Castro Resigns as Cuba's President

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, but then Socialists would have to be honest about their absolute disregard for human life.

Interesting... I studied a lot of political systems in university and, while we were certainly taught that there were 'bad apples' on both sides of the equation, it was never generally apparent that 'Socialists (have an) absolute disregard for human life'... quite the opposite. I don't really recall any political system having a monopoly on the claim of being the only one to 'regard human life'. Bit of a super-extremist statement there... no? The NDP are socialists... do they have an absolute disregard for human life?

There's a difference between a political philosophy and what one person/group of people do in the name of that philosophy. People are killed in the name of religion every day... does that mean religion itself is evil, or that the people acting in it's name are evil?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Interesting... I studied a lot of political systems in university and, while we were certainly taught that there were 'bad apples' on both sides of the equation, it was never generally apparent that 'Socialists (have an) absolute disregard for human life'... quite the opposite. I don't really recall any political system having a monopoly on the claim of being the only one to 'regard human life'. Bit of a super-extremist statement there... no? The NDP are socialists... do they have an absolute disregard for human life?

There's a difference between a political philosophy and what one person/group of people do in the name of that philosophy. People are killed in the name of religion every day... does that mean religion itself is evil, or that the people acting in it's name are evil?

When I talk about socialism, I mean those who favour some theory of Marxist-Leninist revolution and a blank slate theory of human nature. By believing that people need to be changed in order to transform society, you implicitly acknowledge a group that will not change and must be killed off or forced to change.

I don't include socialist democrats. Actually the NDP represent a key shift in Western European socialism that recognized the implicit violence in Marxist revolutions and decided to let the ballot box decided instead of the pistol bullet.

[peter12]

I also hope that while you were studing systems theory, you also indulged in a bit of political philosophy. An understanding of political systems means nothing if you can't understand the underlying worldview of that system.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

When I talk about socialism, I mean those who favour some theory of Marxist-Leninist revolution and a blank slate theory of human nature. By believing that people need to be changed in order to transform society, you implicitly acknowledge a group that will not change and must be killed off or forced to change.

I don't include socialist democrats. Actually the NDP represent a key shift in Western European socialism that recognized the implicit violence in Marxist revolutions and decided to let the ballot box decided instead of the pistol bullet.

I'm not sure that Socialsm believes 'people need to change in order to transform society', any more than Democracy needs people to change to make the system work. Nor does Socialism (in the political definition) advocate killing people to 'force change'. Technically a Socialist ideology would be universal healthcare, stronger centralization of government (ie, reduction of massive Provincial powers), equalised distribution of resource revenues, etc., etc.

Probably just a mis-use of the term 'Socialism'. There are people here who would define themselves as 'Socialists' and might take great offense to the implication they have 'no regard for human life'.

I think you're talking about Stalinist/Maoist Communism, which is really just Oligarchic Dictatorship dressed in Socialist clothing.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I also hope that while you were studing systems theory, you also indulged in a bit of political philosophy. An understanding of political systems means nothing if you can't understand the underlying worldview of that system.

Well, as far as I'm concerned it's more about what happened in the past to lead us to the present. That's why I took History alongside Political Science, to figure out what got us where we are, and what 'todays' political systems look like, and why.

The 'conservative' ideology as espoused by Jeremy Bentham in Britain (one of the father's of conservatism) looks nothing like American conservatism right now... a lot of it is a matter of definition.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not sure that Socialsm believes 'people need to change in order to transform society', any more than Democracy needs people to change to make the system work. Nor does Socialism (in the political definition) advocate killing people to 'force change'. Technically a Socialist ideology would be universal healthcare, stronger centralization of government (ie, reduction of massive Provincial powers), equalised distribution of resource revenues, etc., etc.

Probably just a mis-use of the term 'Socialism'. There are people here who would define themselves as 'Socialists' and might take great offense to the implication they have 'no regard for human life'.

I think you're talking about Stalinist/Maoist Communism, which is really just Oligarchic Dictatorship dressed in Socialist clothing.

Well, a modern socialist democratic agenda includes your list, universal healthcare etc... But let's be honest... all modern socialists have sold out to capitalism. All respect private property and the individual.

Classic socialism with roots in Hegal and Marx, with revolutionary adaptions by Mao, Lenin, Trotskey, and Stalin definitely advocates the wiping of human nature with a re-write carried out by a strong state.

The assumption of changing people still holds true. The abolishment of property laws, the annihilation of land-holders and businessmen, and the use of terror to rule an innocent people are all implicit in the development of true socialism.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

The assumption of changing people still holds true. The abolishment of property laws, the annihilation of land-holders and businessmen, and the use of terror to rule an innocent people are all implicit in the development of true socialism.

Well, I suppose it depends again on your definition. When you say 'Socialists have no regard for human life', it should be qualified with the fact that you can't mean people who vote NDP (who consider themselves 'Socialists') have no regard for human life.

Socialism has evolved just like Democracy, Facism, Conservatism, Liberalism, etc. None of those exactly resemble their origins. To make sweeping generalizations about 'Socialists' without qualifying that you're talking about Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist 'Socialism' is a bit misleading.

Socialists do not have 'no regard for human life'. Stalin, Mao, and others may have had none, but most Socialists would denounce their methods as not representative of true Socialism, but rather Oligarchic Dictatorship.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, as far as I'm concerned it's more about what happened in the past to lead us to the present. That's why I took History alongside Political Science, to figure out what got us where we are, and what 'todays' political systems look like, and why.

The 'conservative' ideology as espoused by Jeremy Bentham in Britain (one of the father's of conservatism) looks nothing like American conservatism right now... a lot of it is a matter of definition.

I disagree. The father of 'conservative' ideology, especially the Anglo-American ideology will always be Edmund Burke. This guy's influence, developed by Kirk Russel and others is still huge.

American political conservatism is different, I'd agree. Perverted by Wilsonian liberalism and the like.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

'

Yeah you got me there.

I just never understood making him the face of a revolutionary, he was a failure at it.

If your going to make the face of the revolution and put it on your T-Shirt, then you might as well be as contraversial as possible and put Stalin on your shirt.

I never thought of Stalin as a revolutionary, although early in his career, I guess he was, he was the establishment. Trotsky would be far more appealing.

Che, now he was a legitimate rebel and his failures only added to lost cause romanticism. Very appealing for us young in the 60s who were fed up with our two faced war mongering leaders. The reality of who Guevarra was, didn't have much to do with it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I never thought of Stalin as a revolutionary, although early in his career, I guess he was, he was the establishment. Trotsky would be far more appealing.

Che, now he was a legitimate rebel and his failures only added to lost cause romanticism. Very appealing for us young in the 60s who were fed up with our two faced war mongering leaders. The reality of who Guevarra was, didn't have much to do with it.

Lol, no doubt that Che was definitely a lot 'cooler' than Stalin...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, I suppose it depends again on your definition. When you say 'Socialists have no regard for human life', it should be qualified with the fact that you can't mean people who vote NDP (who consider themselves 'Socialists') have no regard for human life.

Socialism has evolved just like Democracy, Facism, Conservatism, Liberalism, etc. None of those exactly resemble their origins. To make sweeping generalizations about 'Socialists' without qualifying that you're talking about Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist 'Socialism' is a bit misleading.

Socialists do not have 'no regard for human life'. Stalin, Mao, and others may have had none, but most Socialists would denounce their methods as not representative of true Socialism, but rather Oligarchic Dictatorship.

You're still talking semantics and I would actually argue with your definition of theoretical evolution. Do you imply some sort of Hegalian synthesis or Burkean incremental change.

The roots of all ideology remains the same and thus influences our modern perspectives.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

You're still talking semantics and I would actually argue with your definition of theoretical evolution. Do you imply some sort of Hegalian synthesis or Burkean incremental change.

The roots of all ideology remains the same and thus influences our modern perspectives.

Fair enough, lets get away from semantics. I maintain it's innaccurate to state that 'Socialists have no regard for human life'. You can dress it up and down as you like, but I find that statement without qualification to be misleading, at the very least.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Fair enough, lets get away from semantics. I maintain it's innaccurate to state that 'Socialists have no regard for human life'. You can dress it up and down as you like, but I find that statement without qualification to be misleading, at the very least.

Hmm...
Okay, I'll shift gears a little bit. As a socialist, even a democratic one, you embrace radicalism and rapid progressive change in order to realize your final society.

I think this has been moderated by the conservative/liberal elements of our Western democracies. As I said before, it's why Western socialists decided to allow the ballot box to make the final decision. But, this goal of a progress towards a final society is something which is implicitly extreme in the notion of socialism.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I've never understood the respect for Che Guervara, he was a murderer, a rapist and a thug who prayed on the weak, and he died basically begging for his life and trying to leverage his name to survive.

I'm sure that the executioner who drew the short straw and got the honor of plugging him prayed that he would shut up and die like a man.

Instead he screeched, "Do you know who I am, I'm worth more alive then dead"

I ask everyone I see with the T shirt, hat, etc if they know anything about the horrible things he's done. "It looks cool" is the answer I usually get.

[habernac]

a friend of mine is a Cuban expat. He lives in Miami now. Here's his take on Castro:

What has he done with his time?

Make us unhappy. He has separated families. He's made Cubans feel like any corner of the world, even hell, is better than Cuba. He's found ways to lie, to steal, to bring out the worse in some of us and to hate each and everyone that thinks different or has a different opinion on what rules he thinks or feels we should live by.

He's made me hate him and wish for his death. He's made me wonder what made God create someone like him. He's made me experience things I wouldn't have had to endure if it wasn't for his despotism and his desperation to stick to an idea that should have died before it was borned.

He doesn't look the same anymore, man. He is just so afraid. So sure we are happy that he is going through everything we so many times wished for, he doesn't have the balls to show his face and shout, same ways he's shout all his meaningless crap for so many years, I quit.

He wants us to remember him as he always was, powerful, arrogant, allmighty...a God. Little does he know the only thing I will remember of him is how happy I felt the day I found out he is on his way to the darkest depths of hell.

I can't wait for my country and my ppl to finally have a chance to experience what freedom tastes like.

That'll be the day.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hmm...
Okay, I'll shift gears a little bit. As a socialist, even a democratic one, you embrace radicalism and rapid progressive change in order to realize your final society.

Sure, I suppose... considering right now I think 'change' is occurring at a snail's pace. We should have reformed the first-past-the-post system decades ago, but the political inertia is insurmountable. Though I wouldn't suggest that modern-socialism supports 'disregarding human life' to get there. The modern-socialist probably wouldn't take up arms in revolt to establish universally funded healthcare in Canada.

I think this has been moderated by the conservative/liberal elements of our Western democracies. As I said before, it's why Western socialists decided to allow the ballot box to make the final decision. But, this goal of a progress towards a final society is something which is implicitly extreme in the notion of socialism.

Sure... though I'd suggest original conservatism/liberalism have been tempered and modernized as well. Just as Socialism (used in today's context) doesn't necessarily imply Marxist-Socialism, I'd suggest 'Conservatism' (used in today's context) doesn't necessarily imply Bentham/Burke-ian Conservatism, but rather the modern definition (Harper/Bush/McCain type).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

. . . . . because he makes a helluva t-shirt.

Cowperson

....that is worn by a lot of ignorant idiots.

[CaptainCrunch]

The problem with the harsher version of socialism is that for the most part its not accepted by the people until after its put in place and their choices are taken away.

I thinks its pretty rare that a actual true communist government gets installed without some form of bloody revolution, or a outright war.

Look at the harsher version of it which Lenin called war communism, but extended for most of the 20th century.

China's form of communism was installed in a violent manner and enforced in a violent manner. The Soviet Union was born from incredible bloodshed, and governed in an even worse manner. Cuba, North Korea all were installed in a bloody manner and in order to keep control of the masses the threat and use of violence was used to keep those governments in place.

Germany and all of the other Warsaw pac nations had communism installed on them, and again the governments as shaky as they were were held up by the use of imprisonment, executions and paranoia created by the government.

I don't know of, and maybe one of you geniuses can let me know, of a single communist government that was put in place through the willing election of the people.

Joseph Stalin didn't care about the Welfare of the people, he saw the people as jagged rocks that needed to be pounded into round holes. Lenin really didn't care about anything but gaining the power to execute a political theory based around the false religion of the state. Even though he proclaimed World Socialism in his life time, he knew it would never come true.

The later members of the Politiburo knew that Communism was a means to power, they didn't believe in it anymore then the person who makes appearances at church but doesn't believe in god. They were deluded by the own Bureaucracy that their people were being clothed and fed and entertained because Cummunist successes were predicated on a lie.

Yes Communism talks about universal health care, but it didn't serve the people in a sense of extended life, or better health, it did enough to keep the people in the factories and the fields so that they could serve the machine.

The concept of same pay didn't work because under communism a doctor makes the same as a truck driver, and as the saying goes, "If the bosses pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work"

The concept of the workers owning the factories and the fields was a lie because all of the finished goods went to the greater glory of the nation, which because of its paranoia due to being founded in revolution was always trying to protect it from the next revolution.

Marx even stated "From each according to his abilities,
to each according to his needs.", which sounds admirable but the simple translation in communism is that if you don't work the state will let you starve.

Just as an add on, some Lenin quotes that kinda speak to his desire for power over the good of the people

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ”

“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed”

“A lie told often enough becomes truth”

“Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot.”

[Azure]

Originally Posted by habernac

a friend of mine is a Cuban expat. He lives in Miami now. Here's his take on Castro:

But I thought he was a good guy?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

....that is worn by a lot of ignorant idiots.

Just imagine what they must think of you!!