| |||||
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolution Online
Report this post as:
The RCP Suppoorted the Los Angles Riots and other Terrorismby Z Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2005 at 4:34 PM*The RCP called the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 "a beautiful civic action"
*The RCP supported the violence of Sendero Luminoso a violent communist group that killed nearly 30,000 Quechua, campesinos and government officials, including chopping people to death with machetes. *The RCP, in its publications said that they would reeducate homosexuals. *the RCP supports Mao and the Gang of 4. While Mao ordered the Great Leap Forward which killed between 16 million and 80 million rural Chinese peasants, he also started the falesly named Cultural Revolution which the Gang of 4 continued. Estimates vary on the number of dead but almost all voices condemn this 10 year period from 1966-1976. Mao's wife was one of the leaders of the Gang of 4. *Police violence is wrong and must be punished, but keep in mind that police help guard abortion clinics as well as other duties. *The RCP falesly claims the Dali Lama is a slave naster and goes on to support the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Do not get involved with the RCP! They are also agaisnt anarchists and Ralph Nader!
Report this post as:
Avakianby Tramp Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2005 at 5:31 PMNo one gives a crap was juvenile sewage like Bob Avakaian thinks about anything. Bob only mouths off to hear himself.
Report this post as:
Richard and Bob are both comediansby :-) Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2005 at 5:41 PMbut only one of them is funny.
Report this post as:
Why is the Level of IMC Debate So Low?by Linda Flores Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 4:45 AMcomolaflores@yahoo.com Dear Z,
You Post Accusations Without Proof! You Accuse a Group of Supporting Terrorism, A Serious Accusation in Post-9/11 America! You Invent and Slander! ... but seriously, folks, I go to a lot of IMC comment threads and there are all kinds of personal attacks (really low-level and petty, too) and half-truths mixed in with prejudices mixed in with actual legitimate criticisms and true stuff that occasionally appears. Even when people don't pull that, their attempts at debate have no content to them at all. And then there are the inventions. I won't go into all of them, because it legitimizes them -- I'll just say that if you can't provide actual proof of them, you don't have any right to make them. The RCP has criticized the wrong position that it used to hold on homosexuality, in quite a few places. But even when they still held this wrong position, it never included anything like "re-educating" -- and party spokespeople have said, in interviews, that things like that, that smack of "bedroom police", are actually opposed to what the RCP is about. It was still wrong, but go looking for calls to "re-educate" or anything like it, and you'll come up empty. But you knew that -- that's why you didn't bother to provide proof. Neither has anything the RCP has ever written, or said, "oppose anarchists" -- though you can find a lot of writings that have criticisms of anarchism as a political line and strategy that can actually represent a liberating way out of what we live under. If you can't tell the difference, that's not very good. Oh, but wait -- the RCP opposes Nader? Oh my god -- quick, cancel my subscription right now! There are a few accusations, though, that don't need refuting -- because anyone who reads Revolution newspaper, formerly known as the Revolutionary Worker (clearly no one on this board) would know that they are true. For example, the RCP upheld the L.A. rebellion in '92, and proudly. And they also fight for people to look at the history of the brutal repression under the Dalai Lama that many people see as enlightened and egalitarian. And ..... Accusations of "cult" can only be made by those who have not read any stuff by Avakian, since one of the things he emphases for his readers is the danger of turning science into dogma, the danger of a rigid and mechanical method, and the need for a society where debate and dissent are fostered and promoted. This isn't lip service, it's an integral part of the method he's promoting. Now, does "Bob Avakian is a dummy" sound like part of an environment where actual discussion is occurring? Let alone the shameful way that Z repeats anti-communist slander without even attempting to verify it. Do you use this method with every topic, or is it just when dealing with communism? It should give you pause that the loudest and most insistent purveyor of anti-communism are the rulers of this system - the most unrepentant capitalists ever. Do you think that WMDs are the only thing they've lied to you about? Seriously, people -- it's one thing to get into a disagreement about what you read here. I've seen comment forums go hundreds of posts long on all kinds of questions of theory, including debate on all kinds of isms versus each other, which strategy will liberate us, etc etc. Fuck, say what you disagree with about what this artice is saying -- "But for the masses of Black people in this "great land of freedom and justice for all" it can be--and it has been for hundreds, at least, every year. Of course, this kind of freedom and justice is not reserved for Black people alone in the U.S., though they are special "beneficiaries" of it. It also lashes out and ensnares millions of the masses of other oppressed nationalities, immigrants (so-called "legal" as well as so-called "illegal") and in general those who are without wealth and therefore without power, including many white people, for whom Officer Timpson is hardly a friend, either." (Z does, in defending cops by saying they also defend abortion clinics. I got a response to this: a) They very often do not -- as I'm sure people working clinic defense will tell you, and as I personally have observed; and b) That's like saying that, yeah, slavemasters oppressed their slaves, but they also fed them. I think we can figure out how to defend clinics without relying on brutal oppressors to do it. See, that's actual debate! Try it -- it's necessary if we want to move forward and maybe even find the truth sometimes. Now, can anyone here even get out of the 3rd grade long enough to do that? -- Linda Flores
Report this post as:
Hold onby fresca Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 7:39 AMDo any serious people actually listen to much less follow this ridiculous character Avakian?
Is he even for real or just some lame parody. And what's with the "chairman" deal? Chairman of what exactly? I can't believe there are people around who actually still call themselves communists. it's just plain silly.
Report this post as:
communismby Worker Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 3:38 PMI think the control of the means of production by the work force is a valid concept. That's at the heart of communism. This, to capitalist sectors, is
a deadly idea.
Report this post as:
maybeby fresca Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 4:25 PM"I think the control of the means of production by the work force is a valid concept. "
Except that it hasn't and can't happen over any meaningful length of time. Capitol or management ALWAYS rises up. It's simple human nature.
Report this post as:
human natureby Worker Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 4:50 PMYes there are people who have that urge to covet rather than share, steal, rather than earn and lie rather than tell the truth. It is a social disease. Human culture can shift its priorities and treat these maladies through cultural accommodation. We have changed a bit from monkeys I hope.
A rule of law rather than a rule by royal classes is a good beginning. The workforce is the blood and bones of the people. We have little need of these parasites.
Report this post as:
Communist Tapewormsby Tramp Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 8:10 PMYou said: "Yes there are people who have that urge to covet rather than share, steal, rather than earn and lie rather than tell the truth. It is a social disease. Human culture can shift its priorities and treat these maladies through cultural accommodation. We have changed a bit from monkeys I hope. A rule of law rather than a rule by royal classes is a good beginning. The workforce is the blood and bones of the people. We have little need of these parasites."
What a load of juvenile dog squeeze. You maliciously assume that those who are in management, or rise to management (or worse yet, OWNERSHIP) of a production resource are by default thieves and liars. That's an incorrect assumption because there are plenty of counter examples. It's also fed by a cynical and immature sense of 'class warfare' and petty victimhood. Achievers exist, whether you like it or not. If you aren't an achiever it's fair to say that in most cases your own decision making process kept you where you are. Many people are actually programmed for failure. In any event, those who succeed (the people you refer to as "parasites") add to the economy and the value of their society. Acievement is not a "social disease' and only a mental leper would believe that. Those who do not achieve depend on those who do... THEY are the real parasites. "cultural accomodation"... Go ahead and tell everyone what you really mean... violent overthrow of achievers by a mob of functionally illiterate miscreants. Communists are pathetic.
Report this post as:
slow downby Worker Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 10:01 PM"-Acievement [sic] is not a "social disease' and only a mental leper would believe that. Those who do not achieve depend on those who do... THEY are the real parasites. "
Come now 'Tramp' I was talking about lying ,thieving, and greedy people and a return to rule of law. Your getting way ahead of me. We can resort to violent over throw after all other options are closed.
Report this post as:
Workerby Tramp Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 10:06 PM"a return to rule of law" ... That's funny. Not sure if you've noticed but we already have laws that govern business and its conduct. Tens of thousands of them. There are hordes of government employees enforcing them every day.
"Your getting way ahead of me. " ... Correct. Capitalism has always been way ahead of Communism.
Report this post as:
nope I haven't noticedby Worker Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005 at 10:19 PMif laws were enforced the entire Bush family would be wearing jump suits.
Starting with Prescot Bush and his Union bank operations during the great patriotic war and then the Bush family during BCCI. And then the S & L rip off.
Report this post as:
Workerby Tramp Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 7:49 PMMaybe you should be in a jumpsuit... for sedition.
Report this post as:
"for sedition"by Proud Seditionist Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 7:58 PMMaybe the seditionists have something here.
Report this post as:
re: human natureby johnk Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 8:21 PM
There's not much "human nature" in capitalism. Capitalism, particularly this industrial form of capitalism we know today, is a very recent development.
"Human nature" goes back for hundreds of thousands of years, to the earliest humans, but, industrial capitalism goes back only decades to the mid 1800s, maybe back to the 1600s if you stretch the definition to include mercantile capitalism.
Report this post as:
re: Achieversby johnk Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 8:39 PMFrom the Big Lebowski, a very funny movie: Lebowski: "I hope that my wife will someday learn to live on her allowance, which is ample, but if she doesn't, sir, that will be her problem, not mine, just as your rug is your problem, just as every bum's lot in life is his own responsibility regardless of whom he chooses to blame. I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs, some chinaman in Korea took them from me but I went out and achieved anyway. I can't solve your problems, sir, only you can." Later.... "It's funny. I can look back on a life of achievement, on challenges met, competitors bested, obstacles overcome. I've accomplished more than most men, and without the use of my legs. What. . . What makes a man, Mr. Lebowski?" Of course, it turns out that the big Lebowski is a fraud, living off his wife's wealth and administering the Foundation.
Report this post as:
johnkby Tramp Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 9:55 PMHilarious! Your only counter argument is a fictional scenario in a Hollywood movie?
Report this post as:
better than yoursby knew it Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 10:04 PMCertainly better than assigning terms like sedition to people who want rule of law.
Report this post as:
"knew it" doesn't know Jack..by Tramp Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at 11:55 PMGive it a rest, loser. The Left is EXPERT at assigning lables to people.
We already have the rule of law. Just because you haven't been able to string up George Bush from a tree doesn't mean we don't have rule of law. It's petty and stupid to suggest that.
Report this post as:
"We already have the rule of law"by Tramp is ill informed Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 12:11 AMYou most likely mean law enforcement, not rule of law. A distinction apparently lost on 'Tramp' as the previous posts refer.
'
Report this post as:
Cosmic idiot learns how to typeby Tramp Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 1:11 AMBull cookies... Our government leadership, Congress, etc... is constrained in their actions by law. That is the rule of law. Likewise, the actions of citizens are also constrained by law. Happy now?
Now, other than playing one sentence word games, does your life here have a point? Or do you just want to blather about how much you hate the president?
Report this post as:
well not exactlyby Trampunisms Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 1:18 AMI mean like where is the law enforcement to such things like the release of the Cuban 5?
The lawyers who can now see the Gitmo detainees. Just to name a few. You obviously have some kind of double vision between rule of law and the selective use of law enforcement.
Report this post as:
Tramp, pleaseby johnk Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 8:46 AMI can go for thousands upon thousands of words on your rhetoric. I just don't have the time lately. If you want an argument, search for johnk, read a few dozen posts, and get real angry. It's almost as good as getting a fresh dose of my bile. Have a lousy day, tramp.
Report this post as:
johnkby Tramp Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 7:51 PM"bile".... Accurate description of your drivel.
Report this post as:
Back to my original pointby johnk Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 10:25 PMThe point of my quotes from The Big Lebowsky were to demonstrae.... oh, why even explain it. Tramp's arguments are his regurgitations of someone else's vomit. "Achievers"... That's lingo from the 1980s. That vomit he's barfing back up, isn't even fresh vomit.
Report this post as:
johnkby Tramp Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 11:34 PMYeah... you're right... "achievers".. what a dated concept! Who needs achievers in a Marxist society!
Report this post as:
"Achievers" in Marxismby johnk Friday, Dec. 23, 2005 at 10:40 AMI think in the communist utopia, people are supposed to be free to achieve their maximum potential, because their basic needs are satisfied with a minimal amount of collective effort. That's the theory, at least.
In your rhetoric, however, "achievement" implies financial gains. An "achiever" is someone who has achieved some measure of wealth. Whether they achieved their personal goals, or fulfilled their "calling" is secondary to making money. At best, self-fulfillment becomes a privilege available only to those who have achieved some measure of wealth, so they can "buy their freedom" to do something outside of the sphere of the market. Everyone else is "stuck" working too many hours for low wages, or working instead of raising kids, or scrambling for work due to layoffs or unemployment. When countries switch from socialistic to capitalist, at least in Europe, the number of hours people work increases. People have less free time. They have more consumer options. That seems to be the common trade-off.
Report this post as:
johnkby Tramp Friday, Dec. 23, 2005 at 4:54 PMYou incorrectly assume that by 'achievement' I referred specifically to financial success. In fact, if you reread my original posting, you'll see that I specifically referred to people who rise to management (or even ownership) positions. This has less to do with wealth that it has to do with setting goals and succeeding.The fact is that the vast majority of managers and business owners are NOT wealthy.
Marxism effectively squelches competition, thereby removing much of the motivation for becoming a manager and all of the motivation to own a business. Economically, Marxism is not about individual achievement (nor philosophically even about the individual). Socialism is about collectives and groups, not empowerment and building opportunity. Ultimately it never fails to end in anything but a Welfare State with enormous control over individual liberty.
Report this post as:
Socialismby johnk Friday, Dec. 23, 2005 at 11:03 PMSee, you took it right back to the issue of business.
Under a socialist system, you do have less business, but it's not like people stop operating businesses. Even in the USSR, there were small businesses that operated in the black market. As for management, socialist bureacracy encourages people to become "managers" of some kind of other. That was their standard of "achievement" -- to become some kind of official, or a big shot in the Party. I imagine it is the same kind of person who succeeds in that environment who succeeds in a large multinational corporation. I don't really see a big difference between loyalty to The Party and loyalty to a big company and loyalty to their respective systems. Likewise, if you're not inclined to be in the big system, what does it really matter if the big system is capitalist or socialist? Under capitalism, if you own a little business, you don't criticise people in power, because that can screw up business. Under socialism, if you own a little black market operation, you don't criticize the power openly, because some suckup toadie might call the cops. The systems, as they exist, aren't that different. Under socialism, you work hard probably for the government, and the state taxes you a lot, and then you get "free" health care, which you obviously were taxed for. Under capitalism, you work hard, and the insurance company charges you up the wazoo, and when you think you're going to get health care, you have to pay, again, for a lawyer to sue the damned company so you can get that "free" health care. Under socialism, it's hard to buy a house, or really to even own anything more than a little plot of land with a house on it, but you can get a little apartment, even if you are very very poor. Under capitalism, you're free to put yourself into debt with a bank for $500,000 for a 1,200 square foot house... or $250,000 for a 1,200 ft double wide shack. Or you move into a tiny trailer, and maybe put an American flag on your window. "Freedom." LOLz. Under socialism, poor people complain about being poor and unable to get anything nice to buy. Under capitalism, everyone complains about the poor person who is sleeping on the sidewalk and begging for money. The poor people worry about becoming that person. Under socialism, you have a very boring life with little risk. Under capitalism, you get to experience the excitement of unemployment or losing your pension. Here's my quote about the welfare state: "the welfare state is the only state worth having."
Report this post as:
Cartoonby johnk Saturday, Dec. 24, 2005 at 12:18 AM
Related to above.
Report this post as:
|