Ask A Red: The IVth International

[Praise_Satan]

Frankly, I think socialist nations like Cuba, China -- yes China, like it or not, is socialist to its people and to the world -- Viet Nam, Venezuela give far more freedom of speech and the press than we have in the United States, where Dan Rather -- Bush 43 apologist -- was fired for speaking ON AIR against the "line" of the administration, whereas in Venezuela before the 2002 coup, anti-government TV stations could say anything they wanted against the government. Globovision still can and still does.

Now you're just being delusional.

Reporters without borders press freedom index 2013:
1. Finland - commies burning books and censoring 60 years ago

32. The USA

117. Venezuela

171. Cuba
172. Vietnam
173. China - commies censoring media and jailing journalists even today
Out of 179 countries.

Why is it so in these countries? Why no free press?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Praise_Satan: You will have to do better than that. I and much of the world's press does not consider Reporters without borders to be a legitimate journalistic endeavour. Reporters without Borders Fraud is well documented:

from:
The Reporters Without Borders Fraud

By Salim Lamrani - Rebelion.org, May 16th 2005

The strong suspicions that have surrounded the dubious and partisan activities of Reporters without Boarders (RSF) were not unfounded. For many years, various critics have denounced the largely political actions of the Parisian entity, particularly with regards to Cuba and Venezuela, whose characteristic use of propaganda is obvious. The positions of RSF against the governments of Havana and Caracas are found in perfect correlation with the political and media war that Washington carries out against the Cuban and Venezuelan revolutionaries.

Finally the truth has come to light. Mr. Robert Ménard, secretary general of the RSF for twenty years, has confessed to receiving financing from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that depends on the U.S. Department of State, whose principal role is to promote the agenda of the White House for the entire world. Ménard was indeed very clear. “We indeed receive money from the NED. And that hasn’t posed any problem.” (1)
...

The budget for RSF for 2003 was up to 3,472,122 euros. According to annual accounts the revenue came from: 11% from the State, 12% from patrons, 4% from contributions and donations, 15% from the European Commission, 10% from operations, and 48% from the organization’s publications. This last figure is surprising for its importance. The sum of 1,984,853 euros supposedly came from only the sale of calendars. (13) The calendar costs 8 euros, which is the same as saying that the RSF manages to sell more then 249,106 calendars per year, or 680 calendars every day! This figure is much too excessive to be credible.

When expenses are looked at for 2003, the accounts show that only 7% of the budget is allocated to direct help for journalists with problems.(14) What happens with the remaining 93% of the budget? It is devoted to the job of propaganda and disinformation at the service of the interests of those who finance Reporters without Borders, namely the French state, and the large economic and financial groups, the extreme Cuban right from Florida and the U.S. Department of State.

“Defense of freedom of the press” is only a facade. Reporters without Borders is at the service of governments and the powerful economic and financial interests. It is the reason why the main threat to freedom of the press, the concentration of the means of information, has never been denounced by Mr. Ménard’s organization. It is the reason by which the RSF, among others, never has been interested in the luck of Mr. Mumia Abu-Jamal, the U. S. journalist jailed for over twenty years for his writings and his political positions. Unfortunately, the collusion between Mr. Ménard, the large press, and financial capital hinders citizens from discovering the real objectives that they hide behind a humanitarian smokescreen.

So, as long as the US government is footing the bill, it's okay?

 

[aelf]

Praise Satan is not here to ask questions out of curiosity. He's clearly here to provoke a reaction. Ignore him.

Question. Do you also dismiss Liberal Democracy as a political and economic system for having also "oppress[ed]... the masses"?

Perhaps not in principle, at least in my opinion. However, liberal democracies as they are certainly don't go far enough in furthering social justice and are beset by structural (and incidental) flaws that do make them retain a certain degree of oppressiveness.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

We can debate for hours what the overman is, exactly. But I do think late Nietzschean thought precludes any form of utopianism and thus also Marxism. It doesn't do so in the typically Political Conservative reasoning that Utopianism leads to chaos, but with the reasoning utopia's would be undesirable exactly because what could happen if they are feasible: Total boredom and nihilism. I think that even Bertrand Russell said something to this effect, despite his distaste of Nietzsche (which was almost certainly because he read the Förster versions, which were modified to contain proto-nazi ideas).

That's where you're wrong again and again. You have a very stale understanding of Marxism that is steeped in classic prejudices against it. And when people do hint to you about where you went wrong, you find it "unconvincing" unless you get a full course in Marxist theory or something. I'll give you another hint: Go for classes if you want a full immersion. What we can tell you here in this medium is inevitably but bits and pieces which will never satisfy you it seems.

And my tid bit for you for the day is that Marxism is not a form utopianism. In fact, let's synthesise this with Nietzschean ideas a little bit so you can't accuse me of being "a straight-A student who nevertheless is unable to 'play' with philosophical ideas".

IIRC, Nietzsche didn't have very flattering things to say about capitalism - he saw the mere pursuit of wealth as trivial, lifeless endeavours. Taking the means of production from the hands of the few would free workers of the need to be so preoccupied with just one aspect of life and enables them to have other pursuits in life. Yes, in case you didn't know, there are other, more fulfiling challenges in life besides making a living or accumulating wealth. Not only that, unless you think the Overman is entitled to step on others in pursuit of power (in which case you're no better than a Randian and no one should take you seriously), how would a real Overman exist outside of his parents' basement and below the top rungs of the established power structures? And if what you're doing is either serving the existing power structure or being oppressed by it, how can you genuinely claim to be an Overman? In fact, I would say that a Nietzschean life would require you to be a revolutionary, to topple the entrenched system of oppression and create an environment where man is the master of his fate and not these reified (and currently deified) non-human things called 'value' or 'the market'. My understanding of the teleology of Marxism is thus eudaimonic, not utopian.

I'm pretty sure you would disagree with my view of Nietzsche's ideas. Like I said before, I don't think you can be convinced on these boards. Nevertheless, you wanted synthesis and I can give you one, because, simply, I've thought of these things before. I'm going to copy this onto the "Ask a Red" thread and the discussion can continue there.

Thanks, Aelf, for bringing this here.

Right, the idea of the "superman," or "overman" was perverted by the Nazis which is how we got the "master race" theory. Nietzsche of course didn't do this, being dead by then, but I agree with Aelf, that the prospect of mastering your own fate for the individual, as a member of a an oppressed class, is much more possible under a Marxist formulation. Of course, if you were the member of the oppressing class (the 1%, rather the 0.1% or less, than capitalism is your system -- because it is DESIGNED to benefit the few at the expense of the many. You will get ahead, but leave many behind you.

Under socialism, you can get ahead and leave only the bourgeoisie behind you.

Also, don't anyone here confuse "vanguard" with "overman," because I do not seek personal power, I seek power for the class.

Hope that helps.

Question. Do you also dismiss Liberal Democracy as a political and economic system for having also "oppress[ed]... the masses"?

Perhaps not in principle, at least in my opinion. However, liberal democracies as they are certainly don't go far enough in furthering social justice and are beset by structural (and incidental) flaws that do make them retain a certain degree of oppressiveness.

QFT

Oppression is not always the policeman's baton -- it can be the slow, whittling away of your rights, your buying power and your control over living and working conditions. The shared wealth of an oil-rich capitalist economy with a social-democratic government, like Norway, is not oppression of the Norwegian workers, by any stretch (though Richard Cribb may have more to say), but it is different than Venezuela using oil money to better not only their domestic population, but those in other Latin American countries, like the 300,000 Bolivians who got their sight back through Mision Milagro surgeries.

I am not as critical of a Norway or Finland as I am a Germany, France or USA, because the former two, while not proletarian governments, are not unfavorablet to socialism, while the latter three, in spite of France's "socialist" President and in spite of Barack Obama receiving the wholesale endorsement of CPUSA, are the centers for the world's reactionary forces against socialism.

The two systems have different aims.

 

[ace99]

in spite of Barack Obama receiving the wholesale endorsement of CPUSA

I heard this from Fox News 12 which means its surely untrue.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Sorry, ace, got some bad news for you:

Why Vote? is a CPUSA article. They endorsed Obama:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and many others, died for a most precious human right, the right to vote. Now, the same racists who denied Black voters ballot rights in the 1960s are trying to keep voters from the polls in 2012.

In the old days, they called it a "poll tax." They rode at night and wore white sheets. Today, they wear expensive suits. But they still steal elections by cutting off early voting, by imposing photo ID requirements that poor voters can't afford. It's called "voter suppression."

It will take a fight to defeat these dirty tricks. Voter suppression tactics violate the letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Everything from sit-ins to mass rallies on state capitol steps are called for.

The biggest dirty trick of all is fooling voters into thinking there is no difference. The huge voter surge in 2008 elected President Barack Obama, the first African American president. In the face of non-stop opposition, he pushed through:



Affordable Health Care Act extends coverage to 35 million uninsured people, outlaws denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and extends until age 26 coverage of children under their parents plans.
Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for equal pay for women.
Stabilized the economy with $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that saved or created 3 million jobs. Invested billions in clean energy jobs, saved the auto industry.
Unemployment benefits for millions of workers despite Republican threats to shut down the government. Obama was forced to yield on Bush-era tax cuts for the rich that he wanted to terminate.
Appointed two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the first Latina woman, who support the rights of working people.
Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and used a recess-appointment to name the director over Republican opposition.
Created a new food safety agency to protect people from food-borne illness.
Ended profit-grab by private banks on students loans, reestablishing Federal control on these loans and used the savings to extend loans to more students.
Doubled the funding for Pell Grants to $32 billion, increasing size of the grant $819 to a maximum of $5,500.
Ended the war in Iraq and moved toward ending the war in Afghanistan.


Many people wanted more. In 2010 they failed to turn out to vote. Tea Party Republicans won a sweep. President Obama — and all the rest of us — have been fighting a defensive battle ever since.

If that is not an endorsement, I don't know what is. I am saying more about Obama than about CPUSA.

 

[Praise_Satan]

Question. Do you also dismiss Liberal Democracy as a political and economic system for having also "oppress[ed]... the masses"?

Liberal democracies have their problems but they don't build walls to keep people in, they build walls to keep people out.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I heard this from Fox News 12 which means its surely untrue.

As a dissident party member, I can assure you it is most assuredly true. They view their support as tactical, an effort to break the power of the Radical Right. But I see that as a mistake. The Democrats are no better than the GOP, as Obama has proven, and possibly worse for us, because his progressive rhetoric falsely associates him with us (such as the Right so love to do), and refusing to distance ourselves from him risks legitimizing that Rightist accusation. Further, the Party is so afraid of the Right, that it refuses to criticize Obama. At this point, I'm not sure any more that the leadership aren't truly revisionists.

 

[Praise_Satan]

@Praise_Satan: You will have to do better than that. I and much of the world's press does not consider Reporters without borders to be a legitimate journalistic endeavour. Reporters without Borders Fraud is well documented:

So, as long as the US government is footing the bill, it's okay?

How many thousands of web sites are censored in these socialist republics? Exactly. Why is a site like Youtube banned in China? What right does the government have to ban it? Is it the will of the people or the will of an individual?

Oppressors of the common man, typical socialist rulers. These socialist oppressors are taking away peoples right to their own thought. Not enough for the tyrants to control everything around the people, they want to invade the peoples brain as well.

All the socialist republics of today have dreadful press freedom situation. Same goes for the socialist countries of the past. I'm sure a lot of other NGOs than just RWB agree.

 

[Ajidica]

Any particular reason you are singling out "Socialist" states when your criticisms are just as valid when directed at military governments such as el Proceso in Argentina or Pinochet's Chile or the Sordid Little Dictatorships that have sprung up all over the developing world since WWII that are all equally authoritarian? Digging further back we can find all sorts of nasty, authoritarian, censorship-loving regimes in inter-war Europe that were decidedly anti-Socialist.

 

[ace99]

As a dissident party member, I can assure you it is most assuredly true. They view their support as tactical, an effort to break the power of the Radical Right. But I see that as a mistake. The Democrats are no better than the GOP, as Obama has proven, and possibly worse for us, because his progressive rhetoric falsely associates him with us (such as the Right so love to do), and refusing to distance ourselves from him risks legitimizing that Rightist accusation. Further, the Party is so afraid of the Right, that it refuses to criticize Obama. At this point, I'm not sure any more that the leadership aren't truly revisionists.

Hah thats so weird. Are you sure they're not just Gorbachevesque social democrats?

 

[Azale]

Hah thats so weird. Are you sure they're not just Gorbachevesque social democrats?

If they are they need to rename themselves. CPUSA makes me think of heroic (and borderline insane) volunteers deep in the heart of 1930s Alabama, organizing equally heroic black sharecroppers. Back then, their opponents didn't just call them names and marginalize them politically, they killed and terrorized them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If they are they need to rename themselves. CPUSA makes me think of heroic (and borderline insane) volunteers deep in the heart of 1930s Alabama, organizing equally heroic black sharecroppers. Back then, their opponents didn't just call them names and marginalize them politically, they killed and terrorized them.

I can hardly wish for such a time to return, you understand. I've read The Iron Heel and seen The Murder of Fred Hampton...

 

[Atticus]

Liberal democracies have their problems but they don't build walls to keep people in, they build walls to keep people out.

Moderator Action: Praise_Satan, note that this thread isn't for arguing against reds. You can do that elsewhere. This thread is for asking questions. You also might want to take a look at the forum rules.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Remember that this is a question and answer thread and not for arguments. Critical response is welcome, tirade and polemic are not.

 

[Tahuti]

Any particular reason you are singling out "Socialist" states when your criticisms are just as valid when directed at military governments such as el Proceso in Argentina or Pinochet's Chile or the Sordid Little Dictatorships that have sprung up all over the developing world since WWII that are all equally authoritarian? Digging further back we can find all sorts of nasty, authoritarian, censorship-loving regimes in inter-war Europe that were decidedly anti-Socialist.

This isn't "Ask A Brownshirt", so it's quite obvious he singles out Socialist states.

 

[madviking]

What are yall's views on Hoxha and Hoxhaism?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

What are yall's views on Hoxha and Hoxhaism?

For real, one of our volunteers named her son Enver after him.

Just as I said about Juche and North Korea, a nation and a people find their own path to socialism. I hesitate to call what Hoxha did "Hoxhaism," as much as what people like to call what Moa did "Maosim.". Hoxha was a Marxist-Leninist, and from the outside "Marxist-Leninist" as a term evokes some pretty fierce reaction, that's why I shield myself with the anonymity of this forum, but to the general public, I pretty much look like my avatar --really, the suit, tie and all -- and I speak in terms of everyday phraseology to explain the desirability of Socialism in my organizing with using buzz words that cause reaction.

What leaders do with their Marxist-Leninism also evokes reaction, but I think Enver Hoxha was an extraordinary leader during some extraordinary times for fledgling nation like Albania.


That's what I have for now.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What are yall's views on Hoxha and Hoxhaism?

Decent nation-builder. Not that great a socialist or person.

But in the name category, his badassery excels.

 

[Lone Wolf]

So, who here would support the Afghan mojaheds against Soviet social-imperialism?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So, who here would support the Afghan mojaheds against Soviet social-imperialism?

Speaking for myself, I would not and IT would not call what the USSR was doing "Soviet social-imperialism.". That is the term Fidel warned the non-Aligned movement in his Speech to the Fouth Cnference f Non-Aligned Nation, September 1973. My dentist was a maxillio-facial surgeon in the Red Army during that war, and she saw more than her share of what the "mojaheds" did with American money and weapons. It was not imperialism by any stretch of the definition -- and you should look that word up -- any more than my mowing my neighbr's lawns was an invasion.