[late]

Sadly never surprising to see anti-Communists like yourself prefer fascism to workers power.

Hated both.

When I talked about the concentration of power, that applied to both. But I didn't see machine gun towers in Spain. Or an occupying army. But it would definitely have sucked to be a Spaniard in Franco's Spain.

Btw, Soviet workers didn't have power.

[AFAIK]

I don't think it's fair to compare life under an occupying army to life under an indigenous elected gov't.

Apples and oranges.

[late]

I don't think it's fair to compare life under an occupying army to life under an indigenous elected gov't.

Apples and oranges.

"Francisco Franco Bahamonde[f] (Spanish: [fɾanˈθisko ˈfɾaŋko βa.aˈmonde]; 4 December 1892 – 20 November 1975) was a Spanish military general who led the Nationalist forces in overthrowing the Second Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War and thereafter ruled over Spain from 1939 to 1975 as a dictator, assuming the title Caudillo. This period in Spanish history, from the Nationalist victory to Franco's death, is commonly known as Francoist Spain or as the Francoist dictatorship."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco

[KurtFF8]

I don't think it's fair to compare life under an occupying army to life under an indigenous elected gov't.

Apples and oranges.

Indeed. And like I've mentioned before, the attempt to equate two opposite systems like fascism and socialism is just a Cold War talking point that has little real world value.

[late]

Indeed. And like I've mentioned before, the attempt to equate two opposite systems like fascism and socialism is just a Cold War talking point that has little real world value.

Spain and Soviet Russia had this in common, power was concentrated in just a few hands. That's almost always bad..

[KurtFF8]

Spain and Soviet Russia had this in common, power was concentrated in just a few hands. That's almost always bad..

The power structures of Spain and the USSR were fundamentally different in just about every measurable way. The idea that they shared a common form of governance is nonsensical and inaccurate.

[Rugoz]

When did I claim that Francoist Spain was a workers state? It was literally the opposite: it was an anti worker fascist dictatorship.

You said:

Terms like "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" are largely just Cold War terms meant to promote the Western narrative that the West is "free and democratic" while workers states are "scary and authoritarian"

Meanwhile:

As with all labels of regime types, there is no full unanimity on what
is meant by political authoritarianism. There seems, however, to be a
fairly strong definitional consensus, perhaps due to a pioneering article
by Juan J. Linz entitled "An Authoritarian Regime: Spain," first pub-
lished in 1964.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/421246?seq=1

It's not the fault of political scientists that so-called "workers states" share important characteristics with right-wing dictatorships.

[KurtFF8]

It seems like you're trying to find a contradiction in what I said when there isn't one @Rugoz

[MadMonk]

The power structures of Spain and the USSR were fundamentally different in just about every measurable way. The idea that they shared a common form of governance is nonsensical and inaccurate.

Fundamentally different in every way but one; the governments not being beholden to the rule of law. Certainly their own interpretations of the law and respective constitutions, sure, but with no true power over party or leader.

Are western democracies paragons of this way of society? Hardly. Are there other forms more effective in many cases? Quite possibly.

[late]

The power structures of Spain and the USSR were fundamentally different in just about every measurable way. The idea that they shared a common form of governance is nonsensical and inaccurate.

Congrats, you missed the obvious again.

[KurtFF8]

Fundamentally different in every way but one; the governments not being beholden to the rule of law. Certainly their own interpretations of the law and respective constitutions, sure, but with no true power over party or leader.

Are western democracies paragons of this way of society? Hardly. Are there other forms more effective in many cases? Quite possibly.

The idea that there was "no rule of law" in a place like the USSR is, to repeat what I said earlier: baseless and nonsensical.

Congrats, you missed the obvious again.

Non response by you.

[late]

The idea that there was "no rule of law" in a place like the USSR is, to repeat what I said earlier: baseless and nonsensical.

Non response by you.

The USSR did not have Rule of Law. That's why my lawyer friend went there, to show them how it's done. He was not particularly successful. I'll give you one example, contracts are binding. In Russia, even today, a contract is just a chance to get a bribe, or skim off the top.
But back in the USSR, it was worse.

Others explained it.

So much for reality, eh?

[Tainari88]

The USSR did not have Rule of Law. That's why my lawyer friend went there, to show them how it's done. He was not particularly successful. I'll give you one example, contracts are binding. In Russia, even today, a contract is just a chance to get a bribe, or skim off the top.
But back in the USSR, it was worse.

Others explained it.

So much for reality, eh?

Late, how about lying your ass off to impose via force your agenda on a society? The US government does that a lot. How many 'binding contracts' did the US government violate with Indian tribes and their tribal lands?

How about promising Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the Marianas Islands, Solomon Islands, American Samoa freedom, liberation, justice and so on and so much BULLSHIT. That never materialized because it went against their interests?

Supposedly the Spanish American war was fought to liberate our asses from Spanish tyranny? Instead it was substituted with US American imperialistic crap and profit mongering.

They violated everything in a contract they signed, sealed and delivered. They were trustworthy to LIE and steal. Using war and fear and violence to get that done. So how is that shit different than the terror of the Soviets and the barbaric people?

It is about IMPERIALISM. It is a horrible thing. Accept that shit SUCKS. And it is the end of the argument.

Here Late:

All of the reality is sad. The USA wanted to be different than their roots in imperial ambition. But the English, the Dutch and the German American immigrants that founded the first 13 colonies wound up doing the same thing. Colonizing and killing and violating contracts in order to displace the ones there first and committing genocide in order to control land they had no right to control.

Empire. The ugly thing again.

Successful dictators are about killing, terror, violating contracts and impositions all the time and in the worst barbaric ways. They lie, they cheat, they steal, and spill blood to get power, land and wealth.

They justify it all with tales of being SUPERIOR people with a better way of life. Does it sound familiar? Because it is. It is an old story. And it all leads to defeat.

Because it is inhumane, and dehumanizing and it does not lead to anything that over time is about stability. progress, justice and peace.

But if you bring it up to the ones still living with illusions of grandeur? They get upset.

Don't get upset. Just admit the truth and change in time. That is all. And never do that shit again to other people and other humans who have human rights.

That is not hard to understand.

How did the US steal Puerto Rico? Very similarly to how they stole land from the Indian peoples and tribes of the US mainland. In fact, Puerto Rico is categorized under the Department of the Interior, which is also where the Indian reservations are also placed under in the US government administration. In fact this man who became the Chief of Police in Puerto Rico came from this family:

Colonel Elisha Francis Riggs was born in Georgetown in northwest Washington, D.C., and was appointed Chief of Police of Puerto Rico in 1933, by Blanton Winship, the U.S. appointed governor of Puerto Rico.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/hco/books/Regist ... rs_etc.pdf

They were going to conquer Puerto Rico for the glory of EMPIRE of the USA. Why didn't they realize that colonialism and Empire SUCKS from their wars with the English crown and the King? Oh, I guess they just could not resist GREED. AND PIG BEHAVIOR. because, it is for the glory of the people who invade, take over and then the defeated got to agree with their whitewashed version of history.

People are not dumb @late all that lying does have an effect. No one believes that crap. They have to conform out of fear of being killed or being thrown in jail or losing a job to feed their kids with. But that they really believe the American government is looking out for their interests? No. Do not believe in that kind of naive thing Late. Most Puerto Ricans from every political belief system know that the US did not come for kindness and liberation. So, if the Russians come telling you all that you are full of two faced hypocrisy and stop playing games about SHOWING them how to act and do something RIGHT....you better be truthful. You are just as bad. But you pretend not to be. If you are honest with the Russians you might get somewhere with them and others. Lying and acting innocent never works. Not if you study history.

[AFAIK]

Spain had a junta, which you could compare with foreign occupation in the sense that they are both military governments. I don't see how it's comparable with USSR, which has a different ideology and political structure.

[Tainari88]

Spain had a junta, which you could compare with foreign occupation in the sense that they are both military governments.

Yes, they are.

Puerto Rico is ruled currently under a JUNTA too that is appointed by Washington DC. We are not allowed to vote for the members of that body. They retain the power to override any law or decision made in the local Puerto Rican legislature. Especially anything involving banks, money and trade, and so on. They are called PROMESA.

It means that Puerto Rico today in 2024 is ruled by a colonial government from the USA mainland that has total control over us without any ability to say no. It is tyrannical.

Yet, the US continues to tell who? The Russians that they need to have @late lawyer friend how to do it the right way. because, America, is a democracy and respects the rule of law. It is really bad.....AFAIK. BAD. BAD TO THE BONE.

PROMESA explained.

Hedge fund managers decided to use Puerto Rico to feed off its lack of power. Basically, it means a financial power institution is allowed to rule over a group of people, an economy, and a nation because it has no real sovereignty, it is not allowed to declare bankruptcy, and it is not a state of the Union or a free independent country, it is free for all of the corporations and their power. They tried it too in Honduras.

It is incredibly bad. But no one wants to admit that the US is turning into this monstrous anti-democratic slave state to BIG interests and it is kicking any semblance of democratic rule to the curb if it interferes with profitmongering.

I wish they would stop believing in these tales of contract, rule of law, law, and order, and justice and we love democracy stuff. They do not. If they cared they would know more about what the hell is done in the world out there and on their own side of the world.

I run into so many people who are just plain IGNORANT. I did not know that. Oh, I did not study history. Oh, I thought that never would happen with America and American democracy. Is that true? No...it can't be true. That would mean all of our principles are lies.

Yes, they are lies. Do something to change that. Do not dictate like little dictators covering their Tower of Lies in order to cover their greed. If Puerto Rico blows up down the road under that yoke what are they going to claim? Drug dealing, crazy Puerto Ricans protesting because they have been influenced by dirty Communists or Dirty Terrorists, or these Latino vermin ingrates.....send in the troops. Throw a bomb on them and claim they are a threat to Democracy. Everyone will believe us....we lie our asses off for a living. I really think the Americans are THAT STUPID. They believe that shit. Because they never open a history book or make an effort.

No wonder the Trump supporters love that man. He is the epitome of what is wrong with US government thinking and private for-profit conmen from Queens and NYC. LOL.

[late]

Not if you study history.

I do.

When I was working on a paper about slavery, I thought I would see what historians had to say about it in different countries.

It was a strange experience.

But it made me aware that there are other perspectives.

You keep saying the same thing to me, over and over. I could, if I wanted, to point out we also did some good.

I could say again that I hope one day we put that racism behind us.

But it would not change you.

[KurtFF8]

The USSR did not have Rule of Law.

This is just false.

That's why my lawyer friend went there, to show them how it's done. He was not particularly successful. I'll give you one example, contracts are binding. In Russia, even today, a contract is just a chance to get a bribe, or skim off the top.
But back in the USSR, it was worse.

Where was your lawyer friend from? If they were from the West then yes they would have a very different concept of what the law should be.

But if your lawyer friend said that there was "no rule of law" in the USSR, then your friend was wrong.

[Tainari88]

I do.

When I was working on a paper about slavery, I thought I would see what historians had to say about it in different countries.

It was a strange experience.

But it made me aware that there are other perspectives.

You keep saying the same thing to me, over and over. I could, if I wanted, to point out we also did some good.

I could say again that I hope one day we put that racism behind us.

But it would not change you.

You think I am some simplistic thinker Late? Nothing in human history is some simple thing of good vs bad and we did some good and we did some bad. In reality human beings interacting is complex.

I worry about justice. What is just and what is not just. That is what everyone should be focused on Late.

I really hate simplistic explanations of human history. I think the issue is the idea of holding on to ideas of governments and groups being about we are better. It is not about that at all. It is about the ability of all of us, each one of us to take responsibility for our own lives and being involved in positive actions.

Not believing in any kind of superiority.

Once you go down that rabbit hole....you wind up with the arrogance that the only truth is your truth.

The way I think of it Late is these dictators are people who need to control the world because they think that it is controllable. It is not.

It is an old truth. The world is far more powerful than we are.

I was watching a show on how the rockets launched into space might be polluting certain caps of the stratosphere as they try to explore space. It might lead to pollution and an even higher temperature for the Earth pollution problems.

The idea that we can get another Earth or live on Mars, or go to other galaxies with the current technology we have now and the lack of taking responsibility for the chaos we are currently in? Is a pipe dream Late.

Once we actually own up to the MISTAKES and stop denying what is wrong? And start being honest with ourselves, our national governments start being honest with their voters, and being honest with reality....we will be leaping forward greatly. The problem is denial. Can't allow that Late to be the center of our attitudes. It has to be the opposite. Acknowledge what went wrong and IS WRONG, and then embrace the damage done, and really feel what that is like.

Then be dedicated to a new way of thinking. You become the change that is needed. And that is what makes things better.

I get tired of the ignorance. I did not know that about Puerto Rico. I did not know that about Mexico. I did not know that about Indians. I did not know that about slavery. I did not know that about Russia. I did not know that about China. I did not know.

What the hell DO THEY KNOW THEN?

Propaganda and crap.

IF I do not know something it is fairly easy to rectify. Ask the question to someone who you trust you to tell the truth, and verify it with people who use something solid to uphold that theory.

Use science, and use facts.

Learn history.

And be honest about mistakes made. By everyone. Humans behave very similarly under similar conditions. Find out if they do not behave the same due to culture, religion, historical backgrounds, or geographically and cultural milieu reasons.

And then make a plan to cooperate with good faith. The big issue is the problem with DOMINATION. Wanting to control and be the final word.

It leads to abuse. Abuse of power. Abuse of power leads to conflict. Conflict leads to war and death.

War and death forces humans to expend a lot of energy on just trying to bring back balance and it retards every progressive positive goal in the world.

Has the US given up on trying to control Puerto Rico Late? Yes or no? If it i has not given up on that control issue? Then my mind is not going to magically change.

I change when the situation changes. The day the US decides to cooperate and do right by the island? All the past is forgiven and we all move on. On friendly terms.
+
But no one can be on friendly terms with an abusive power Late. That is just giving license to continue the abuse. That goes for all countries doing abuses. Without exception.

[late]

This is just false.



Where was your lawyer friend from? If they were from the West then yes they would have a very different concept of what the law should be.

But if your lawyer friend said that there was "no rule of law" in the USSR, then your friend was wrong.

"According to Soviet legal theory, "it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the individual". The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights. Therefore, the Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government.

The Soviet conception of human rights was very different from international law. According to Soviet legal theory, "it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the individual".[12] The Soviet state was considered as the source of human rights.[13] Therefore, the Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government.[5] Extensive extrajudicial powers were given to the Soviet secret police agencies. The Soviet government in practice significantly curbed the rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law and guarantees of property,[14][15] which were considered as examples of "bourgeois morality" by Soviet law theorists such as Andrey Vyshinsky.[16] According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of socialist courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize it in principle".[5]

The USSR and other countries of the Soviet bloc had abstained from affirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), saying it was "overly juridical" and potentially infringed on national sovereignty.[17]: 167–169  The Soviet Union later signed legally-binding human rights documents, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1973 (and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), but they were neither widely known or accessible to people living under Communist rule, nor were they taken seriously by the Communist authorities.[18]: 117  Sergei Kovalev recalled "the famous article 125 of the Constitution which enumerated all basic civil and political rights" in the Soviet Union. But when he and other prisoners attempted to use this as a legal basis for their abuse complaints, their prosecutor's argument was that "the Constitution was written not for you, but for American Negroes, so that they know how happy the lives of Soviet citizens are".[19]

Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Soviet state and society."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Soviet_Union#Court_structure

[KurtFF8]

Not really a response since you're just quoting Wiki.

But it's interesting that all of the wikipedia quotes you cite here are Western legal sources of course @late

The Soviet concept of law was based on Marxism Leninism, not on the idea that the "state" had rights. It was a class based system, i.e. a system based on the rule an interests of the working class.

It's telling that the sources you cite complain that property wasn't front and center of their legal system: why would it have been? It was a system based on a planned economy and socialized property.