Che Guevara was awesome!

[Sin Studly]

Who agrees?

[T-6005]

That fucking commie.

[The_Hombre]

What are your reasons for thinking he was awesome?

[Sin Studly]

He was a psychotic Stalinist fascist and mass-murderer, who enjoyed personally executing his victims, yet he's now become a capitalist commodity beloved by the type of 'omg fashists r mean' anarchist vaginas who play hackysack and don't eat meat cause they feel bad for the little animals.

[Sin Studly]

Yeah, that'll teach those capitalist fucks!

[TDog]

Doctor Che was the great man, i think.

[Iddy]

There's people more worthy of praise than him... Marxism is a weak theory.

[wheelchairman]

Please, give me a analytical critique of marxist theory, I'd be interested to hear that.

[Sin Studly]

Doctor Che was the great man, i think.

But then, so were Stalin and Lenin, right?

[Mota Boy]

Fun fact!

When I was hanging out with my friend a month ago, he mentioned that he was going to Venezuela over Winter break with a Venezuelan friend of his. A friend who's bragged that it was his uncle that killed Che.

[wheelchairman]

I knew a Spanish guy who said his Grandpa killed Lev Trotsky. Petty sectarianism is everywhere.

I once dated a girl who had a friend, whose mother had worked with Che Guevara. So technically I was dating Che Guevara.

[JohnnyNemesis]

It annoys me to no end when I see Che being marketed here in the US. For fuck's sake, what you're consuming stands for everything he would have HATED.

Same thing in the early 90s and people wearing Malcolm X gear. Oh for fuck's sake!

[Sin Studly]

Speaking of dishonouring the dead, it annoys me more that John Wayne was casted as Genghis Khan. But it amuses the hell out of me that the movie gave most of the crew cancer and turned the producer insane. Maybe God does exist, and is as petty as I am.

[TDog]

But then, so were Stalin and Lenin, right?

Lenin (Ulyanov) and Stalin (Jugashvily) were russian and georgian communists. It's not the same.

[Sin Studly]

But Che was a Stalinist.

[coke_a_holic]

I'm sure Che Guevara totally deserves the respect he gets. I mean, he did after all murder children for no apparent reason, what other way is there to gain respect from the general public nowadays?

[wheelchairman]

I don't know enough about Che to defend him. But I'd be willing to bet reports of him killing children come from the CIA and exile cubans. Not reliable sources.

[Sin Studly]

The reports I read that came from his own men only mentioned him executing men and women, and doing it personally at lot, but I didn't bother reading more than 3 or 4.

[Lithuanian Offspring]

Doctor Che was the great man, i think.
Well, you're Russian.

[Lithuanian Offspring]

I don't know enough about Che to defend him. But I'd be willing to bet reports of him killing children come from the CIA and exile cubans. Not reliable sources.
Who would be a more reliable source? The Cuban government? They even have you fooled about their "parliment."

[wheelchairman]

Who would be a more reliable source? The Cuban government? They even have you fooled about their "parliment."
In what way am I fooled about their parliament? Have you ever been to Cuba?

And please, offer me a reliable source on Che killing children, if you are so certain it's true.

[sKratch]

lolz do you still think it's a lie that Stalin killed tons of people?

[Lithuanian Offspring]

In what way am I fooled about their parliament? Have you ever been to Cuba?

And please, offer me a reliable source on Che killing children, if you are so certain it's true.
How has El Presidente been able to stay in power for so long? Do you actually think that the people really love him that much? He has total control of the parliament. Just like the Belarussian dictator, Mr. Lukoshenko. There is an official parliament, but it is absolutely controlled by the president.

[wheelchairman]

How has El Presidente been able to stay in power for so long? Do you actually think that the people really love him that much? He has total control of the parliament. Just like the Belarussian dictator, Mr. Lukoshenko. There is an official parliament, but it is absolutely controlled by the president.
I said nothing about presidential elections. I said about individual political power. Please re-read my post.

Castro has been able to stay in power, because like every government in the world before him, he uses the threat of foreign enemies to maintain a strict system.

sKratch, Russian researchers have come to the conclusion that only 1 million died in the years that Stalin ruled, as a result of execution. I had said the numbers were between 1 million and 5 million. I should've made people bet. :(

[Sin Studly]

sKratch, Russian researchers have come to the conclusion that only 1 million died in the years that Stalin ruled, as a result of execution. I had said the numbers were between 1 million and 5 million. I should've made people bet. :(

*cough cough cough cough*

[TDog]

But Che was a Stalinist.

Stalin killed his old comrades to be the dictator... Hi's bloody king.
Che was the fighter for freedom.

[Sin Studly]

By 'fighter' you also mean 'mass executioner'?

[TDog]

Stalin - 'mass executioner', but not Che, I think.

[Sin Studly]

To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary, these procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredon!

I'm selling rose-tinted glasses with Che's image on them, two for a dollar.

[T-6005]

Stalin - 'mass executioner', but not Che, I think.
Then read up on Che. Seriously.

[Lithuanian Offspring]

Then read up on Che. Seriously.
As if you know alot about Che yourself.

[Sin Studly]

"For the first year of Castro's glorious revolution Che Guevara was his main executioner -- a combination Beria and Himmler, with a major exception: Che's slaughter of (bound and gagged) Cubans (Che was himself an Argentine) exceeded Heinrich Himmler's prewar slaughter of Germans -- to scale, that is."

"Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million in 1959. Within three months in power, Castro and Che had shamed the Nazi prewar incarceration and murder rate. One defector claims that Che signed 500 death warrants, another says over 600. Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Che as early as 1954, writes in his book "Yo Soy El Che!" that Guevara sent 1,897 men to the firing squad. In his book "Che Guevara: A Biography," Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the first few years of the Castro regime."

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!" - Ernesto Che Guevara, The Motorcycle Diaries

"The "acrid odor of gunpowder and blood" never reached Guevara's nostril from actual combat. It always came from the close-range murder of bound, gagged and blindfolded men. He was a true Chekist: "Always interrogate your prisoners at night," Che commanded his prosecutorial goons. "A man is easier to cow at night, his mental resistance is always lower." "

[dextermyideal]

But then, so were Stalin and Lenin, right?

Stalin was a dictator. Lenin wasn't.

[Iddy]

Please, give me a analytical critique of marxist theory, I'd be interested to hear that.

This will be short and incomplete as I’d rather have a debate than write an essay.

First off the concept of Class is not as simple in all societies as Marx suggested. The Bourgeoisie are the owners whilst the Proletariats are the workers, lets say. It doesn’t not take into account the variety of hierarchical relationships found throughout the world. Things are not as simple or as poetic as oppressor and oppressed. However, defenders of Marxism would say that you can find evidence of this Class Struggle in all types of society. This is too soft an explanation for me. This simple area of Marxism is too vague to be a good theory. Can his idea of a Class Struggle explain the caste system in India? There are much too many factors at work in social relationships than us against them theories can explain.

Second, his theory of Capitalism When it comes to theories of the emergence of Capitalism I’m in the Max Weber camp. To me, Capitalism is the by-product of Calvinist religious thought and it doesn’t fade easily once established. The wonderful idea that we can bring down the Bourgeoisie is more of a revolutionary vision than a good theory of politics or society. I do however believe that with enough will and strength a people can force change but that belief is far from a Marxist point of view. I do not believe that we can bring down Capitalism as it is not wholly a bad system. There is plenty wrong with it, even to the extent of immoral, yet that is what should be changed not the system itself.

If you disagree please tell me. I will need a lot of good evidence to persuade me otherwise.

[wheelchairman]

It's not an us against them theory, it's an objective theory, the results of which are used to deduce what should and should not be supported.

India for example, should really be proof enough that Marxist analysis works. I really don't know enough about India to go into basics. Especially of the caste system and it's development.

Essentially the caste system divides the Indian Hindu (and in effect everyone) into different social castes. Thinly vailed classes basically. Different castes had different powers, administrative privileges, and obviously rank and power, attributed to it. Caste mobility was relatively low, inter-caste marriages were looked down upon, and inforced strictly. Keeping the money, the productive forces, all things that produce more money, in a certain caste. The local religion was used to keep the poor masses in check, to force them to accept their dire position, and to hold in front of them, the possibility of a better existence if they behaved themselves. I mean they used religion as an excuse to even mistreat the untouchables, since the untouchables arrived in their positions due to sins of a past life. It was great, the justification of complete and abject exploitation based on class.

Now as I said, India is not a society in which I have studied well. Although it is home to possibly the world's largest Marxist movement. The Communist Party of India has been in power in the West Bengal for decades. Obviously someone agrees with it, in India.

Of course India's existence in the international world, an object of foreign conquest, a trade destination, and eventually a colony in rebellion and forced with an ethnic and religious civil war, has many angles to be analyzed at.

However the Marxist analysis can be applied to everything. Of course even Marxists say that not every society has classes, ancient tribal societies for example, often didn't really have classes. To have classes, you have to have something to produce, etc. etc.

Now to your second point. Marxists don't believe in morality, so I cannot argue on the merits of capitalism based on that. Historically capitalism is the progressive productive system that overthrew the feudalist aristocracy and liberated the peasants from endentured servitude. There are many things that were progressive about capitalism. Liberté, egalité, et fraternité was the original slogan. And even equality (egalité) can be claimed in a society with such economic differences, however after the revolution, the peasants and the workers could turn and ask, what happened to brotherhood? (fraternité). For it did not last long.

That aside, the Marxist viewpoint of capitalism, is that it became a necessity, since the Feudal system reached a point in where it's own contradictions brought it down. The Feudal system was a far more complicated class system, with an established aristocracy owning everything. And yet, we had this rising Merchant class, coming. Which started producing more and more money, yet had to pay things like high tariffs, for what it saw as unnecessary. The constant contradiction of the Merchant class, was the feudal restrictions on non-aristocratic power, money and production. It became a contradiction in which the Merchant class would win with their allies (and masses), that of the landed peasantry. That was why capitalism progressed and came into being. I don't see how it can be the product of calvinist religious ideas. That doesn't make sense. At least not to me.

Capitalism will inevitably fall. Right now it can establish a status quo, and as long as this status quo remains in effect there will be no change. Life is good now, life was good under feudalism for a while too, though. Will it always be good? What we see is the constant outsourcing of all jobs other than those of service, money is being funnelled directly to the top, supposedly democratic governments find themselves compromising with business so that business will stay in them, unemployment rises, people are changing classes, more are becoming poorer than those becoming richer, and divides are increasing.

Let's take Ireland, this is your nation of residence yes? Once you were the sickman of Europe, now you're the Celtic Tiger, as the EU press (quite lamely) prefers to call you. And why is that? Essentially we closed down the fishing industry of an Island nation, have we not? You are making more of your money from the businesses that come to you, to invest. And why do they invest? Because it's profitable. The government has bent over backwards. And what happened? Why even your conservatives are admitting that the social economic divide is far too large. And what happens when you have these companies investing? Money should be flowing in? But it's not. And should the Irish government even consider taxing them, they'll leave. As soon as a cheaper place of residence for these companies appears, they will be gone, and Ireland will be nothing but royally fucked. It's happened to other nations.

[Vera]

Che was sexy. What's communism?

[Sin Studly]

I love Vera.

[Vera]

I was only sarcastic with the last part of the message. I saw a documentary on him last Sunday and he's pretty good-looking as far as unsuccessful communist leaders go.

[Lithuanian Offspring]

Stalin was a dictator. Lenin wasn't.
Yes, he was.

[wheelchairman]

They were both dictators, and proud of it. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Around Khruschev's time was when they started denying this.

[Lithuanian Offspring]

They were both dictators, and proud of it. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Around Khruschev's time was when they started denying this.
Cool?
http://www.raven-games.com/hosted/cflabs/lenin-angel.jpg

[Lithuanian Offspring]

Hey, wait we need Che in this picture too.
http://hammeroftruth.com/images/articles/142-che_mouseketeer.jpg
And this picture, really shows what people remember Che for:
http://www.twcdc.com/programs/che/che_note.jpg

[wheelchairman]

People remember Che for being a US president?

[Lithuanian Offspring]

People remember Che for being a US president?
I mean it's a sort of ironic thing that he was against Capitalism, and now people are capitalizing off of that. So a dollar bill with Che on it would be a good symbol for that, and especially an American dollar. Or 20 in this case.

[Iaci]

I agree with JohnnyNemesis and Lithuanian Offs about Che being marketed...People use t-shirts with his pic and at the same time drink Coke or eat at McDonald’s...That’s what capitalism have made with his image. He really would have hated those things.

--------------------------------------------------------------

About Che killing people I guess he had reasons for that. If he didn’t do the revolution by the force Cuba would continue being the “casino” of USA as it was at the government of Fulgêncio Batista.

[Lithuanian Offspring]

No shit? Che was an executioner. Read up on him on wikipedia. It's fasinating.

[Iaci]

No shit? Che was an executioner. Read up on him on wikipedia. It's fasinating.

Che’s biography, as many other people’s biographies, is not made of truths, it’s made of different versions. Can we trust on Cuban government sources? I believe not. But can we trust on CIA? The same agency that ordered to kill him? So, in what can we believe? Well, you see him as a executioner. I do not. But I also think it’s ridiculous those people who use his image, thinking they can change the world doing that.

I believe in Che, but I would be hypocritical if I said I believe in everything he said. He hated the United States, and as you know I’m here. Just at Offspring Forums, an American band. But I agree with him about what developed countries do in Latin America. Have you ever been here? Have you ever seen what capitalism do for us (and for Africans)? People complain about Fidel Castro, but I think they should remember Cuba before the revolution. I said it before and I’m saying it again, Cuba was the casino of USA. Castro is not the first dictator of Cuba. Before him there was Gerardo Machado and Fulgêncio Batista, two obsequious of American’s interests. Fidel was a nationalist. Che was a communist. Do you really think they could release Cuba from the United States without killing anyone? Who do you think Che had to be? Gandhi?

[Lithuanian Offspring]

Che’s biography, as many other people’s biographies, is not made of truths, it’s made of different versions. Can we trust on Cuban government sources? I believe not. But can we trust on CIA? The same agency that ordered to kill him? So, in what can we believe? Well, you see him as a executioner. I do not. But I also think it’s ridiculous those people who use his image, thinking they can change the world doing that.

I believe in Che, but I would be hypocritical if I said I believe in everything he said. He hated the United States, and as you know I’m here. Just at Offspring Forums, an American band. But I agree with him about what developed countries do in Latin America. Have you ever been here? Have you ever seen what capitalism do for us (and for Africans)? People complain about Fidel Castro, but I think they should remember Cuba before the revolution. I said it before and I’m saying it again, Cuba was the casino of USA. Castro is not the first dictator of Cuba. Before him there was Gerardo Machado and Fulgêncio Batista, two obsequious of American’s interests. Fidel was a nationalist. Che was a communist. Do you really think they could release Cuba from the United States without killing anyone? Who do you think Che had to be? Gandhi?
Yes, it is all a conspiracy to cover up the greatness of a military genius who wrote countless books about guerilla warfare and war in general. By, making him like like a military genius who wrote countless books about guerilla warfare and war in general. Logical.

People should also remember Cuba for the countless people killed in it's revolution. Ok, I'll agree that they might have been better off after the revolution but don't hail the government. And now they would be better off in a capitalist government.

[wheelchairman]

ah yes, because state-funded escuadrones del morte do not exist. :)

Lithuanian Offspring, Stalin was one man, not the global representation of all communists. People were killed in the cuban revolution, because it was a revolution. People were killed by Batista as well. However, I was in Cuba over a year ago, and people were doing a lot better than they were in say...Nicaragua, Gautemala or Columbia.

Now tell me, why did I mention those 3 nations?

Iaci, what do you think of Lola?

[Lithuanian Offspring]

ah yes, because state-funded escuadrones del morte do not exist. :)

Lithuanian Offspring, Stalin was one man, not the global representation of all communists. People were killed in the cuban revolution, because it was a revolution. People were killed by Batista as well. However, I was in Cuba over a year ago, and people were doing a lot better than they were in say...Nicaragua, Gautemala or Columbia.

Now tell me, why did I mention those 3 nations?

Iaci, what do you think of Lola?
See that's the thing I don't support any dictators. Be they US funded or not. And from what I have seen Communism only breeds dictators. All of the countries that were/are communist had/have dictators. And Communism has bred some of the most cruel dictators in history. Anywho, I'm not saying Communism is the only ideology that breeds dictators, but it just does. The only way that it could work would be in a place where all the people were communists. Like, I remember you talking about some sort of town or fellowship that was completely communist. Where everyone did a equal amount of work and everyone owned nothing. See that's great, but you have to understand that they are communists and they all want to live in a communist society. But if you, let's say, stuck me into that community there would be absolute hell, cause I would want to keep my shit and not share, as bad as that sounds. Then you are faced with a dilemma. You have to kill me or boot me out. Then you have one person do what he will to me. And by the principle of "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" a dictator is born, because he is given the power to slay.

escuadrones del morte not officially. Remember I have lived in a functioning dictatorship. They never claim it, but there are agents, that do the presidents will. For example the opposition in Belarus sometimes shows up with out heads.

[China Boy]

I agree.

I have a shirt with him :cool:

[wheelchairman]

Lithaunian Offspring, that's a non answer. Dictators exist everywhere. You can be against them, but what it comes down to. Is what's more important, the provisions made for ordinary people, or who has more elected power?

Cuban government is a dictatorship, I'll tell you one thing, the individual has more power in Cuba than the individual does in America. And that's sad. Furthermore Cuba, this impoverished nation, can at least fead, care for, and house it's citizens. I'd trade food, clothes and healthcare for my vote anyday.

Batista was bad. Castro was a dictator. But people live and live well.

Also, Lukashenko was bad, and does political assassinations etc. but I've been to Minsk and it's a lovely nation. Despite it's politics. However Lukashenko is a President, who claims to be elected. A President. Doing these horrible things. Cause democracies can commit human rights abuses too.

[Iaci]

Lithuanian Offspring, I totally agree with you about dictatorships, but I’d like to remember you one thing. Communism not necessarily means an authoritarian government. Chile is one good example of it. Salvador Allende was elected by the population (so I mean it was a democratic sistem) and he was from a communist party. Do you know what happened then? The military force (with the CIA’s help, always) brought Allende down and put Augusto Pinochet on his place. Pinochet’s dictatorship was one of the most violents in Latin America. More than 60 thousand people died/disappeared and more than 200 thousand had to left Chile (ok, nothing compared to the USSR), but I mean it was a capitalist system.

And in Brazil (yes, my country), happened the same shit. In 1964 we had a president (I don’t think his name will tell you sth, but it’s João Goulart). He was not exactly a communist, but his plans was for helping the poor people, doing the agrarian reform, improving education system etc etc. I don’t need to say what happened after but I will. The military force (with CIA’s help – again! What a coincidence!) took on the government and set up a military dictatorship. Brazil was in a dictatorship till 1984, so 20 years of injustice, because – different from Castro – Brazilian dictators didn’t want to have a society of equality.

What I want to say with this examples is that when someone tries a democratic communism it doesn’t take a long time. So you see, capitalism isn’t a paradise, at least not here.

[Sin Studly]

However, I was in Cuba over a year ago, and people were doing a lot better than they were in say...Nicaragua, Gautemala or Columbia.

Now tell me, why did I mention those 3 nations?

Why didn't you mention Chile? Or are benevolent dictators only acceptable when they're communist benevolent dictators? Viva el Presidente Allende!!!!

[wheelchairman]

Why didn't you mention Chile? Or are benevolent dictators only acceptable when they're communist benevolent dictators? Viva el Presidente Allende!!!!
Because mentioning Chile would've been the obvious one to mention. That's like saying offspring fans cut.

[Sin Studly]

But aren't people doing better in Chile than in Cuba? Making it not so much obvious as a dark stain against your theory that only communist dictatorships are okay.

[Iaci]

Iaci, what do you think of Lola?


Oh no..forgive me...Did you mean Lula? Sorry, you wrote Lola and I didn't get it when I read...silly me.
Look, I'll give you my opinion about Lula. Just wait a little since I can't write about him in 2 min.

[Iaci]

Why didn't you mention Chile? Or are benevolent dictators only acceptable when they're communist benevolent dictators? Viva el Presidente Allende!!!!

Allende was great...Fuck the US that put Pinochet on his place...

[Sin Studly]

No, fuck Allende. Without Pinochet Chile would be another piece-of-shit backwoods genital-torturing barbarian state. Why don't you tell the citizens of Chile how great Allende is, you dirty communist whore?

Democracy must sometimes be bathed in blood!

[Lithuanian Offspring]

Lithaunian Offspring, that's a non answer. Dictators exist everywhere. You can be against them, but what it comes down to. Is what's more important, the provisions made for ordinary people, or who has more elected power?

Cuban government is a dictatorship, I'll tell you one thing, the individual has more power in Cuba than the individual does in America. And that's sad. Furthermore Cuba, this impoverished nation, can at least fead, care for, and house it's citizens. I'd trade food, clothes and healthcare for my vote anyday.

Batista was bad. Castro was a dictator. But people live and live well.

Also, Lukashenko was bad, and does political assassinations etc. but I've been to Minsk and it's a lovely nation. Despite it's politics. However Lukashenko is a President, who claims to be elected. A President. Doing these horrible things. Cause democracies can commit human rights abuses too.

I'll definately agree with you about food, healthcare, and education. But individual power? I hardly see how any people in the world can have more individual power than Americans.
Yeah, Minsk is a nice city, as far as the center goes, but the rest of the country is in shambles, I tell you. Loco Luka was elected the first time round, but in the past election he used (still uses) heavy propaganda in the impovrished regions, and he black-lists anyone (in government held positions)who doesn't vote for him in the election, and if they don't vote for him they're given the boot. He pretty much runs the government with an iron fist.

[Lithuanian Offspring]

What I want to say with this examples is that when someone tries a democratic communism it doesn’t take a long time. So you see, capitalism isn’t a paradise, at least not here.

I never said capitalism is paradise.

[Iaci]

I know it. But you’ve told me Cuba would be better off in a capitalist government. I don’t think so. Capitalism means almost another dictatorship for me.

[Iaci]

Iaci, what do you think of Lola?
I’m not the right person to tell you sth about Lula, but you’ve asked me so I will. Well, he was a poor person and as many Brazilian people moved from the northeast to the southeast of the country to try a better life. He fought against the military dictatorship and for workers rights. If you ask my opinion I say I believe in him, but at the moment it isn’t what all Brazilians are thinking of his government. Probably people have expected so much that now they’re disappointed. It’s really difficult to decide what’s right or wrong, but I think Brazil is much better than at the last government.

[Iaci]

No, fuck Allende. Without Pinochet Chile would be another piece-of-shit backwoods genital-torturing barbarian state. Why don't you tell the citizens of Chile how great Allende is, you dirty communist whore?

If you are so certain Pinochet was good for Chile why don't you tell it for its citizens? Try it then Sin Studly and let's see who's right.

[Sin Studly]

Because I don't talk to racially inferior hispanic scum.

[wheelchairman]

Justin thinks it's classism* to have to talk to campesinos.

*discriminating against his class

[Sin Studly]

It's shocking the things the Aryan Male is reduced to doing in todays society.

[Stevodoc]

Argue all you want about how great communism is, but have you taken note of the amount of cubans in this forum?

NONE! Why? Because even if they could afford the privelidges we could, would they be given the privelidge of freely expressing their views on this site? I'll take democracy any day!

[wheelchairman]

Argue all you want about how great communism is, but have you taken note of the amount of cubans in this forum?

NONE! Why? Because even if they could afford the privelidges we could, would they be given the privelidge of freely expressing their views on this site? I'll take democracy any day!
Yeah on one hand you an internet access you pay for, which is normal for a person from your social and geographical background, on the other hand you have a person who has food, a place to live in, clothes, education, and free healthcare, which is *extremely* unusual for the majority of people in Latin America.

So don't be an idiot.

[wheelchairman]

I hope that's sarcasm.

Switching around of the basis of the pyramid of human needs makes as much sense politically as anal sex to create abortions.

[AbsintheBob]

Switching around of the basis of the pyramid of human needs makes as much sense politically as anal sex to create abortions.

It's pwnage like that which keeps me visiting these boards.

And for the record, Americans dont really have as much freedom as you'd all like to think we have. Let's take a look at some facts about America:

The U.S. Constitution was never voted on by Americans, in a free election

The US Government functions by examples of force, so that above all, the people understand that their cooperation and obedience is expected

There is a sophisticated legal fiction of popular sovereignty. To perpetuate this legal fiction, the influence of those people who suffer punishment for exerting free will must be isolated from the obedient; and even better, the obedient citizens must be encouraged to RESIST the influence of the punished. There is no better way to do this than to tell the people that he who was punished was a criminal. This is what control of the government enables one to do.

We look at the institutions controlling all the money and power in the industrial world, and we cannot imagine the power-brokers handing over the government willingly, to actual and genuine legal scholars with positive agendas. But the Czar of All the Russias, in his day, seemed invincible, and today he is a memory. The Soviet Union seemed unstoppable, and today it is a memory. The United States Government, today, appears eternal -- like Rome -- but tomorrow it will be a memory! This is why: It is built on a foundation of lies.

When billions of dollars are "allocated" to some social issue, there are THOUSANDS OF INSTITUTIONS, public, non-profit and private, that are well-connected and ready to absorb ALL THAT MONEY, and then deliberately neglect the issue, because if the underlying issue is resolved, the institutions would have NO REASON TO EXIST. (This will be especially true of the $1.7 billion Clinton loudly committed to the homeless crisis; it was already spent when he announced it, and we obviously still have a homeless problem with the proportions of a genuine crisis). This was also proven after 9/11 when the Red Cross sucked up countless millions in donations from well-meaning citizens, only to squander a great deal of the funds. The social situation is increasingly a tinderbox, with a government stubbornly unwilling to examine itself with any real vigor. The only other parallel in history, of a rich yet bankrupt nation, powerless because it was caught in its own web of lies, was France in 1789; and we all know what the outcome was in that case.

The United States Government cannot be reformed, for the privileged who benefit from its form of social control are in control of the government itself, and the electoral process. Like in France, they literally refuse to stop embezzling the national treasure of the American people. They have no answers other than to make demands for MORE work and MORE money in taxes on the average laborer, and they fail to see that the average man is worn out from his labors, and the unending greed of the political class.

Americans are not quite so "free" when it comes to the supposed power of their vote, either. The election of local representatives and senators makes many Americans feel empowered when, in reality, they have little or no power at all. You can cast a vote for someone you believe in; but he/she will soon be back in Washington, DC - hundreds if not thousands of miles from "home", and they will be approached by truly powerful lobbies, backroom deals with other politicians to pass certain laws, etc. Meanwhile, the poor bastard back home in his living room watches with disdain as the beliefs he felt his candidate had while running for office are pissed away as easily as last night's beerbust.

America isn't free. Sure there are some great advantages of living here, but "free"? The idea makes me laugh. We are governed by a ruling class of mostly wealthy, middle-aged or older, white men...who certainly do not represent the nation as a whole demographically.

For those who dont live here and think it's such a great place, I would ask that you either live here for a few years and truly experience this "freedom" - or do a lot more reading on the subject of freedom, and what it really means. If you ARE American and you think you're truly free, and that you are a valued member of society...think again - you've been fooled along with most everyone else. Americans are notoriously apathetic - this is yet one more way in which those in power stay in power...most Americans feel content, feel free, and therefore never question the authority. More's the pity.

[Sin Studly]

Anarchy!!!!

[wheelchairman]

TTIG quit trying. Justin says one thing and you feel the need to elaborate on it to an embarrassing degree. I can assure you both, that Rob is no anarchist by any understanding of the word.

Now for some overdue replies to this thread:


Justin, no people in Chile aren't doing better than they are in Cuba. The wealthy in Chile are doing better than the wealthy in Cuba though.

Lithuanian Offspring, the individual in America has next to no power. that's not to say they don't vote etc, there is literally no influence for the individual citizen on any level, barely on the most local actually. Furthermore I've travelled to the countryside of Belarus, and even lived their for two weeks. I know quite well that it's not a thriving area. However it looks better than many places in Eastern Europe when you leave the main industrial hubs. And you contintually seem to misunderstand what I'm saying to you, since this really is a side issue. I don't condone Lukashenko, in fact I dislike him. And that's alright, seeing as he's not claiming to be a communist or anything like that.

Iaci, sorry I meant Lula indeed.

TTIG,

The governments of most other countries expect disobediance from their people?
Yes, in Western Europe civil disobedience is accepted and encouraged. Student strikes are common, I've participated in them myself.



Give an example, I dare you, without sounding like a complete idiot.
Ethel Rosenberg. A housewife and mother executed on practically no evidence of her guilt. Please, why don't you drop the ad-hominem attacks? They are only used in an argument because you can't negate the point and therefore resort to negating the person.

I've got to admit, though this is entirely stupid, it's the most sophisticated way of saying "GOVERNMENT SUX LIKE PUNK MUSIC SAYS, GO ANARCHIEZ!!!!!"
How? Rob is no anarchist. What you are doing, seems like the extremely sophisticated way of you acting like Justin. Something you've been doing since you were chased off the board as "original pyro" and decided to come back with a completely new persona.

[AbsintheBob]

First of all, I dislike people who feel so important that they believe their every word should be bolded.

I use the bold because I am nearly blind, and it makes my posts easier to read. I increase font size on most forums thanks to Firefox, but the bold still makes it easier on the eyes especially with this color scheme. So take your elitist attitude and... Well - no matter. Now on to your "argument".

Right. It was ratified by representatives of different states. Those representatives were chosen by the people of America, to vote for the people of America. Most legislations aren't voted on directly by people.

You're only partially correct. Most of the representatives were selected by the colonial legislatures, or by the committees of correspondence of the respective colonies. This was the first, but not the last, case where the American public was basically left out of the loop.

The governments of most other countries expect disobediance from their people?

Wheelchairman helped a lot with this one; and he's right of course. The young especially are expected in many other nations outside the US to question the establishment, and in some forms, rebel from it. In the US, everyone is expected to accept the status quo, and are properly indoctrinated as youths to believe that "patriotism" means "keeping your mouth shut if you disagree". Especially now in the Post-9/11 US, people who dont agree with the government, people who speak up or demonstrate, are seen as unamerican, unpatriotic, etc etc.

Give an example, I dare you, without sounding like a complete idiot.

Let's see...you've stumped me. Oh no wait - I remember. You want the whole list? The whole list is thousands of cases long easily. The American Bar Association (the US Assoc for law professionals), estimates that several thousand people a year in the US are wrongly convicted. Obviously, a criminal record in the US is no laughing matter; those convicted lose many rights and there are a lot of places which refuse to rent to ex-cons, or hire ex-cons...even wrongly accused ones. There's a stigma attached to these people for the rest of their lives, and the US general populace have been trained to shun these "outcasts". I will point out a couple of specific cases of people wrongly convicted for you:

Brandon Moon of Kansas City, Mo., who served nearly 17 years for the rape of an El Paso, woman before DNA tests determined he was not responsible

Ryan Matthews, a Louisiana man who sat on death row for five years before he was exonerated

Last year alone, more than 150 people who were convicted in 31 states and the District of Columbia were said to have been sentenced to a total of 1,800 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. All were eventually exonerated (after being in prison and having a record) due to DNA evidence.

If these 150 were discovered as wrongful, you can imagine how many were not. Those people will leave prison marked for life as criminals, regardless of guilt, and will be actively resisted by those who see themselves as obedient, law-abiding folk. The government, through the courts system, imprisons far too many people each year. Why, you may ask? Prisons = money...tax money, and in some states, big business for private companies. The more, the merrier.

I've got to admit, though this is entirely stupid, it's the most sophisticated way of saying "GOVERNMENT SUX LIKE PUNK MUSIC SAYS, GO ANARCHIEZ!!!!!"

With such an intelligent argument, I find myself almost at a loss for words...almost. I am not an Anarchist. I've been a member of the Legal Community in the US for almost 10 years now, since first passing the Bar Exam in 1996. I suppose we can say that my eyes have been opened to the truth, through experience. I am not some teenage student reading his books about politics, figuring I know it all and anyone who disagrees is an Anarchist. You completely helped prove my point that those who exercise free will are resisted; I exercised my free will to oppose the system as it stands, and you provided the resistance by being a penis. Well done.

[Sin Studly]

I would have thought Cuba would have an even larger rich-poor divide than Chile. I mean, wouldn't Chile have more moderately affluent people than Cuba? Correct me if I'm wrong.

That being said, I am an advocate of the welfare state.

[Punky Dudess]

To some extent, Che reminds me of Tony Montana. (Scarface)

[_SickBoy_]

Che made awesome T shirts still going to this day

[Lithuanian Offspring]

Che fucks dogs!!






(I'm 3 beers shy of being totally drunk, so excuse my vulgarity!)