Freethought & Rationalism Archive

B. H. Manners · 02-09-2003, 12:12 PM

"You can't criticize with impunity those who have authority over you. That's going to be true of any system, unless you're trying to overturn the whole idea of people having authority over one another. The great thing about this country is that you can question and criticize your government to your heart's content (up to threatening the life of the president, which is a fairly reasonable constraint) without fear of retribution from the gov't. You can even make good money doing so."

That's my point exactly: you cannot criticize those with impunity with authority over you, else everything will fall apart. We can criticze GWB because he has little influence on our day to day lives, with a few exceptions. However, if you are employed by the government and work under him directly, you may not want to speak so freely.

This is the same with the local party cadres you speak of. Since the government is the employer, those local party officals are going to have a whole lot of economic influence and decision making on their hands. The thing that the Soviet planners had despite their failings were opportunities where people were guaranteed the chance to criticize them through the ballot box and suggestion box. If a candidate scored less than 85% "yes" he was thought of as a failure and more than likely would not get nominated again. He would later be demoted to some other position once his term was up.

Thank you for your reply and I look forward to discussing this with you some more.

beyelzu · 02-09-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud
So on the one hand, communism fans deflect criticism of communist countries by pleading that no country has really been fully communist, therefore strawman.

On the other hand, capitalism fans deflect criticism of capitalist countries with crushing poverty by invoking the possibility of growth under capitalist regimes, therefore strawman. Never mind that in the period of time during which no true communist country has arisen, no poverty-sticken capitalist country has raised its citizens from destitution.

I'd say the score is about even.

taiwan

Me and Me · 02-09-2003, 02:06 PM

I agree, NO dictatorship is benign. Dictatorship meaning a group that has absolute power.

The dictatorship of the proleteriat is a dictatorship set up and oganized by the workers in order to suppress any bourgeois elements of society that want to use the masses for profit. The dictatorship of the Bourgeois is a dictatorship ruled by the few, ruled over the many, and forces the masses to live a life in servitude to someone elses greed, and someone elses profit.

The Cuban govt HAS imprisoned political dissidents, and that is good that they do that. They can't let Cuba to become another service country to the U.S. corporations, which is what those cubans in Miami want.

Free press? Tell me a country that doesn't have a press that isn't subservant to the whims of their countries policies? You can get more information on U.S. foreign policy in the Cuban press than you can get in the U.S. press. Which is more free?

Are you guys implying that a few people owning the press in the U.S. is what a free press is?

Grad Student Humanist · 02-09-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
The Cuban govt HAS imprisoned political dissidents, and that is good that they do that.

So glad you agree with jailing poiltical dissidents. So I suppose you'd be in favor of McCartheyesque laws in this country which would allow George Bush to jail political dissidents like you.

Me and Me · 02-09-2003, 02:59 PM

I wouldn't be against it, we would just go underground like all illegal political parties have done in any country. That wouldn't happen because it would cause people to actually have to know what communism is, and the bourgeois would never purposefully lead people into wanting to do that, that would expose their lies and the extent of their exploitation to the masses. The U.S. by marginalizing leftist parties is actually a better tactic than making them illegal.

beyelzu · 02-09-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
I wouldn't be against it, we would just go underground like all illegal political parties have done in any country. That wouldn't happen because it would cause people to actually have to know what communism is, and the bourgeois would never purposefully lead people into wanting to do that, that would expose their lies and the extent of their exploitation to the masses. The U.S. by marginalizing leftist parties is actually a better tactic than making them illegal.

Most people dont care about communism cuz they just arent unhappy with capitalism, they like owning things.

Me and Me · 02-09-2003, 03:13 PM

No communist that I know of ever said that people shouldn't have things. That is why we want a revolution, for the workers to enjoy the full fruits of their labor.

elwoodblues · 02-09-2003, 03:14 PM

Quote:

The U.S. by marginalizing leftist parties is actually a better tactic than making them illegal.

Do you realize how often you create this bi-fold damned-both-ways situation? The US jails political dissidents: oh, well, of course they would. The US doesn't jail political dissidents: oh, well, that's even more effective.

You've already made up your mind on everything you want to hear; all cases fall neatly into some arrangement, no matter how contrived, to make the US look bad.

beyelzu · 02-09-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
No communist that I know of ever said that people shouldn't have things. That is why we want a revolution, for the workers to enjoy the full fruits of their labor.

it must really burn you that for all of your rhetoric that the workers dont end up owning anything in communist countries. I know people who lived in romania, he is even more of a fervent capitalist than I am.

Me and Me · 02-09-2003, 03:57 PM

Elwood Blues

It is the U.S. govt that created the marginalization and arrested political dissenters in the 60's. You seem to be mad that because the U.S. has done this that I am able to point to both of them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2003, 12:12 PM	#111
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	"You can't criticize with impunity those who have authority over you. That's going to be true of any system, unless you're trying to overturn the whole idea of people having authority over one another. The great thing about this country is that you can question and criticize your government to your heart's content (up to threatening the life of the president, which is a fairly reasonable constraint) without fear of retribution from the gov't. You can even make good money doing so." That's my point exactly: you cannot criticize those with impunity with authority over you, else everything will fall apart. We can criticze GWB because he has little influence on our day to day lives, with a few exceptions. However, if you are employed by the government and work under him directly, you may not want to speak so freely. This is the same with the local party cadres you speak of. Since the government is the employer, those local party officals are going to have a whole lot of economic influence and decision making on their hands. The thing that the Soviet planners had despite their failings were opportunities where people were guaranteed the chance to criticize them through the ballot box and suggestion box. If a candidate scored less than 85% "yes" he was thought of as a failure and more than likely would not get nominated again. He would later be demoted to some other position once his term was up. Thank you for your reply and I look forward to discussing this with you some more.

02-09-2003, 02:06 PM	#113
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	I agree, NO dictatorship is benign. Dictatorship meaning a group that has absolute power. The dictatorship of the proleteriat is a dictatorship set up and oganized by the workers in order to suppress any bourgeois elements of society that want to use the masses for profit. The dictatorship of the Bourgeois is a dictatorship ruled by the few, ruled over the many, and forces the masses to live a life in servitude to someone elses greed, and someone elses profit. The Cuban govt HAS imprisoned political dissidents, and that is good that they do that. They can't let Cuba to become another service country to the U.S. corporations, which is what those cubans in Miami want. Free press? Tell me a country that doesn't have a press that isn't subservant to the whims of their countries policies? You can get more information on U.S. foreign policy in the Cuban press than you can get in the U.S. press. Which is more free? Are you guys implying that a few people owning the press in the U.S. is what a free press is?

02-09-2003, 02:59 PM	#115
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	I wouldn't be against it, we would just go underground like all illegal political parties have done in any country. That wouldn't happen because it would cause people to actually have to know what communism is, and the bourgeois would never purposefully lead people into wanting to do that, that would expose their lies and the extent of their exploitation to the masses. The U.S. by marginalizing leftist parties is actually a better tactic than making them illegal.

02-09-2003, 03:13 PM	#117
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	No communist that I know of ever said that people shouldn't have things. That is why we want a revolution, for the workers to enjoy the full fruits of their labor.

02-09-2003, 03:57 PM	#120
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	Elwood Blues It is the U.S. govt that created the marginalization and arrested political dissenters in the 60's. You seem to be mad that because the U.S. has done this that I am able to point to both of them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.