 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Velociryx
At its core, and on the moment of its birth, the beast was created to serve the people.... |
No, it wasn't. It was created to serve the interests of the merchants, landlords, and slaveholders of colonial America. Although the franchise has expanded, the same class of people which ruled then, rule today. It's their beast, not ours. It knows its master, and any attempt to try and take it for ourselves will only rsult in disaster. As Marx put it in his preface to the 1872 edition of the Communist Manifesto, "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
Thing is, Duncan, you'd think that if communism was superior, there'd be at least ONE modern day example of a thriving, exceling communist nation.
There's not.
I contend that there's a reason for that, and the reason is....it doesn't work.
It looks GREAT on paper. Absolutly fantastic, but power abhors a vacuum, and into any centrally planned, highly centralized system, that vacuum WILL be filled, generally with ambitious, power hungry men (a la Stalin).
The human race is not advanced enough for any sort of utopia, and that is what communism promises. Because of that, it is doomed to fail.
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DuncanK
|
 |
Evil Empire
Dec 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Velociryx
Thing is, Duncan, you'd think that if communism was superior, there'd be at least ONE modern day example of a thriving, exceling communist nation.
There's not.
I contend that there's a reason for that, and the reason is....it doesn't work.
It looks GREAT on paper. Absolutly fantastic, but power abhors a vacuum, and into any centrally planned, highly centralized system, that vacuum WILL be filled, generally with ambitious, power hungry men (a la Stalin).
The human race is not advanced enough for any sort of utopia, and that is what communism promises. Because of that, it is doomed to fail.
-=Vel=- |
Sadly, its our fault that Stalin took power. We were hostile to the USSR from its very birth. They needed a dictator. When you are at a state of war you have to centalize power. The US does it too when they have to.
Every communist nation has faced the US as its enemy. No doubt the US is strong, and thats hard for a third world nation to deal with. You just have to admit the communist nations have done suprisingly well even if they have had to give great powers to men like Stalin. Damn, look at Cuba. How the hell could that little nation do so well while the US has been on its back the whole way trying its damndest to keep it down.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DuncanK
Well we keep trying with capitalism here in the US and our economy keeps crashing. But we still try it over and over again. |
Crashing is just part of the process. When times are good, people spend their money and buy all sorts of new things; new cars, new furntiure, new appliances. But after awhile, a lot of people have everything they want, they don't need to spend any more. So things so down, the economy suffers.
Then a few years later, when things starts breaking down, or the latest model makes your old stuff look grossly obsolete, people go out and start buying again. It's a cycle, just like the waves or the seasons. You can't expect to have prosperity all the time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DuncanK
|
 |
Evil Empire
Dec 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Willem
Crashing is just part of the process. When times are good, people spend their money and buy all sorts of new things; new cars, new furntiure, new appliances. But after awhile, a lot of people have everything they want, they don't need to spend any more. So things so down, the economy suffers.
Then a few years later, when things starts breaking down, or the latest model makes your old stuff look grossly obsolete, people go out and start buying again. It's a cycle, just like the waves or the seasons. You can't expect to have prosperity all the time. |
Actually communism is very stable. Sure you have shortages sometimes, but you don't have long periods where many people are unemployed and struggling to survive.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Velociryx
Che....that's splitting hairs. IF what you are saying were true, IF the only interests to be served were among the groups you named off, then there would not have been....I repeat *would not have been* any increase in the franchise at all. None whatsoever. |
There are two factors which you ignore. One, power concedes nothing without a fight. So, you are looking in the right direction when you say that the franchise would not have been extended, except, there were fights. At a certain point, denying the franchise to unpropertied white males became more destabilizing than allowing them to vote. Ever here of the Dorr County War in Rhode Island. Disnefranchised white men lead a virtual rebellion against the state government, complete with guns and cannon. Although it was put down, they got the vote. Women got the vote following a period of intense agitation, after WWI, after the Russian Revolution (which granted women the vote before the US). Black people got the right to vote in a period of global colonial revolution, when the left was growing in the United States and Black nationalism was on the rise. The cost of continuing to prevent these groups from voting would have eventually resulted in political upheaval. Better to give them the right to vote.
At the same time, when the vote was used to unseat entrenched elites in the South during Reconstruction and the Progressive Era, Southern elites unleashed a wave of terror that broke those government and stripped Black men of their right to vote. During the 1920s and 1930s, as Socialists and Communists and the like grew in popularity, laws were changed to make it almost impossible for anyone but the two entrenched parties to get on the ballot. In North Carolina, for example, a Democratic or Republican candidate might have needed only 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot (IIRC it was less) while independents needed 30,000 signatures. This pattern was repeated across the United States. In the South, the polical system was completely locked up by the Democratic Party and all decisions were made away from the public. In the North, powerful machines like Taminy Hall in NYC completely controlled all the big cities, and by extention the states.
Today, though we have primaries instead of caucases (except in Iowa), and it's becoming easier for independents to get on the ballot, it now requires huge sums of money to be seen in the race. If you can't get on television, you aren't running, and the big money goes to those who approach capital on bended knee. Labor doesn't even donate a tenth of the money corporations and the wealthy donate.
At the same time, the Republican Party has a policy of discouraging Black voters. They challenge Black's right to vote (and those who don't know better will leave), they post police to intimidate and harass Black voters, in Florida the illegally stripped 91,000 people of the right to vote on the basis that they might be convicted felons (some of whom were convicted for crimes in the future ), etc. Nor is the Democratic Party overly concerned about this, despite Black people being part of their base. After all, they wouldn't want Black people to have too much influence on the Party's handouts to the wealthy. Voting machines in Black districts are often much older than those in white districts, tending to break down more often so that votes can't be cast.
Yet, the franchise is still a potent weapon. After all, despite the machinations of the Republican Party here in Florida, we were still able to force class size amendments and education reform on a state government that refused to give the people what they wanted (although they've managed to cut the heart out of an amendment that would have restored the old state system of universities, i.e., one state system instead of multiple universities with overlapping programs). If the franchise weren't important, the Republicans wouldn't have gone to so much trouble trying to keep so many legal voters off the rolls. Would have meant a different President, and maybe a different governor here in Florida.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Velociryx
Capitalism also has a much higher success rate. |
Only because capitalism cooks the books, so to speak. When one side is constantly invaded and subjected to terrorism and the other side isn't, it skews the numbers. One one side starts out with the industrialized world and the other with dirt farmers, it skews the numbers. And of course, the capitalists only count the successful capitalist countries, and ignore all the unsuccessful ones when making their comparisons.
So while the Communist governed countries may have a success rate of 0%, the capitalists only have a success rate of 10%, when the rest of the world is included. And for a time, the Communist states were doing better than the Third World. Up until the 1970s, for example, North Koreans had a higher standard of living than South Korea. Cuba's standard of living exceeded that of many Latin American nations (including Puerto Rico, a part of the United States). East Germany had a higher standard of living than Spain or Italy.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|