[omegaword]

i am a young communist, although not necessarily in an easily defined sense. i have two questions for posters, if you are a communist, say what kind and what aspects of your chosen form do you think of as best or most significant, and for any poster, where did they revolutions go? i know there are still movements out there, the FARC and the popular front for the liberation of Palestine, but i cant find many others. there are still masses crushed under the boots of the imperialists and capitalists, why is communism not more wide spread in today's world? have we just lost too much ground? is it over? even the communist states are bowing to capitalism for greed or because of imperialistic embargoes. is it a lost cause?

[Goldberk]

if you are a communist, say what kind and what aspects of your chosen form do you think of as best or most significant,

I'm an Anarchist and more specifically and anarch-feminist, the dual rejection of state and patriarchy as the two key pillars of oppression is quite key to my thinking. As is the wider rejection of marxist use of hierarchal organization and state power to advance towards communism.

where did they revolutions go?

I suggest reading two books by Hardt and Negri, Empire and Multitude, there formulations of where the new resistance will come from is quite interesting.

[fuser]

i know there are still movements out there, the FARC and the popular front for the liberation of Palestine, but i cant find many others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_corridor

[Social_Critic]

omegaworld, seems to me you confuse communist with revolutionary. But the two terms are quite different. Let's say you are a North Korean communist, and you enjoy life under the Kim dinasty. You are hardly revolutionary, more comformist and pro-establishment than the Pope when he backs the Catholic Church.

Now let's say you are like me, raised in Cuba, and hate communism. In Cuba communism is the state dictated end point economic system, meanwhile we are supposed to survive under "socialism" as defined by the Castro mafia. Because I work actively to undermine communism in Cuba, I am revolutionary. I am one of those people who are feared by the communists in Cuba because I want to undermine the established order, which has been set in place for over 50 years by brute force. Every time I get a chance, I work actively to destroy what they build. I am a tiny Terminator, a nihilist who will do whatever it takes to bring the regime down (excluding violent acts because I believe those are less efficient). Some of what I do involves undermining Cuban regime actions outside of Cuba, some of it involves turning Cubans in Cuba against the regime, and some of it involves writing in blogs like this so people like you do realize that this isn't a game, and that people die everyday in the struggle.

So as you can see, in my world you are just a backer of the status quo, a pro-establishment drone, and I am the revolutionary. And the times are always changing, soon the communist regime in Cuba will fall, and we will tear down to shreds all you have built. We will drag Castro's corpse through the streets, and we will bury Cuban communism in the trash heap of history.

[omegaword]

omegaworld, seems to me you confuse communist with revolutionary. But the two terms are quite different. Let's say you are a North Korean communist, and you enjoy life under the Kim dinasty. You are hardly revolutionary, more comformist and pro-establishment than the Pope when he backs the Catholic Church.

Now let's say you are like me, raised in Cuba, and hate communism. In Cuba communism is the state dictated end point economic system, meanwhile we are supposed to survive under "socialism" as defined by the Castro mafia. Because I work actively to undermine communism in Cuba, I am revolutionary. I am one of those people who are feared by the communists in Cuba because I want to undermine the established order, which has been set in place for over 50 years by brute force. Every time I get a chance, I work actively to destroy what they build. I am a tiny Terminator, a nihilist who will do whatever it takes to bring the regime down (excluding violent acts because I believe those are less efficient). Some of what I do involves undermining Cuban regime actions outside of Cuba, some of it involves turning Cubans in Cuba against the regime, and some of it involves writing in blogs like this so people like you do realize that this isn't a game, and that people die everyday in the struggle.

So as you can see, in my world you are just a backer of the status quo, a pro-establishment drone, and I am the revolutionary. And the times are always changing, soon the communist regime in Cuba will fall, and we will tear down to shreds all you have built. We will drag Castro's corpse through the streets, and we will bury Cuban communism in the trash heap of history.

please understand, i never felt that i was a revolutionary, and i do realize it is a serious business. although we seem to have different feelings about Castro's Cuba, i understand that you are obviously more informed than me. i do still intend to experience the place sometime soon, and despite he has obviously violated serious human rights, he has done good as well. also no offense but i fear time shall have Castro before you, unless you're planning something violent and soon. i personally would not support the north Korean leadership because i don't feel it is really communist, more like some medieval monarchy more than a peoples state. i personally am probably not the communist you think i am, because to me one of the fundamental laws of communism is the power of the people, and part of that is educating them, providing for them and ultimately if they can make an educated decision with unity and are not being led along by those greedy for power and personal gain, then they can change their government, that is their choice. i believe in communism because i think that if a person is well informed, unbiased, and it is based on democratic and liberal ideas, than the person will support communism. perhaps the biggest problem with communism is that it has become a ideology which is hard to separate from violence. part of that is because when the country in question did not have a powerful military the CIA killed it off (Guatemala). perhaps one day we can see that peaceful democratic communist again, minus the CIA.

[fuser]

i understand that you are obviously more informed than me

Of course he is more informed than you. Here's a game quickly name a socialist country where Social_Critic hasn't lived for long enough only to be forced out. I bet 100 bucks you can't win.

[omegaword]

P.S.
what would you replace Castro with? the Cuban people now are better off economically, and medically, than almost any other south american country. you really think under capitalism that would last? in my mind the best way this could go is if before they died the Castros finally put in serious democratic reforms and took away a lot of the personal restrictions, but still left other aspects of communism in place. although i'm interested to hear what you'd see happening.

[Soixante-Retard]

what would you replace Castro with?

Once you remove a cancer what do you replace it with?

the Cuban people now are better off economically, and medically, than almost any other south american country.

According to what statistic?

Using GDP per capita (PPP) in $USD from the 2011 IMF:

Argentina: 17,516
Chile: 17,222
Uruguay: 15,113
Venezuela: 12,568
Brazil: 11,769
World: 11,489
Colombia: 10,249
Peru: 10,062
Cuba: 9,990 (CIA Factbook 2010 estimate - no IMF statistic)
Suriname: 9,475
Ecuador: 8,492
Guyana: 7,466
Paraguay: 5,413
Bolivia: 4,789

Cuba is above a few but also below a few, and importantly, below the world average.

in my mind the best way this could go is if before they died the Castros finally put in serious democratic reforms and took away a lot of the personal restrictions

And pigs will fly... The Castros are not social democrats, they're Marxist-Lennists - dictators.

but still left other aspects of communism in place.

... The totalitarian features that you'd like to see removed are "not an aberration, but instead a logical end product of Marxism".

[omegaword]

Once you remove a cancer what do you replace it with?

According to what statistic?

Using GDP per capita (PPP) in $USD from the 2011 IMF:

Argentina: 17,516
Chile: 17,222
Uruguay: 15,113
Venezuela: 12,568
Brazil: 11,769
World: 11,489
Colombia: 10,249
Peru: 10,062
Cuba: 9,990 (CIA Factbook 2010 estimate - no IMF statistic)
Suriname: 9,475
Ecuador: 8,492
Guyana: 7,466
Paraguay: 5,413
Bolivia: 4,789

Cuba is above a few but also below a few, and importantly, below the world average.

And pigs will fly... The Castros are not social democrats, they're Marxist-Lennists - dictators.

... The totalitarian features that you'd like to see removed are "not an aberration, but instead a logical end product of Marxism".[/quote]

they are not Marxist Leninists, as Lenin's communism was not purely totalitarian, as apposed to Stalin or Mao. also a cancer is really not a good analogy, as unlike cancer, government is not something that can be done without, whatever the tea party and anarchists say. finally i concede to your point about income, as upon review my facts were not reliable. i still stick to what i said about the medical superiority though. also remember, unlike those nations cuba has a embargo, so they start a little behind. finally given that they took power from a dictator, even if their government falls it will have a better chance of doing so towards democracy, given that the person they overthrew was an american supported dictator. at least this way the USA will try to make a "look how much better we made it" thing with post Castro Cuba. they might even help someone. or another dictator willing to play american ball will get power and things will be even worse. and even if they don't the nation will never really excel as long as it doesn't suit america's goals, which once the country is privatized again will be whatever the corporations want. which is probably a powerless, subservient population of workers for whatever they want made or grown.

[Soixante-Retard]

they are not Marxist Leninists

The Castros certainly are. It is arguable whether Cuba is run along Marxist-Lennist lines, but the influential Fidel makes no apologies for being a Marxist-Lennist.

Lenin's communism was not purely totalitarian, as apposed to Stalin

This isn't an expression of the naïve "Good Lenin, Bad Stalin" theory is it? Google that phrase verbatim.

unlike cancer, government is not something that can be done without, whatever the tea party and anarchists say.

If that's you're view, I would consider you a Bolshevik communist - one that sees the state as necessary, or a necessary consequnce - something that cannot "be done without" contra to Marx's "withering away".

i still stick to what i said about the medical superiority though.

You might not want to after watching this 6 part program. Cuba might have nice medical care for the few government elites but the rest of the population have next-to-nothing.

also remember, unlike those nations cuba has a embargo, so they start a little behind.

Very apologetic of you.

finally given that they took power from a dictator, even if their government falls it will have a better chance of doing so towards democracy, given that the person they overthrew was an american supported dictator.

Don't be too certain. If history is any guide, it'll just be another dictatorship - after all that is what Castro did, he replaced Batista with himself; one dictator for another.

[omegaword]

i did say that there might be a new dictator, although another USA backed one. also you seem t want to categorize me a little to much. i am in no way a Bolshevik. i believe in peaceful takeover before violent. and although i don't think he was perfect Lenin was certainly better than Stalin. also the idea that government will whither away is naive. government is necessary if for no other reason than it fills a void of necessary evil, because if you don't have something of your own making there something worse might take its place. also to be frank, your being illogical. Cuba has a huge number of doctors, to the point that they export them. the people might not have perfect medical care, but when its so hard to come by medical surprise(USA embargo) and so of course the top gets the best, the same way the president has a bunker for nuke missile attacks but we have our basements.

[Soixante-Retard]

i did say that there might be a new dictator, although another USA backed one.

Why a US one? Why should the US pay any attention to Cuba? The US has ignored Cuba for sometime now what you makes you think this won't continue? Besides, is it inconceivable for you imagine a "homegrown" dictator replacing the Castros?

the idea that government will whither away is naive. government is necessary if for no other reason than it fills a void of necessary evil

Then if I were you I'd drop the delusions of being anything but a Bolshevik communist - since a necessary condition for following the communist creed, according to Marx, is the "withering away" of the State. Or you might want to reconsider something besides communism.

Cuba has a huge number of doctors, to the point that they export them.

Can you provide any evidence of this and evidence of the quality of the doctors and if it is attributable to the Cuban medical industry (no use Cuban doctors qualifying abroad - what testament is that to the Cuban scene?)? After all, the US exports a lot of cars - but they're rubbish in comparison to European cars.

the top gets the best

They appear to be the only members of society that get medical care that won't kill them. Or is this what the communist paradise is? Care for the few, crap for the rest?

[omegaword]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fle ... 19664.html
this is a sight which talks a little about some statistics, but im gonna be honest, i know little about the huffington post or how reliable it is, and this article is a little dated. if i find something more recent and i know is reliable, from time or something, ill post it later. also although in the respect of the need for government, i am Bolshevik, but in the actual running of a country, i have several different ideas. i would have no real problem with Bolshevism, but i feel it lost its way with Stalin.
and no i don't agree with much of Marx, frankly i thought he was naive and overly optimistic.
finally it is completely possible that a homegrown dictator would rise to power, but in a contest between new random dictator and US backed dictator, the latter wins. Cuba is still of interest to the US or they would of dropped the embargo or allowed it to drop. and even if the government has nothing to gain from Cuba, the corporations who own our leaders can find something to do with it.

[omegaword]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... h-lessons/
wired, recent and it expresses both our points, and frankly it outlines some excellent points of the Cuban system and its programs, especially the Latin America school, a true expression of communism, not only medicine for the masses, but for foreign masses.

[Soixante-Retard]

Omegaworld, I don't know if you noticed, but HuffintonPost.com did not provide any citations as to where they got their figures. The Wired.com article didn't explain how it arrived at the figures, although it did provide a citation.

More importantly it is about trade-offs, as everything is, and who makes those trade-offs, you or someone else? In Cuba's system (a universal healthcare system), you have no say as to what medication you receive - you take it or leave it and no say as to when you'll be treated, in the US, at least, you can decide how much you want to spend on you medical care and what available drugs to take. That's not to say the US is perfect or cannot be improved.

When you put price controls in place (which is what a universal healthcare system does) you will inevitably get a shortage, viz. longer waiting times in which while waiting to be seen you could die.

Medical care must be rationed (it is an inescapable reality), the demand is unlimited the resources aren't. Do you ration via prices or waiting lines?

[omegaword]

Omegaworld, I don't know if you noticed, but HuffintonPost.com did not provide any citations as to where they got their figures. The Wired.com article didn't explain how it arrived at the figures, although it did provide a citation.

More importantly it is about trade-offs, as everything is, and who makes those trade-offs, you or someone else? In Cuba's system (a universal healthcare system), you have no say as to what medication you receive - you take it or leave it and no say as to when you'll be treated, in the US, at least, you can decide how much you want to spend on you medical care and what available drugs to take. That's not to say the US is perfect or cannot be improved.

When you put price controls in place (which is what a universal healthcare system does) you will inevitably get a shortage, viz. longer waiting times in which while waiting to be seen you could die.

have you been to a emergency room? there's always a wait. but the life and deathers get care first to make sure they make it. im sure they do that at most clinics in Cuba.

Medical care must be rationed (it is an inescapable reality), the demand is unlimited the resources aren't. Do you ration via prices or waiting lines?

but if you do it by price the people who simply don't have enough money wont get even as much as the people in Cuba. and i hate to be a broken record, but up to the fall of the union, the Cubans did have more medical supplies, now they are cut off. also, although he makes excellent points, taking down some of the generalizations and non-realities in the health-care debate (i take it your not for Obama care) i cant say he's right. you clearly think that if distributed, healthcare becomes to light to help anyone. you are clearly wrong. the Cuban system of preventative first, instead of after the fact, is clearly on par, if not quite as high tech, as the American system. when it comes right down to it, capitalism has made medicine into too big of a deal, if for no other reason than its possible to do it for significantly less money than doctors want you to think. also my bad for putting up those sites, ill try to find a more reputable one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weeki ... palma.html
this is a good article, although the last one does assert many of your points. but mine does still stand. they do it for less, with less, despite less. its not perfect, but its communism. also i just want to say, please understand i really don't think the Castros are a shining example of correct communism, but its better than N Korea or most others who didn't even get down to quality healthcare and education.

[Someone5]

i have two questions for posters, if you are a communist, say what kind

Anarcho-syndicalist.

where did they revolutions go?

The organizations that would form the core of revolutionary movements are dead; you might as well ask "where are the radical unions?" It amounts to the same thing. Fighting a revolution requires support from abroad. If you're out fighting, you can't be out on the farm or factory or whatever, and that means others who aren't fighting need to be funneling you material. Well, with the death of radical unions and strong popular organizations in wealthy countries, the source of that material has dried up. There are no more powerful states trying to put on a show of being communist--no one to show the flag, not even in the form of some token shipments of small arms.

It doesn't help that there has come a general consensus that violence is not an adequate solution to political problems; revolutions and violence go hand in hand.

i know there are still movements out there, the FARC and the popular front for the liberation of Palestine,

Note; both are getting extensive funding. FARC from ransoms and drug money, Palestinians from states and individuals opposed to Israeli policy. Well, in the heyday of communist revolutions, such revolutionaries could expect some level of foreign support from "communist" states trying to show the flag against western powers or unions (and communist parties!) in the west. Nowadays, most revolutions can't even get global media exposure if the US government doesn't support them or they turn to extreme measures (like, say, FARC).

but i cant find many others.

Pretty much any organization governments label "terrorist" are, in fact, groups trying to win a revolution. Their goals are not often noble, however.

there are still masses crushed under the boots of the imperialists and capitalists, why is communism not more wide spread in today's world?

A lot of people like socialism these days; probably more than any time in the past. They just don't identify as socialists anymore due to a successful campaign of ideological messaging. People support socialist ideas, they just don't support socialism.

have we just lost too much ground?

For a workable communist revolution in the traditional sense? Sure, probably. Though it might be better to think of this as less "having lost too much ground," and rather "because we have seen that the traditional course of action won't work."

is it over?

No. It's simply turned to a different sort of fight. Dual power is the correct approach, not revolutionary movements. Capitalism will fail on its own--if we can be in a position to provide an alternative, we will win.

[omegaword]

amen brother (or comrade i should say to be true to my beliefs), logical, coherent and didn't turn into a debate.

[omegaword]

All i needed Social critic and Soixante-Retard.

[SolarCross]

I'm anarcho-communist. I think marxist style vangaurdism has had its day. The marxist thinks that a communist society can only be achieved by capturing the state and then using the state to create the conditions necessary for communism to emerge. However the last century has shown that whenever the marxists capture the state they tend to hang on to it for dear life rather than let communism emerge.

The time is right for the anarchist approach; don't capture the state abolish the state. In the absence of a state the nasty side of capitalism doesn't get to dominate and so a free society can emerge which will have elements that are communist (because they choose to be). Communism is not dead; marxism is dead. Let it die, it didn't work anyway. Anarchism is the way to go.