have as well some doubts about how communism could be taken into practice seriously. I think of a true democracy, which can be participative, which favours fair economic distribution

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: Please let me know what "fair economic distribution" means.

which governs for the common of the people in reality, not only in its speech

CAPTAIN BEYOND RESPONDS: Please let me know what "the common of the people" means.

ivan_2068 wrote: Trotsky wrote: [quote]ivan_2068 wrote: Have you ever heard how the Praga spring of 67 (If I'm not wrong about the year), and the Tian Nam Meng (Can't remember who it's written) plaza movements ended, that's Communist justice and re:action against people asking for democracy.  It was 1968, in Czech, Wenzel's Square I think, and 1989, Beijing Tianamen ...I have visited both places and mourned the losses ... even the name of my initial idol should give you a clue as to how I feel about virtually all so-called Communist governments. Well, at least we agree in something, all Communist Governments up to the date commit worst crimes that almost anybody else. Cnidkiff wrote: Quote:  No country or government has ever achieved Communism, instead they managed to change the definition of the word to mean the same as socialism. Ib believe Communist has been achived as a form of state capitalism, what haven't been achieved is real Socialism except maybe in Sweden at some moment, where everybody has the same oportunities, but no one is given anything for free.  I think you're off there, the final state of communism ... as initially written about by Marx (and Engels, depending on who you believe ) ... is one where government's fade away after a state of dictatorship by the proletariat ... I think the state capitalism/market socialism of welfare states in Scandinavia (and arguably places like New Zealand) is the closest thing to a workable model the left has had since Marx ... and even you'll get your gripes and it's noticable that these nations have relatively tiny, homogenous populations and lots of resources.  According to Engels, the determinism ohistory leads to Communism and only after Communism has proved it's the best system and it's preminet in all the world then and only then we can achieve the absolute abolition of Governments. So yes Communism existed but it failed, probably nobody ever reached the final state of political evolution that would come after Communism, but Communism existed. Of course this is absolutely BS. Communism was the second major force in the world since the end of Worl War II, when the winners took Europe and divided it, and this system has failed, the economies of all those systems is collapsed, the injusties and crimes were worst than ever, I read that Stalin killed more people than the Nazis. And again is obvious for any intelligent person that the absolute dictatorship of the proletariat is absurd, a central Government woill always be needed, absolute abnarchism is equivalent to chaos. Captain Beyond wrote: Quote: far left bands are idolized all the time while bands from the far right are vilified. That's exactly my point, if someoe sings the Fourth International Anthem is a dreamer, if someone sings the Giovenezza (Facist anthem) or Cara al Sol (Franco's anthem) is a criminal. Both are wrong, but it's beautiful to feel as the Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give it to the poor. What they don't know is that when this Robin Hoods reach the power they steal from the rich, repress the poor worst than the Notingham Sheroiff and Prince John together and they stay with the stolen money. I think the reason that the far left still gets more credit is that the ideas they were committing evil in the name of sounded far more noble ... brother and equality rather than the superiority of one people over others ... I don't know these fascist anthems but there's nothing ignoble to me about the Internationale and such ... are you telling me you don't see a difference in theme between (and maybe even just the tiltes) of The Internationale and Deutschland Uber Alles? I'm sure you know history Trotsky, and Facism was born as popular system (Don't mix it Nazism yet), but Mussolini betrayed his own beliefs and joined Hitler (BTW NAZI = Natiobnal SOCIALISM and if you read Mein Kampf you'll notice that Hitler's  Manifesto is almost Communist). Just the same things that happened with Communism, the leaders were thirsty of power and when they took control it all became a form of State Capitalism. That's why I don't believe in Facism, Communism or any political system that in any moment will centralize all power the in the Government. You can say Bush is allmighty, but that isnn't true people voted for him twice, but he will leave and probably the Democrats will win. But you know ideas can always be stretched, Ivan you seemed outraged that the extreme left doesn't get enough criticism ... yet surely you remember back to the mid-80s when Thatcher and Reagan (I'm guessing their names fill your heart with joy ) were doing everything they could to support the likes of Pinochet and the apartheid system and a whole bunch of brutal dictators also ... Thatcher never had my sympathy, I can't forgive her for what she did to the Irish Congresmen that started the hunger strike like Bobby Sands, but as long. BTW: Yes Reagan supported Pinoochet as most Chile in the 80's and Thatcher suported in a more covered way the appartheid, but I believe Reagan was a good President according to most USA citizens, but Thatcher was almost a dictator. and these moderate rightist weren't just singing songs, my friend ... they were diverting substantial resources to keep fascist police states going Well before that USSR supported Cuba, Vietnam and even the Pol Pot revolution, Cuba by their side was the trainning camp of all terrorist moivements from Latin America, that's called balance of power. BTW Trotsky, you avoided several parts of my post.   Korova wrote: this poll shows just how many stupid things people can say abuot communism...having never read a single word written by Marx, Lenin, Che Guevera or Gramsci. Probably I read more Marx and Engels in University than you during all your live (BTW: Also read Utopia), and about el Che, he had nothing to do in Cuba or Bolivia. How you dare to say USA shouldn't participate in foreign conflicts,and we  must accept that an Argentinian terrorist should be participating in Cuba and Bolivia? Why everybody was happy when USA supported Fidel Castro against Batista? Why all the leftist guys kept silence when USSR invaded Afghanistan and now the same guys attack USA? Ivàn seys we are free...but the question is free of doing what? A small gruop of person rule this world and use his power to become everyday more rich, and we have to pay them a lot of money to have things that we should have for right. So in Cuba the people control everything? In China' Vietnam? Laos? ex- USSR? Cambodia (Or as you probably like more the ex-Democratic  Campuchea)? It's always a small group who controls most things with the differencet is that in Communist Governments the party controls everything, call it Politburo or whatever you want, but a bunch of people control EVERYTHING and supress all freedom. At least in democratic countries you can say fu*k Bush and nothing happens, try to do that in Cuba Just to end, What do you desserve to have by right that you can't earn with your work? Don't you believe that guys like Bill Gates have earned the last cent he has? Do you want him to share it with you? What have you done to deserve that? I'm not rich, I don't even have a secure job, but I simply don't envy the guys that have more than me, probably thet deserve it and I don't. So what the hell you people are talking about? First to speak, read. Not only I read, but I LIVED IN A ONCE COMMUNIST COUNTRY so you won't teach me your theories from the comfort and freedom  provided by Italy. .   Iván

If I avoided any posts, Ivan it's because we have either covered the ground before or I don't want to get too involved in this ... now you are linking the right wing dictators with communism (and I never denied it grew out of it) perhaps to avoid the fact that most called moderate right wingers have a few things in common with the xenophobic extreme rightists (look at Australia's John Howard, for example) ..

I can look through at many things you say... like all the leftist guys kept silence when USSR invaded Afghanistan  ... and both you and I know that simply isn't true (just study the Trotskyist Fourth International and Social-Democractic Second International ) ... I for one blame the USSR and USA's foreign policy for much instability all around the world today ... (to me they were just another extension of the colonialism of the English, French, Spanish, etc) ... using these so-called ideologies to pursue power ...

I think you misused my terminology ... I said so-called Communist ... I have a big problem with these regimes, because they distorted good ideas with cruel and inhuman practices ... they repluse me ... but to reject an idea because of the people who claim to practise it is wrong ...

You seem quick to dismiss leftist ideas on the grounds of those who have practised it, but when it is the Catholic church/Christianity involved ... (and by the way I think you know it is behind a fair amount of cruelty itself) ... I believe I have heard you singing a different tune ... you see all this sounds personal, when you know very well we are quite entrenched in opposing ideas

We can sit here trading examples of cruelty/oppression by different governments ... but my ideal government has never existed ... certainly not one that could applied to a large nation like the US or Brazil or India. Has yours?

BTW, when was Peru "Communist"? Do you mean Alvarado, which is a reasonable stretch or please don't tell me Alan Garcia ... either way, which one of Peru's multitude of Communist parties played the dominant role in their governments? Or are you just playing with terminology again?

BTW, when was Peru "Communist"? Do you mean Alvarado, which is a reasonable stretch or please don't tell me Alan Garcia ... either way, which one of Peru's multitude of Communist parties played the dominant role in their governments? Or are you just playing with terminology again?

Yes, I ment the military dictator Juan Velazco Alvarado (In Spanish the middle name is the one that counts).

He was a total communist, started the Land Reform, confiscation of profit, cbnfiscation of property, natinalization of corporations, etc.

But ruined Perú.

Alan García claims to be a Social Democrat, his party APRA is directly relatd to the Mexican PRI, he declared total moratory of the payments of external debt, tried to confiscate the Bank, etc.

But we had a 7'000,000% inflation (Yes SEVEN MILLION). If you had 7'000,000 soles at the beginning of the Government, at the end you had one sol.

But at the end of his government he return o the populist meassures.

Iván  

BTW: Most of my comments are not against your point of view which I don't share but that i respect, mostly is against those persons who use cliché words as Facists to describe people with a right wing orientation without knowing what Facism was.

And they even ask us to read when they are the ones talking before thinking.

ivan_2068 wrote: Trotsky wrote: BTW, when was Peru "Communist"? Do you mean Alvarado, which is a reasonable stretch or please don't tell me Alan Garcia ... either way, which one of Peru's multitude of Communist parties played the dominant role in their governments? Or are you just playing with terminology again? Yes, I ment the military dictator Juan Velazco Alvarado (In Spanish the middle name is the one that counts). He was a total communist, started the Land Reform, confiscation of profit, cbnfiscation of property, natinalization of corporations, etc. But ruined Perú. Alan García claims to be a Social Democrat, his party APRA is directly relatd to the Mexican PRI, he declared total moratory of the payments of external debt, tried to confiscate the Bank, etc. But we had a 7'000,000% inflation (Yes SEVEN MILLION). If you had 7'000,000 soles at the beginning of the Government, at the end you had one sol. But at the end of his government he return o the populist meassures. Iván

And I recently read that Alan Garcia is planning a comeback too!

My main hope is that the people of the country are better off ...

It is one of those contradictions ... many of Malaysia's neighbours have a far more vibrant recent political history than us ... Vietnam, India, Indonesia ... but the average Malaysian is much better off, despite moderate-right wing one-party rule for 48 years ... of course, I believe that outside forces play their part, and essentially steering a moderate left/moderate right course (until like in Germany and UK, it becomes a little difficult to tell who is who!) is the safest route to prosperity for many people ...

But to me, it doesn't overcome underlying injustice ... if 60% of the world are living below the poverty line now ... can you still blame communism for that ... for how long?