lawlz given

I see what you did there

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/898/898694/drago nball-20080813045114826.jpg

Report  
El_Mugroso (August 28, 2008)

that movies gonna be an epic FAIL

Report  
Cheesetits (August 28, 2008)

No joke.

Or for his grandfather to not be dead.

My god that guy was a dick! I always got really mad when reading about him.

Its okay, though. I hear in hell you can diddle the souls of unbaptised little girls!! That should leave the rotten old bastard stoked!

McCarthy would have actually been stoked about this. He only had a career because he acted like he knew who communists were. So anything really communist, he could use. He would have gotten a boner reading this. "COMMUNISTS ARE BAD LOOK JAiLING FREEDOM OF SPEECH"

don't forget the ones that wear cuban dictator hats.

I don't think communists and socialists are all about censoring people and throwing them in jail. I think it's just the ass clowns that rule the people, or the stupid people that let the shit happen. I support anyone that wants other governments to work out, except anarchy, that shit is stupid. I'm going to school for social psychology and have considered studying how much fuck anarchy would cause. People are fucking dumb.

Report  
LinoleumMagazine (August 28, 2008)

You don't think communism is about censoring people??? Are you for real? You need to do some serious research about the history of communism (start with this story we're commenting on).

Report  
Tobin_Ownlife (August 28, 2008)

I guess what I meant was I think it could work fine, but it must be done right. It seems like all these different forms of government are just pigeonholed into exact terms and definitions. I suppose that's what it's all about.

Report  
CUAPUNKRADIO (August 28, 2008)

Communism most likely cannot (and has been proven to not) work. Don't listen to your Marxist prof. who say otherwise. Free enterprise to the max is the only thing that has worked (albeit in an imperfect way) to promote freedom, peace, and prosperity throughout history

Report  
Tobin_Ownlife (August 28, 2008)

I don't know why I said it could work fine, that's not really what I was even trying to argue or necessarily agree with. I'm too friggin' tired I guess. I just think that communism isn't necessarily about censoring people, even though historically speaking, that has happened a lot in communist countries. I'm really just too stupid tired to argue politics or history, so I should probably just shut it.

Report  
escalators (August 28, 2008)
this is hilarious. do you even know what "free market to the max" really means? do you know what america looked like before the depression? do you want to go back to robber barons and even larger and stronger monopolies than we have today? the truly free market causes extreme inequality, which in turn causes violence. look at how violent the labor struggle was in this country until the government started backing them instead of using the national guard to crush strikes (along with whoever else the company could hire). free markets have been enforced elsewhere at the barrel of the gun: chile under pinochet (also a good portion of the rest of latin america at this time), tienanmen square (the demonstrations were not just pro-democracy, but anti-capitalism), russia under yeltsin (had to surround the parliament with tanks and kill/injure who knows how many demonstrators to pass th

show rest of commentthis is hilarious. do you even know what "free market to the max" really means? do you know what america looked like before the depression? do you want to go back to robber barons and even larger and stronger monopolies than we have today? the truly free market causes extreme inequality, which in turn causes violence. look at how violent the labor struggle was in this country until the government started backing them instead of using the national guard to crush strikes (along with whoever else the company could hire). free markets have been enforced elsewhere at the barrel of the gun: chile under pinochet (also a good portion of the rest of latin america at this time), tienanmen square (the demonstrations were not just pro-democracy, but anti-capitalism), russia under yeltsin (had to surround the parliament with tanks and kill/injure who knows how many demonstrators to pass the market reforms there). these are only a few well known examples. know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
Report  
BMXpunk (August 28, 2008)

I think you need to read something other than U.S. History books and copies of Culture Warrior.
I don't like everything about Communism, but maybe pick up a copy of The Communist Manifesto and actually read it and not just regurgitate what others have told you.


Report  
notfeelingcreative (August 28, 2008)

Okay, so he shouldn't listen to his marxist professor, but you have no problem regurgitating the info you learned in second grade social studies class?

Report  
StuckInBielers (August 29, 2008)

"Free enterprise to the max is the only thing that has worked (albeit in an imperfect way) to promote freedom, peace, and prosperity throughout history"

Oil wars, global inequality, unsustainability, peak oil.

Go away

Report  
shparky13 (August 28, 2008)
Here, I'll save everyone the trouble!

History of communism:
A guy named Marx writes a book.

A couple governments (the USSR and China) take that theory and twist it completely on it's head and then use the same name to describe it. Then those governments slaughter millions of innocent people and censor everything there is to be censored.

A couple small groups start using that theory in communities and in the work place and it works very well.

In Spain, there is a revolution and many parts of the countries are transformed by the people into libertarian communism and this works very well. However the fascist government finally crushes the revolt. (Note the fact that it was taken down from the outside, not because it didn't work)

Conclusion: "Communism" with a big C doesn't work, it's bad for the people and great for the

show rest of commentHere, I'll save everyone the trouble!

History of communism:
A guy named Marx writes a book.

A couple governments (the USSR and China) take that theory and twist it completely on it's head and then use the same name to describe it. Then those governments slaughter millions of innocent people and censor everything there is to be censored.

A couple small groups start using that theory in communities and in the work place and it works very well.

In Spain, there is a revolution and many parts of the countries are transformed by the people into libertarian communism and this works very well. However the fascist government finally crushes the revolt. (Note the fact that it was taken down from the outside, not because it didn't work)

Conclusion: "Communism" with a big C doesn't work, it's bad for the people and great for the ones in power. Marx's revolutionary ideas about a worker-controlled society are a little out of date but are still impacting workers rights groups and struggles all over the globe, doing a hell of a lot of good for a lot of people.

I think you need to do some serious research about communism. Every "punk" will be the first to say "The right wing media of today is twisting the truth about iraq!" But how many people stop to think that all the information and "history" you've heard about Russia, China, even Nazi Germany is just about as twisted as what you'll hear on Fox today about the world.

Report  
BMXpunk (August 28, 2008)

Agree with the beginning part... but if you are talking about Spain's Revolution of '36, they were Anarcho-Syndicalists, not communists.
Also, Marx idea's about worker-controlled society stopped at the State, who he believed should control the bank, transportation, etc.
Basically Marx wanted there to be no 'upper' or 'lower' class.

oh, and it wasn't just Marx who wrote the Communist Manifesto.

Report  
shparky13 (August 29, 2008)

I know that the spanish revolution was anarcho-syndicalists, but libertarian communism is another name for anarchism. People tend to use it because the word anarchism has connotations of chaos and disorder.
And I am very familiar with Marx's ideas. I was just saying that they have been used on a smaller scale, modified for use in smaller institutions than countries or governments, and in those cases, it generally works very well.
And I apologize to Engels for my lack of credit-giving.

Report  
Duffers (August 28, 2008)

This assumes that communist and socialists are the only ones who censor their people. Facists are just if not more guilty, and even our own beloved democracy (sarcasm) fends off free speech at every chance.

Report  
victim (August 28, 2008)
Your definition of "censorship" is a bit narrow don't you think? No one in America I've ever met was free to say whatever they wanted at their job. Furthermore, what about the demands people make for basics such as shelter, food, medical care, education, and opportunity?

I can damn well assure you that homeless people feel "censored". And I'm betting that you can find plenty of people living in the ghettos -- particularly minorities -- who feel the same. For all intents and purposes they're fucking invisible.

I think you need to do a little reseach of your own -- like try this. Look around you and ask the question Why does everything fucking suck?

The fact that this guy is not free to say anything he wants -- such as, for instance, supporting brutal regimes of killers like the United States -- doesn't concern me one fucking bit.

show rest of commentYour definition of "censorship" is a bit narrow don't you think? No one in America I've ever met was free to say whatever they wanted at their job. Furthermore, what about the demands people make for basics such as shelter, food, medical care, education, and opportunity?

I can damn well assure you that homeless people feel "censored". And I'm betting that you can find plenty of people living in the ghettos -- particularly minorities -- who feel the same. For all intents and purposes they're fucking invisible.

I think you need to do a little reseach of your own -- like try this. Look around you and ask the question Why does everything fucking suck?

The fact that this guy is not free to say anything he wants -- such as, for instance, supporting brutal regimes of killers like the United States -- doesn't concern me one fucking bit.

I don't know the specifics of this story and I'm willing to bet neither do you. The question though, is whether you know anything at all
Report  
herbertfranklin (August 29, 2008)
I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that the inequalities in Cuba are even comparable to those in the United States. America's GDP per capita is 10 times more than that of Cuba and the average Cuban would be living well under the poverty line if they were living here. How is it possible that you can condone restriction of free speech when without this free speech, you would not be able to voice opinions such as the one that you presented here on this site? Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because America has a ways to go when it comes to reducing inequalities does not make Cuba any better with it's restrictions on free speech and the press. Americans, whether poor or rich, have the right to vote and can make their voices heard if they mobilize. Cubans can't afford that right, where the Communist party is the sole party and the election consists of changing members who

show rest of commentI think you'd be hard pressed to prove that the inequalities in Cuba are even comparable to those in the United States. America's GDP per capita is 10 times more than that of Cuba and the average Cuban would be living well under the poverty line if they were living here. How is it possible that you can condone restriction of free speech when without this free speech, you would not be able to voice opinions such as the one that you presented here on this site? Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because America has a ways to go when it comes to reducing inequalities does not make Cuba any better with it's restrictions on free speech and the press. Americans, whether poor or rich, have the right to vote and can make their voices heard if they mobilize. Cubans can't afford that right, where the Communist party is the sole party and the election consists of changing members who adhere to the same exact platform as their opponents.
Report  
shparky13 (August 29, 2008)
The fact that the Cuban GDP is much lower than that of the US has nothing to do with the cuban government. It is a poor country because of (among other reasons) the US trade embargo. Whether there was a democratic, socialist, fascist, theocratic, or communist government in Cuba their GDP would be low.

Secondly, to say "Cubans don't have the vote" is not true. There are municipal elections, in which people are free to vote how they choose. Then those elected officials can go on to give their opinions to Castro and the higher ups. Look at Canada and the US. Whether it's the conservatives or the democrats or the liberals or the republicans it's all the same shit. When was the last time you saw serious change come from a president or prime minister that wasn't caused 100% by popular pressure?

Still talking about voting, is voting really the great democratic t

show rest of commentThe fact that the Cuban GDP is much lower than that of the US has nothing to do with the cuban government. It is a poor country because of (among other reasons) the US trade embargo. Whether there was a democratic, socialist, fascist, theocratic, or communist government in Cuba their GDP would be low.

Secondly, to say "Cubans don't have the vote" is not true. There are municipal elections, in which people are free to vote how they choose. Then those elected officials can go on to give their opinions to Castro and the higher ups. Look at Canada and the US. Whether it's the conservatives or the democrats or the liberals or the republicans it's all the same shit. When was the last time you saw serious change come from a president or prime minister that wasn't caused 100% by popular pressure?

Still talking about voting, is voting really the great democratic tool it's made out to be? Usually in Ontario and in Canadian federal elections the green party gets between 8 and 12 percent of the popular vote. But because of our "winner takes all" voting system for MPs, they never get a seat in parliament. Great democracy that voting is getting us, when 10 percent of the population is being ignored, not to mention all the people who consciously don't vote.

Finally, I don't think anyone is saying that American inequalities make Cuban inequalities okay. I think the point is, when this story comes up everyone is quick to scream "Oh, what a fucking jerk Castro is. Fucking fascist!"
The truth is, the US (more specifically the CIA) has been trying to oust Castro for almost 50 years now, to put in a puppet government. Many of the restrictions on free speech and the general strictness of Cuban domestic policy is to keep that away. If it weren't for their tight laws, the Cuban people would be living under a dictator that makes Castro look like Gandhi within weeks. Granted, some of it is exaggerated, I don't think this punk was part of a CIA plot to overthrow the government, but you can understand where they're coming from.

And by the way, just a little anecdote. My sister lived in cuba for 3 months, and on May Day they had a parade with almost a million youth. Not a single police officer. Really shows you how much the cubans hate their government eh? They must be dying to get some of our western democracy!
Report  
herbertfranklin (August 29, 2008)
Although the trade embargo has negatively impacted the Cuban economy, there are several issues that have stunted growth, namely the failure of their planned economy. I think that this is the most important reason why Cuba's economy is at the point that it is, with the embargo acting only to worsen the situation. The right to vote is there but it's an illusion, it's like choosing Obama over Hillary. There are minor differences but they are both still adhering to the same party platform. As for there being no difference between Conservatives and Liberals, there are obvious differences and many stand in direct opposition to each other (e.g. role of the state). There are several reasons why these parties don't always implement the policies they want to, mostly institutional design. Canadian and US government move very slow mainly because the framers of our respective Constitutions didn't want

show rest of commentAlthough the trade embargo has negatively impacted the Cuban economy, there are several issues that have stunted growth, namely the failure of their planned economy. I think that this is the most important reason why Cuba's economy is at the point that it is, with the embargo acting only to worsen the situation. The right to vote is there but it's an illusion, it's like choosing Obama over Hillary. There are minor differences but they are both still adhering to the same party platform. As for there being no difference between Conservatives and Liberals, there are obvious differences and many stand in direct opposition to each other (e.g. role of the state). There are several reasons why these parties don't always implement the policies they want to, mostly institutional design. Canadian and US government move very slow mainly because the framers of our respective Constitutions didn't want a tumultuous government and so they implemented mechanisms that would reduce the possibility of radical change. The Winner Take All system is such a mechanism. It doesn't stifle "democracy", it stabilizes the system by reducing the power of fringe parties that may not meet the needs of the people thus forcing parties to moderate their positions to go after the median voter. As for the US plotting to assassinate Castro in order to put in a "puppet government", I'll give you that. I'll have to disagree that they would have a dictator worse than Castro because one of the US's gripes with Cuba is the fact that they are a dictatorship and the Cuban-American constituency would not stand for that. The thought that the US would implement a dictator that makes Castro look like Gandhi is merely an assumption with no basis. Furthermore, the fact that Cubans go to parades in large numbers does not necessarily mean that they are completely happy about their government. They are indoctrinated into believing that the State is the highest authority and the Cuban government provides incentives for people to turn in political detractors thus cutting down on the possibility for dissent. As for Cubans wanting to get their hands on Western democracy, they are! Hundreds of thousands of Cubans have immigrated to America in order to escape Castro's totalitarian regime and about 14k immigrate every single year to the US. As for your sister living in Cuba for three months, great for her! I hope she looked around and saw the plight of the Cuban people first hand and understood the policy measures that have to be undertaken in order to better their situation. I visited Cuba a few years ago and seeing the poverty as well as the lack of freedom there was really disheartening. There needs to be serious changes in that place, in the forms of freedom of speech and market reforms.
Report  
bornofthenight (August 29, 2008)

They're fucking brainwashed, idiot. They don't KNOW anything about western democracy other than what they've been TOLD!

Report  
VictorIkpeba24 (September 1, 2008)

Just an objection to the fact taht "cubans love their government". Lots of Americans love their government, Russians love their government, North Koreans love their government, Chinese love their government. Because the information they are given is biased to hide the lies and the hidden reasons behind the decisions of the government. In Russia everyone think that Russia was right to intervene in Georgia, in the US everyone think they were wrong, and that's only because of how medias in these countries presented the thing.

In China or Cuba they just censor anyone that says otherwise, in the US, but also in every single other "democratic country" they just try (and achieve easily because most people are dumb and lazy) to influence the way of thinking of the masses by using the power of mass medias.

Report  
escalators (August 28, 2008)

i think anarchism gets oversimplified by most people who entirely write it off without knowing very much about it at all (this is also unfortunately the case with many "anarchists"). i'm not going to try to give you a crash course on anarchist theory, all i'm saying is there is more substance there than you think. noam chomsky, who even if you don't agree on all political issues is one of the smartest men alive for his work in linguistics alone, is an anarchist. even if anarchism would not truly work, there would have to be at least some real substance to it for chomsky to buy into it.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (August 29, 2008)

Chomsky strikes me as the kind of guy that lives in the world of the theoretical rather than the world of reality. No offense to the guy because I don't know enough about him to make a definitive judgement.

Anarchy is silly because we live in a world where we've got 6,000,000,000 souls that need to get along and organize their efforts. Government is a pretty logical way to do that and make sure that society functions within some agreed upon norms of behavior (like don't kill your neighbor and no you can't take that guys car).



Report  
killdefenses (August 28, 2008)
i don't think you understand the concept of applied anarchy very well. if you did, you'd understand that it's a perfectly feasible idea (and has been executed on some level or another hundreds of times. spain, france, early u.s. settlements, native american tribes, aboriginal tribes, native african tribes, the country of somalia for about a decade [albeit a bad example], and the zapatista movement. lest we not forget "the internet", an amazingly functional anarchic project.)

see, everyone seems to think that anarchists demand everyone adhere to anarchist theory. but that's far from it. i'd say most most, including me, just want to live a hierarchical-free, forced-authority free life. i know me and many others could work, live, and survive in as much comfort without the supposed benefits of authoritative figureheads. you underestimate people and their ability to problem solve too

show rest of commenti don't think you understand the concept of applied anarchy very well. if you did, you'd understand that it's a perfectly feasible idea (and has been executed on some level or another hundreds of times. spain, france, early u.s. settlements, native american tribes, aboriginal tribes, native african tribes, the country of somalia for about a decade [albeit a bad example], and the zapatista movement. lest we not forget "the internet", an amazingly functional anarchic project.)

see, everyone seems to think that anarchists demand everyone adhere to anarchist theory. but that's far from it. i'd say most most, including me, just want to live a hierarchical-free, forced-authority free life. i know me and many others could work, live, and survive in as much comfort without the supposed benefits of authoritative figureheads. you underestimate people and their ability to problem solve too much.
Report  
Dudley_Shale (August 29, 2008)

But then you always have that one person, and theres always that one person, who strikes and fucks up the wheel from turning the way it did. Slowly, and surely. I'd like to believe in Anarchism, but I simply can't when I know not everyone will adhere to the given honor system.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (August 29, 2008)

The problem is that we live amongst considerably larger amounts of people these days than compared to your examples. I think what you are speaking about isn't anarchy but rather just an expansion of freedom and reduction of government in your life. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I don't know.

I have an honest question though. What do anarchists think about government social programs like health care, medicare, and social security which basically imply more government involvement in your life? I'm dead serious on this question because I don't know the anarchist perspective here. I'm assuming they are different than socialists or communists.



Report  
dlangl4 (August 29, 2008)

In my opinion, anarchists feel that they are allowed to join and participate in any form of organization or government they choose, or they don't have to. It's their choice.

So in an anarchistic (that might not be a word) society, if some of them wanted to get together and have a government that ruled over those indivduals only, that would be fine. The same would go for any form of institution. They just couldn't force others to join their organization or be ruled by their government.

I could be wrong though.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (August 29, 2008)

Even so, I see alot of holes with that idea.

The biggest being that these anarchists are still using infrastructure and services provided by the government. If a bunch of anarchists want to go live in the woods of Alaska and not partake in our government, then I'm ok with that. But if they want all the public goodies that come with being in an organized society then they ought to be willing to accept some of the responsibilities that go along with that.

I share alot of sympathy with anarchists. My preference is always freedom over government involvement but I don't think it is an all or nothing choice like they do. I can accept SOME government in my life. Definitely less than there is right now, but I still appreciate infrastructure, emergency services, environmental protection and the military.



Report  
dlangl4 (August 29, 2008)
After I typed that comment, I realized I should have added another paragraph saying how - this is why anarchists can't techincally live in a society other than an anarchistic society. It's precisely because if they benefit in the ways you mentioned in your second paragraph, then their ideology fails on a logical level.

In other words, to add to my opinion above, if someone benefits from a forced institution, regardless of whether or not they agree to it, they simply are not anarchists in my book. Thus, like you said, they'd have to live on an island somewhere where no other government exists, and only then (starting from scratch) they could create their own or do whatever and not create their own. Without the option NOT to benefit, an anarchistic belief fails. Therefore, any anarchist who accepts the benefits of a country (and a government that is already in place is al

show rest of commentAfter I typed that comment, I realized I should have added another paragraph saying how - this is why anarchists can't techincally live in a society other than an anarchistic society. It's precisely because if they benefit in the ways you mentioned in your second paragraph, then their ideology fails on a logical level.

In other words, to add to my opinion above, if someone benefits from a forced institution, regardless of whether or not they agree to it, they simply are not anarchists in my book. Thus, like you said, they'd have to live on an island somewhere where no other government exists, and only then (starting from scratch) they could create their own or do whatever and not create their own. Without the option NOT to benefit, an anarchistic belief fails. Therefore, any anarchist who accepts the benefits of a country (and a government that is already in place is always forced even if they choose it completely) isn't living under anarchist's ideals.

This is just my own view of the idea. I could be seriously wrong.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (August 29, 2008)
Sure they are. The whole point of communism and socialism is massive government involvement in your life. The whole essence of those forms of government is that you turn over your personal rights and responsibilities to the government and they get to dictate them so that everything ends up "fair" and "equal". When you turn over responsibility for your life over to your government, it pretty much goes with the territory that you are going to lose rights.

Our system isn't perfect, but I'd take freedom over strict equality every day. As long as people are free to pursue their passions and live with minimum government involvement then I'm ok with the fact that life isn't always fair and asshats like Gene Simmons are rich.

There is a big difference between equal rights and equal outcomes. I always thought the punks were about freedom and individuality

show rest of commentSure they are. The whole point of communism and socialism is massive government involvement in your life. The whole essence of those forms of government is that you turn over your personal rights and responsibilities to the government and they get to dictate them so that everything ends up "fair" and "equal". When you turn over responsibility for your life over to your government, it pretty much goes with the territory that you are going to lose rights.

Our system isn't perfect, but I'd take freedom over strict equality every day. As long as people are free to pursue their passions and live with minimum government involvement then I'm ok with the fact that life isn't always fair and asshats like Gene Simmons are rich.

There is a big difference between equal rights and equal outcomes. I always thought the punks were about freedom and individuality but the more I hear some of them speak the more I realize they are about conformity and the government being the solution rather than the problem.

(not directing all of that at you of course, just making a general statement).

p.s. your statement is very true.

Report  
sugarfull (August 28, 2008)

I hope for your sake that this post was a joke, because if it was it was funny as hell, and if not, that's pretty sad.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (August 29, 2008)

The only purpose of government regulation of industry is to control externalities like pollution, indirect infrastructure costs, abuse, ect.

Our country has taken it one step further and made this such a horrible place to do business that all the high paying middle class manufacturing jobs are moving offshore.

Oh...and what's up with your post? Boy are you mad about something. I just can't figure out what.

Well, like I said, I'm way too tired to argue my horribly remembered education. I'm not really trying to start anything. You all make valid points. I'm obviously not making my point correctly or intelligently nor did I really think I would.

In no way was I trying to support what is going on here. Like I said, i already shut myself up, so I see no need to destroy me.

Report  
BMXpunk (August 29, 2008)

I don't think anyone was trying to 'destroy' you. This is what it's all about though, right?
Voicing your opinion and then actually listening (or in this case, reading) other people's thoughts on the subject. And by that examining what you feel should and shouldn't be.
I consider myself an Anarchist, but I will still listen to other people's thoughts and opinions.


Report  
Tobin_Ownlife (August 29, 2008)

I feel I should mention to such a cool headed reply, that I'm not necessarily against anarchy for it's ideals. I just have this hatred for humanity. So many people are just idiots and would take advantage of such a society. I think it's sick.

Social Distortion just got one-upped in the band name category.

That's a good name for a band.

Report  
badbrain (August 28, 2008)

dibs

actually it sounds better the way the band from S.F. has it.. Peligro Social. They also kick ass.

yeah, because I am sure that the U.S. Repulipuke Party keeps up on jailed punks in other countries.

Report  
BMXpunk (August 28, 2008)

*Republipuke

Report  
RRR (August 28, 2008)

I like ReTHUGlican

I would much rather exist in a free socialist state (yes, there is such a thing) (notably libertarian socialism) and eliminate a large percentage of the rich and the poor along with criminal politicians. Beats living in the united police-states.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (August 29, 2008)
There is no such thing as a socialist-free state. That's one of those having your cake and eating it too kind of statements. The second you turn over the personal responsibility for your own well being to your government, you pretty much open the door for handing over your rights over as well.

You show me an example of a socialist state that is also free. There is an obvious inverse relationship between socialism and freedom historically speaking. We are on the lower end of socialism in this country (though moving towards it) and we easily have one of the most free societies in the world. You can say what you want about Bush and all the other recent crap but the reality is that you can pretty much go about your business without interference compared to other countries.

Europe is on the middle end of socialism and their freedoms are considerab

show rest of commentThere is no such thing as a socialist-free state. That's one of those having your cake and eating it too kind of statements. The second you turn over the personal responsibility for your own well being to your government, you pretty much open the door for handing over your rights over as well.

You show me an example of a socialist state that is also free. There is an obvious inverse relationship between socialism and freedom historically speaking. We are on the lower end of socialism in this country (though moving towards it) and we easily have one of the most free societies in the world. You can say what you want about Bush and all the other recent crap but the reality is that you can pretty much go about your business without interference compared to other countries.

Europe is on the middle end of socialism and their freedoms are considerably more constricted. I work in international sales so I spend alot of time with the Germans and they've made it pretty clear to me in my visits that they have MANY more restrictions placed on their lives than we do.

And then on the far end of the spectrum you have places like China where socialism is to the extreme and they have very little freedom and live in constant fear of their government.

Your idea of a free socialist state is an oxymoron. How can we eliminate the rich like you say without impeding on someone else's freedom? If I don't have the freedom to generate large amounts of wealth through hard work and good ideas then how exactly am I free? See, it doesn't work.

I'm not against a little bit of socialism to make sure no one lives in poverty but the idea that we can have everything perfectly equal and still be free is absurd and I'd love to hear how you propose to do that.


Report  
dlangl4 (August 29, 2008)

What is libertarian socialism?

You do realize that socialism and communism are economic principles right? THey are alternatives to capitalism not alternatives to Democracy, it is possible that socialism and democracy to cone day coexist, it just hasn't happened yet.

Report  
Dudley_Shale (August 29, 2008)

And it probably won't, honestly. Money is the mouth that speaks to the majority. It'd be like oil and water mixing, I feel.

Kind of like how Christians, Muslims and Jews all have the same beginning to their book, and the serve the same God, yet the ending is something that can't agree on and like to blow each other up. In the name of God. The same God.

Report  
thestatewillwitheraway (August 28, 2008)

None of those countries are practicing socialism or communism. They're capitalist countries with social programs more extensive than in America. The Euros call it "Social Democracy".


Report  
weffjebster (August 29, 2008)

Is this gonna go down as the only justify-aligned post in punknews history?

Report  
dlangl4 (August 29, 2008)

Generalizations about an entire country's population = fail. Meanwhile, I can safely say that regardless of your politics, you did make a dumb assumption that all Americans have a lot of dumb assumptions and think your foreign policy is wrong. So maybe, fuck you?

yes, why yes it is

Report  
Banal242 (August 28, 2008)

Okay then. I support this band in whatever they do.

Maybe Chavez gets a slight pass for building up his infrastucture and actually helping people, not to mention telling the U.S. they will gharge what THEY want for THEIR oil. It seems though even a lot of leftist idealists unlees they are lock step,disdain the Castro's because they fucking suck. Shit he even ratted out Che'. I hope someone can help this dude out.

Can you cite instances of domestic oppression?

Tell me about ICE, tell me about race relations and the penal system in the United States. Thats domestic oppression applied on a scale larger than the entire Cuban popoulation of 11 million

And yet I don't hear you speaking out about that..

Opposing US Empire is THE #1 obligation right now..you're free to disagree with that, but at that point you've aligned yourself with the Empire.

In which case, you better hide good

Report  
thestatewillwitheraway (August 28, 2008)

But, But look what America does!!!

You're the perfect example of a useful idiot. You're ignoring clear cut examples like this while bringing up ridiculous notions of domestic oppression in the U.S. that would make even the most hardcore conspiracy theorist blush.

Keep on supporting the dictators. Hamas and Hizbollah are pretty awesome too right?

Scum.



Report  
victim (August 28, 2008)

Up yours buddy. You can go to hell

Report  
Dudley_Shale (August 29, 2008)
You know what, while I can appreciate the intelligence that you had in your initial, er, 'dissertation' there, you can't compare Cuba's oppression to what happens in the United States.

You can, but the basic principles the United States was founded on (ideally) allow me the rights and basic freedoms of open dissent. If I'm pissed off about something, I have the rights to openly say so, and vote against something.

Yeah, voting is pretty fucked, but to cite an example of times when it isn't, in California and Maine, homosexuals can get married.

Castro threw homosexuals into the ocean, and kicked the raft towards America, along with murders, rapists and people with terminal illness.

I still have the right to walk into the White House and yell, "I disagree" and nothing can happen to me. Thats a guaranteed right. Will it do something i

show rest of commentYou know what, while I can appreciate the intelligence that you had in your initial, er, 'dissertation' there, you can't compare Cuba's oppression to what happens in the United States.

You can, but the basic principles the United States was founded on (ideally) allow me the rights and basic freedoms of open dissent. If I'm pissed off about something, I have the rights to openly say so, and vote against something.

Yeah, voting is pretty fucked, but to cite an example of times when it isn't, in California and Maine, homosexuals can get married.

Castro threw homosexuals into the ocean, and kicked the raft towards America, along with murders, rapists and people with terminal illness.

I still have the right to walk into the White House and yell, "I disagree" and nothing can happen to me. Thats a guaranteed right. Will it do something in the way of change? Most likely not.

America has it's flaws, but most those flaws could be fixed by the people. We hired the civil servants to lead us, and we forget our rights as citizens because we get scared, lazy and often times do not know our history. The blame lies solely with it's people. Even Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of over-throwing the government every decade, so they wouldn't get too big of heads.

It's a mentality that makes a leader effective. The mentality of the people, by the people, for the people. So while our current Administration might be 'evil', and the next won't be any different, we still have that comfort of knowing we can disagree, and not risk death. Cuba is a beautiful country, and not all of it's structure is bad. They have National Health Care, for example. Can't hate on that. And no, not everything Raul/Fidel have done has been negative (powers of propaganda.) but a Dictatorship I feel is not a plausible form of Government, in the way of things being fair (in the quality of life) for it's citizens.

You do have some good arguments though.

Report  
baseball (August 29, 2008)

I think you should step down from your high horse. I don't agree with victim's entire post, but he gave perfectly legitimate examples of domestic oppression within the US. Do you even know what ICE is? Have you ever cracked open a book on any number of the oppressive facets of the US penal system?

I'm sorry, but if you're implying that the US does not oppress its own people, then you're just naive.

Cuba's government oppresses people. The US government oppresses people. They are both wrong for doing so. Period.

Report  
dlangl4 (August 29, 2008)

Backed fully.

Report  
herbertfranklin (August 29, 2008)

Here a few of the many instances of domestic oppression within Cuba:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/19/cuba18102.htm
http ://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/29/cuba9740.htm
http://hrw.org/e nglish/docs/2004/04/22/cuba8480.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/ 2004/03/17/cuba8126.htm

You've got to be blind if you can't see that Cuba oppresses it's people. Just because injustices occur in the US and we have a larger population than that of Cuba's does not make their human right violations any less atrocious.

Report  
jacknife737 (August 29, 2008)

If you were to ask me which country that i would rather live in, i'd choose America, without hesitation.

And, you still have the same mindset as those people that i've mentioned. I'm not going to claim that America is benevolent, nor doesn't have its fair share of domestic issues. However, none of that still excuses what the Cuban communists have done, or continue to do to the Cuban people. It’s pretty fucking hypocritical to suggest otherwise.

"Opposing US Empire is THE #1 obligation right now..you're free to disagree with that, but at that point you've aligned yourself with the Empire.:

Stop being so dramatic. This line of thinking however reminds me Henry Kissinger esq realism, ie “He may be a bastard, but at least he’s our bastard”. Pretty ironic, given that you’re a communist, no?


Report  
jacknife737 (August 29, 2008)

Well, that post came off a bit more “snarky” then I intended. I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. That point of view still annoys me, but oh well.

Report  
StuckInBielers (August 29, 2008)

I believe that the US has imperial intentions but that doesn't mean i condone shit like this. It sounds like you do

wow, no shit.
or "minority report" (sorry to name that crappy, crappy Cruise movie) where you are arrested for a crime you were going to commit.

wow.

Report  
BarleyPat (August 29, 2008)

I liked it better the first time, when it was called 1984.

I don't see where people keep getting this "America has more freedom to dissent" stuff.
Tell that to all the people who were arrested prior to the RNC in 2004.
Not to mention the fact that, "yeah, you can show your dissent and protest... but you have to do it from one of the designated 'Free-Speech Zones' we have set up 5 blocks away."

Report  
StuckInBielers (August 29, 2008)

I agree It's far from perfect. It seems that we're allowed to protest up until the point it's actually going to make a difference, then they start laying down the law. But at least Americans can get that far. What's happened here basically equates to thought crime.

*t

Haha, that would be nice.

Report  
dlangl4 (August 29, 2008)

I think the reason I felt that way about this thread is mostly because of your posts (in a good way).

Report  
dlangl4 (August 29, 2008)

and others too, in case someone got their feelings hurt