What alienates many people from ANSWER

[moddemny]

A lot of the complaints here about ANSWER focus on marketing and sticking to one message, which I agree with slightly however there is another problem with ANSWER that doesn't get as much mention.

I dont know where some Pro Answer (or the other hardcore communists on this board) people have been for the past few decades but they seem to forget that for hundreds of millions of people around the world Communism was not a just a nice theory but a horrible brutal repressive form of government with a list of abuses so long that it makes the Bush admin look like a bunch of choir boys. The Bush admin may be on the spectrum of dictatorship but they are nothing compared to what happened in the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, Asia, etc.

I live in New York City where when growing up I met many Poles, Czechs, Russians, Hungarian, Romanians, Croatians, Chinese, Vietnamese who all came here to escape Communism. Almost all of them without exception have told me I was very lucky to be born in the USA. There are entire communities here filled with people who came here to escape failed marxist regimes and make a better life for their kids. Many Poles in Greenpoint and Ridgewood, Russians in Forest Hills and Brighton Beach, Chinese in Flushing and Chinatown, people from the former Yugoslav republics in Astoria. All of them know first hand and have related to me very graphically how they could easily be imprisoned for speaking out, lose jobs, be beaten, tortured, how you could not trust your neighbor because you never knew who was an informant, how entire families were held suspect when one member did speak out, how even in the U.S. they were afraid of being tracked by agents from their former countries and how it would affect remaining family at home, etc. I have had dozens of people tell me their chilling brutal experiences with communist regimes. After having listened to all of these deep outpourings and revelations a person can easily walk away with a very clear picture of how Communism was very different in reality from all the utopian versions thrown around on here. I have friends from Russia who tell me how Americans take a trip to the grocery store for granted, in Russia people could wait for hours on a bread line. I grew up with a great deal of story telling on almost a daily basis. Then I come on to DU and run into Communists (I am not saying everyone on DU is a communist but there are quite a few) left and right. I make a small remark about Che Guevarra and I am labelled a repub lite, freeper, red baiter etc. In the last few elections I voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry and so did many of my friends I have from former Communist countries. Many of them see the potential dictator in Bush. They are very astute and informed yet when the see some of the posts on here defending ANSWER and other communist theories, the first conclusion that crosses their minds is that Bush voters may not be the only dumb Americans. You cannot expect them to go to an ANSWER rally and take part because it goes too much against the grain of their personal experience. It is simply a matter of principle to too many people. The tragedy here is that people from former Communist countries are deeply familiar with dictatorship, they lived it day to day and instinctively do not like Bush, yet are alienated by Stalinist BS and rhetoric of ANSWER. (Ask a Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian Muslim or Albanian if they would like to see Slobodan Milosevic go free and see the reaction you'll get.)

I can write and write but I am going to keep it short, this post was just meant to expand on another part of the ANSWER problem, it's about principles not just focus on a message. I know many of the communists here are going to try to start a debate about how true Communism was truly never practiced, there is another way, yada, yada, yada, I have heard those arguments before and they don't fly with many of the people who actually had to be guinea pigs in the failed marxist experiment. There not willing to give it another try and do not appreciate the historical revisionism going on to paint communist regimes as utopias or an alternative to the present system in the United States. Capitalism may suck but so far everything else has been worse.

[Raster]

1. I dunno, question?

[donheld]

2. It sounds like the people you talked to did not flee communism at all

What they fled was the repression and brutality. The repression and brutality can be just as bad in any type of tyrannical regime. Our nation seems to be well on the way to installing some of these same repressive policies, you speak of your friends fled from. No it's not communist here, but fascist, which can be just as bad or worse. They did not flee communism they fled repression.

[moddemny]

9. "What they fled was the repression and brutality."

There are problems specific to full blown communism that have a tendency to repression. It's been tried across many cultures and continents and failed in almost every case. People are not allowed to have personal property, exercise individual initiative, the state decides what you are skilled at and many times chooses your profession for you, the centrally planed economy leads to its own unique forms of corruption, the coordinator class siphons off resources for themselves.

That's in addition to the repressive items they may have in common with other repressive systems, people not being allowed to leave if they want to, state controlled media, control of all information (in the Soviet Union they kept track of every typewriter), false imprisonment, no free speech, etc.

[movonne]

3. There is nothing wrong with Capitalism as long as it does not

run the country...they must be kept under control not take control. We can see what happens when they are running the country. This is Capitalism gone amuck.

[donheld]

4. There may be nothing wrong with communism

It too went amuck in the countries that we've know that had it. It seems like just about any form of government, if not kept in check, will run amuck.

[Walt Starr]

5. Many who claim communism are Communists of convenience

and have no legitimate beef against capitalism.

I am one generation removed from abject poverty. My mther grew up in conditions most on this board would find deplorable and unthinkable. When I grew up, we were basically on the line between lower middle class and upper lower class.

And now, I'm solidly middle class, probably on the upper end of that. I owe it to capitalism.

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. The labor movement played no part in your good fortune?

[Walt Starr]

23. I've never worked at any job that was unionized.

I'm in management.

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. I believe you still have benefited from unions.

Safety

Wages

Health Care

Vacations

FMLA

8 hour work day

40 hour work week

Premium Pay

Labor Laws

Workplace Fairness

Redress of Grievances

I guess it is, in part, labors fault that you do not recognize how much the labor movement has done for everyone in the entire workforce.

[valerief]

6. Tyranny is tyranny, no matter what name it wears on any given day

[moddemny]

11. "Tyranny is tyranny, ........."

And the same way I wouldn't march around town with a swastika, I wouldn't go around waving a che guevara banner.

[donheld]

13. Che and the nazi's are worlds appart

I'd not hesitate for a second to wave Che's banner around.

[moddemny]

19. "Che and the nazi's are worlds apart"

In what way? the nazis were more technically proficient at killing people?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Communism, Socialism, Oligarchy, Capitalism and U.S. fascism

Immigrants who come to the U.S. (with the exception of Cubans who come in a boat escaping the U.S.-imposed 40-something year embargo, or some Mexicans that cross the border to escape the maquiladoras), usually have to spend at least several thousand dollars to get here.

It takes a LOT of money to buy a plane ticket, a lot of money to go through the process of applying for a U.S. visa, and a lot of money to set up in the U.S., even if it’s in a hovel. One has to get here, get a place to live, have enough money to eat until one can get a job, one has to get a car (if one lives in 99% of the U.S.), and all those other expenses I’m not even counting.

Thousands of dollars is something that millions of U.S. citizens (like those who drowned in New Orleans, and those who live in the "poor" part of town all over this nation, for example) have never seen.

I grew up in Astoria, Queens, probably *the* area of the U.S. with the most international flair. There wasn’t even one among the immigrants that I knew there, who could not read and write (except maybe the babies). In fact, most of the immigrants I knew in Astoria had had access to an education in their own countries. (Quite often the kind of education that most Americans will never have access to because they lack the funds to pay a university).

Nowadays, I work with Russians and Argentinians. Once again, the immigrants I work with are those who already had access to an advanced education and thousands of dollars in their own countries. The Argentinians tell me their country is in economic disarray, and so they took their money and left. Russians tell me the same, but worse. Quite a few Russians have enlightened me to the fact that many Russians left behind want the old Communist system back, where they at least enjoyed economic security, rather than this newer one they got stuck with, where there is (like here) no safety net, and people by the droves have fallen and are falling through the cracks. Just like what we saw in New Orleans...

What I’m trying to say is that individuals who come to this country usually are those who were already luckier than the majority in their own countries. They are individuals who already had access to several thousands dollars in their own countries. Many of them had businesses of some sort, they had homes, and so on. They are individuals who come to play their hand in a country whose much-publicized American Dream they’ve heard about and seen in the movies about well-to-do middle classers who never lose their job, never need welfare, never suffer economically. Either that, or people aren't doing so bad in those countries, that they can afford to spend thousands of dollars to come here.

I’m Cuban, not a Communist, not a capitalist, not a worshipper of the corporate machine. I believe that everyone should have an equal playing field, not a skewed, twisted one, where some start out at the finishing line, while others never get started. And while I’m at it, may I say that most people are clueless about my country. Most assume the propaganda about Cuba provided by this country is reality. It isn’t. It’s quite removed from reality.

As for the U.S. form of capitalism being better than any other system. I disagree. I’ve lived in 6 countries and found about 4 of them far better, fairer, and having a higher quality of life. In fact, I wouldn’t say this country has a quality of life at all, particularly now.

I will say this: regardless of what we believe, we all can agree on the damage Republicans have done to our nation in the past few decades. We’ve reached the point where, if we don’t fight for this country, it will be a gigantic and unrecognizable, fascist third world nation very soon. That’s scary enough to me that it compels me to fight back

[cire4]

10. Excellent post...Very well stated

Welcome to DU :hi:

[moddemny]

12. "Immigrants who come to the U.S......

.... (with the exception of Cubans who come in a boat escaping the U.S.-imposed 40-something year embargo, or some Mexicans that cross the border to escape the maquiladoras), usually have to spend at least several thousand dollars to get here"


The ones I know had nothing but the shirt on their back. Usually one family member comes here makes some money and then sponsors another.

"What I’m trying to say is that individuals who come to this country usually are those who were already luckier than the majority in their own countries. They are individuals who already had access to several thousands dollars in their own countries. Many of them had businesses of some sort, they had homes, and so on"


The ones I know simply had the balls to try to escape Eastern Europe and were given amnesty when they arrived in a Western European country. Some had to wait for their US visas but none were exceptionally privileged in their own country usually it was the opposite. The only common denominator among them was courage. No one had a business (most private enterprise was banned or very discouraged) and very few had private homes, some didnt even have state sponsored apartments.

"I grew up in Astoria, Queens, probably *the* area of the U.S. with the most international flair. There wasn’t even one among the immigrants that I knew there, who could not read and write (except maybe the babies). In fact, most of the immigrants I knew in Astoria had had access to an education in their own countries. (Quite often the kind of education that most Americans will never have access to because they lack the funds to pay a university). "

I know plenty who couldn't read or write and had no more than 3rd or 4th grade educations. they came here dirt poor, learned English and now many own at least one home if not more. Communist countries weren't as good at educating their populace as many people claim. If you were a promising student maybe, but many workers got stuck on the farm or factory.

[tocqueville]

20. something doesn't fit in your description

the people you name (even the Vietnamese) couldn't have escaped a communist regime, for a very simple reason : when the iron curtain fell, nobody came out.

The people you relate to, are the people who flew to Western Europe (and later to the US) when they understood that the Red Army was coming. I met those guys when I was in Sweden. They were called the Baltic survivors. Interesting to know that plenty of them had a very good reason of being afraid since they obviously had collaborated with the Nazis.

The other European category was the people with money as the poster above mentions. They came a bit later, but were just a trickle.

The biggest group to escape the communist regime were East-Germans. But nobody came out after the construction of the Berlin Wall.

So the majority of the people that claimed they "escaped communism", in reality never lived under a communist regime.

Yugoslavians are a special group. Yugoslavia was never a hard core communist country. I visited Yugoslavia under Tito and also in Bulgaria and East germany when they still were communist. In the two later countries you couldn't TALK to people, they were obviously afraid. In Yugoslavia you could discuss the regime and hear criticism. Besides Tito allowed plenty of Yugoslavians to leave the country and work in Europe (France, Sweden, Italy) because he wanted the hard cash valuta they were sending home. And the nationalities you name hate Milosevic primarily because he is a Serb, and his policies come second.

I am against ANSWER because those people are not even regular communists in the European sense 5these are nowadays accepted democratic politicians). ANSWER is led by far-left extremists with an own agenda. These guys are nearer Pol-Pot than Marx. They are the neocons of socialism (history has shown they even become pure right-wing neocons). I think they are badly hurting the anti-war movement in the US. The fact that they haven't been debunked by the peace movement amazes me.

[moddemny]

21. "something doesn't fit in your description"

This is really getting ridiculous (Nazi Collaborators? - What a joke), you kept track of the movements of millions of people personally? I know who I am talking about because I have met them, shook hands with them, went to school with them, been friends for a long time, went to many family events, run into them regularly in local diners, restaurants, etc for about 30 years. This is just crazy. People are popping trying to make it out to be just a trickle of people who tried to leave Communist countries or that they were well off financially to begin with. People risked their lives to escape in all kinds of ways. Less people came out after the Berlin wall because they were being shot. That may have discouraged the mass exodus don't you think? It is really common sense. As for the former Yugoslavia it was in many ways an ethnic problem with Milosevic but it also had to do with the fact that Communism was falling in the rest of Europe and Serbs voted to stay Communist twice. The other republics didn't see the wisdom in sticking with a failed system. (It also doesn't excuse Answer for wanting Milosevic's release...... ask a Croatian or Slovenian how they felt about Tito sucking off their natural resources so it could go to Belgrade)I know many Croatians, Slovenians and Bosnians who literally had to escape into Italy when Tito was in power. When they came to the US the local Yugoslav consulate frequently kept tabs on their activities, especially on Croatians.

It was only East Germans? That's why the used to be entire communities of Poles in Brooklyn right? (many have to the suburbs now, but there are still quite a few there now). I wonder how I ran into so many Czechs in Manhattan. I also met a lot of people also came here after the wall collapsed and shared their stories, relatives of friends who were becoming reunited.

I am not going to try and figure out what your motives are for not wanting to believe what I posted, I know it to be true, many Americans do. The friends I have are alive and breathing and to find out for yourself you just have to walk through a few New York neighborhoods (note: many ethnicities are still going to defend their countries initially as a matter of personal pride so if you pop up right off the street and ask a Russian about Communism he may not knock it completely initially but if you befriend him in another way and talk to him after a while you are going to get his true feelings on the former USSR most of the time.) Whatever stake you have in your belief is your own, I know mine are rooted in reality and real life experience. The only way I can prove it is o email this thread to a few friends and have them post. They are going to ask me why I waste my time with useless debates.

[tocqueville]

22. Don't misunderstand me

I have met those people too, they are not only in the US

1) the Baltic refugees are a special case. A lot of them fought on the German side because they thought it was the only way to keep their countries free. Some of them, specially in Lithuania were involved in the cleansing of the Jews. All this is very well documented. When the Russians arrived they took they boats and flew to Sweden. I know plenty or personal stories too. After the Russian take over nobody flew to the West. There was a special case in the 80s when a sailor took advantage of a storm and since the boat had to take refuge into Swedish territorial waters, he swam to liberty. He was shot at by the captain, wich triggered a diplomatic incident.

2) Yugoslavia is a special case. As I told you tenth of thousands of Yougoslavs worked abroad and then stayed perfectly legally. I had plenty of Yugoslavian friends in Sweden and they used to go back home on vacations - UNDER TITO. You didn't even need a visa to go there if you were French or Swedish. Besides the regimes that came into place after Tito in those non serb republics weren't much better. Remember to that specially the Croatians sided with the Nazis during WWII.

4) My point is that the MAJORITY of refugees must have come BEFORE the falling of the Iron curtain. If there was a wall built in Eastern Germany it was because the country was bleeding. I don't remind any similar situation in other eastern countries, maybe with some exceptions during the Hungarian and Czeckoslovakian episodes. That doesn't mean either that several thousands didn't make it out during the Iron curtain period

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the stories of your friends.

facts :

Between the end of World War II and the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961, more than 3,700,000 refugees from East Germany travelled to West Germany for asylum from the Soviet occupation. (Wikipedia)

from encyclopedia britannica :

Meanwhile a United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) had been created in 1943. UNRRA was succeeded by the International Refugee Organisation, established in 1946; and that in turn gave way to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in 1950. All these bodies, however, were plagued by political conflict, in particular the outbreak of the Cold War.

UNRRA was limited under its Articles of Agreement to assisting in the 'repatriation or return' to their home countries of 'displaced persons'. It transported millions of former concentration-camp dwellers, forced labourers and other victims of the Nazis to countries such as France, Belgium, and Greece.

Over two million Soviet citizens were returned by the western Allies to areas under Soviet control. They were moved in batches, generally in return for equivalent numbers of citizens of western countries, an equivalence insisted upon by the Soviet authorities.

Many of the Soviets departed willingly. But others did not, and their forcible return conflicted with the 'non-refoulement' principle. Many citizens of east European states that were taken over by Communists also resisted repatriation. Most sought refuge in western Europe, the United States, Canada, or Australia.

Cold War considerations, combined with calculation of labour requirements in industries such as mining, led Britain, Australia and other countries to grant Poles and some others permanent settlement. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 finally provided a secure refuge for Jews who had been hounded from their homes in central and eastern Europe. But the buoyant United States economy held out the most tantalising hope to refugees.
...............

The deepening of east-west conflict in the early years of the Cold War provided the context for subsequent US legislation. The Refugee Relief Act of 1953 provided for the admission over three years of 214,000 refugees - of these, it was laid down that 186,000 should be from Communist countries.

By 1959 some 900,000 European refugees had been absorbed by west European countries. In addition, 461,000 had been accepted by the USA, and a further 523,000 by other countries. But many 'hard-core' refugees still remained in camps. At that point the United Nations launched an ambitious effort to resolve the refugee problem once and for all.

World Refugee Year, in 1959-1960, was designed as a 'clear the camps' drive. It achieved some significant results - at any rate in Europe. By the end of 1960, for the first time since before World War Two, all the refugee camps of Europe were closed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/refugees_06.shtml

[moddemny]

26. The article you posted ........

.....goes up to 1960 and many many more came afterward, many of the people I know personally came in the late 60's, 70's and 80's. Many here legally, many here illegally. Most of them to escape Communism, all of them because they know in America their kids can have a better life. There are millions if not tens of millions here. Along with the immigrants you throw in their children who are born here and are first generation American. They families are very tight so most children are going to honor their heritage even though they are Americanized. You have millions who grow up with first hand accounts about the problems with Communist regimes throughout the world. Many of those people, immgrants and their children are going to be put off by ANSWER rhetoric and I don't blame them.

By posting articles you are making this an academic debate, I don't need the academics, I can just walk out my front door into my neighborhood and city. I know the bars, organizations, community groups to go to if I want the truth or I can pick up the phone and reach dozens whom I have known for years.

[moddemny]

36. By the way Tocquedeville.......

I did just read most of your post on DailyKos about ANSWER, if you are the same guy, good job, I agree with a lot of it, I don't want to come across like I am beating up on you. Seems like we are in the same chapter, different page.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/205136/412

[tocqueville]

37. wow I've been published on the Daily Kos...

and I stand for what I said, I "know" those ANSWER guys, they are are a liability to the Democratic movement (I mean their leadership, not their followers, often well-meaning).

I didn't want to beat on you either. I just wanted to point out that the MAJORITY of the Eastern European immigrants to the USA couldn't have a PERSONAL experience of communism. That the younger part today has, that's different but they must be in the 100 000, not millions (they were 1.2 millions 1990).

I checked the US census. I couldn't find an exact number from the period 1950-1990.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab03.html

But it shows that the Eastern European born population DECREASED with 50% between 1960 and 1990. They were at maximum roughly 2.3 mil 1960 But most of those guys never knew communism if they weren't Hungarians (40 000 came to the US 1956), Eastern Germans or Russians that flew 1917-1924. For the simple reason that the Eastern countries became communistic let say 1947.

check this too, it gives you a good idea :

http://www.usaforunhcr.org/usaforunhcr/dynamic.cfm?ID=66#briefhistory

For the CUBANS and to some extent the Vietnamese, it's of course a very different story. And the AFTER 1990 Eastern immigrants, that's a different story too.

And I have no reason to doubt that the stories of those immigrants you met are not true.

[tocqueville]

38. Sorry not the same guy...

I thought first somebody published one of my posts on DU. But it doesn't matter I agree completely with my "twin".

I have some posts on DU about ANSWER. They are in the archive I think. I couldn't find any of my older ones (haven't research ability).

I started to post about it, because I was horrified when I discovered who they were (from my European outlook):

"Make no mistake, ANSWER is not our friend. And we must never again allow our real movement to be associated with them. In fact, we should do our best to make sure that no one ever shows up to one of their events again.

When I first saw the show, my first thought was that this was a CIA op to discredit the effort. That is, by the way, what they did in the Vietnam days. Infiltrate, sabotage, discredit.

I can find no evidence of that. But, regardless, we should treat them as if they were a CIA front because, effectively, they might as well be." (Daily Kos)

can't agree more.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi Sarah Ibarruri!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. Thank you Cire4 and Newyawker99 for the welcome

Hi Cire4 and Newyawker99. :hi:

[tlsmith1963]

8. Good Points

Unfortunately our side has also committed plenty of atrocities. That is the sad legacy of the Cold War. Each side was so consumed with hatred for the other side that they became exactly what they hated. This is why I cannot side with Bush *or* ANSWER. I think that both capitalism & communism began with the best of intentions, but resentment & paranoia ruined them. I want to find another way, a better way.

Tammy

[donheld]

14. You are exactly right n/t

[readmoreoften]

18. Mmmmm. I don't see communism as 'my side'.

I don't know. Communism is totalitarian. It is not democratic. It is on the side of dehumanization, as far as I can tell.

Now, that doesn't mean that citizens in a democracy can't agree to socialize certain industries. I think that's a way different story.

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. If those *commie* countries had rulers and serfs... wealth and poverty,

They were not communist. Period.


P.S. I am a human, not a commie.

[incapsulated]

17. Armchair Communists

Never had to live with the ugly realities their utopian fantasies created. Very similar to those who don't understand the vicious Darwinian nature of pure, unbridled Capitalism thinking that their problems are just their own bad luck while mouthing that they support the "free market". As if such a thing exists. Kinda like Utopia.

[SeekerofTruth]

27. How true! The grass is always greener

on the other side. If you truly travelled and/or talked to many people visiting the U.S. or immigrating here, you understand just how well off we are.

We aren't perfect, but we at least have the opportunity to continue to improve.

Remember, the purpose of the Bill of Rights isn't to protect our freedoms. It's to protect us from the government. An all powerful government is the worst thing that can happen to a country. Why do you think so many are afraid of Bush?

[DinahMoeHum]

25. Right now, we have CRONY CAPITALISM, not capitalism. . .

Big fat hairy difference.

And the only free market that exists is in political speech.

:evilfrown:

[izzybeans]

32. Which is not much different than Stalin's Russia, except its

much more widely diffused in the hands of the ultra rich, who move in and out of government positions constantly. We can't control decisions at work nor in our own government because they've monopolized both arenas.

[Sgent]

28. My own theory...

Communism is a nice idea. It sucks in practice.
Theisim is a nice idea for the religious, it sucks in practice.
Capitalism sucks in theory, and works in reality.

I firmly believe in a basic level of sustenance for every being, including education, heatlhcare, food, and reasonable living expenses.

Beyond that, its capitalism which provides us with the ability to provide the underlying social saftey net.

Cronyism is cronyism everywhere -- and it exists in all countries and systems. The question is which one is the best at renewing itself and eliminating it -- and that has been capitalism.

[goodhue]

29. ANSWER was formed in 2001

The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition formed on September 14, 2001. It is a coalition of hundreds of organizations and prominent individuals and scores of organizing centers in cities and towns across the country. Its national steering committee represents major national organizations that have campaigned against U.S. intervention in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Asia, and organizations that have campaigned for civil rights and for social and economic justice for working and poor people inside the United States.

Steering Committee:
IFCO/Pastors for Peace
Free Palestine Alliance - U.S.
Haiti Support Network
Partnership for Civil Justice - LDEF
Nicaragua Network
Alliance for Just and Lasting Peace in the Phillippines
Korea Truth Commission
Muslim Student Association - National
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Middle East Children's Alliance

[CAcyclist]

30. What makes people more sympathetic to ANSWER?

Simply the fact that ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice are the only two groups organizing these anti-war efforts.

I am not a communist or a socialist, but, I'll tell ya, the stark absence of any kind of moderate Democratic/Progressive group in organizing any significant anti-war and anti-Bush rallies *really* makes me want to take a second look at joining their organizations.

I studied Marxist-Leninist theory in college so I have a general understanding of the issues and I definitely think that most of the far left extremists are just primarily militants, but there are all sorts of shades of grey in between.

Just look at the other side. All these much touted "public-private partnerships." Sounds so moderate and inclusive, doesn't it - unless you think about it and realize it is just a kinder,gentler form of fascism, which has been creeping into our so-called capitalist society for years and years.

[moddemny]

35. Moderates dont have to be the ones ........

organizing the protests, I understand the case there. Radicals are fine as long as they are benevolent radicals and are not calling for the release of Slobodan Milosevic. Can't be protesting one tyranny while supporting something that is worse. I want radicals who aren't hypocrites.

[izzybeans]

31. Actually communism had nothing to do with their oppression.

Actually defusing your confusion before being set straight is a good strategy for never actually understanding what you are saying. You've just admitted you don't want to learn what it is you seem confused about.

Read up on the defeat of the Trotskyites and the rise of Stalin after the Russian Revolution. Stalin officially put an end to the democratic ideals called for by the communist revolutionaries. You'll no longer confuse communism for state capitalist fascism ever again. The "purge" of stalin was the purging of the communists who advocated democratic reforms, and anyone with the technical capacity to carry it out. The workers never had control, the revolution failed. the USSR was CINO. but you seem to understand this much, yet for reasons unexplainable don't want to admit that much. Those people are deeply familiar with dictatorship you got that right, but the other half of that is that the people of the Eastern Bloc countries are very familiar with an imperialist and predatory state capitalist system. The communists were defeated and subjected to genocide, just ask the ghost of Leon Trotsky, the founder of the red army, who was murdered by Stalin while living in exile.

or read the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci who led the democratic socialists against the rising fascism of the corporate Mussolini. Gramsci died in prison for doing nothing other than oppose the rise of fascism. You'll be served quite well by discovering the detailed analyses of what he called Hegemony. It seems these people deserve better than to be labeled "part of the marxist experiment".

The "nice theory" and the failed revolution it inspired was about democratizing industry, power to the worker, a hand in the control of the means of production, the end of exploitation, self-rule, etc. nothing about "the nice theory" advocated what you think it did, which apparently is your conflation with communism and dictatorship. But then again the "nice theory" predicted that a counter movement would construct an ideology to defeat it, divide the working class, justify the alienation of large populations from the products of their own hands; an ideology that is so painfully present here... "Opiate of the masses" and all that. Rejecting ANSWER because it has communist members and supports the WWP is like my son begging for his pacifier. Sleep tight. It's gonna be a long and divided ride. You are standing your ground against your own allies.

[moddemny]

34. "You've just admitted you don't want to learn

what it is you seem confused about."

Ahahaha, no I was waiting exactly for this. How people can't accept what really happened, that's part of what you call "my confusion", I'm confused how seemingly intelligent people seem to brush aside the miserable failures of marxist regimes over and over again. Communism was tried across many continents and cultures (even in inherently communal societies like the Chinese) and devovled into a brutal tyranny in every case. I was actually very open minded in my statement. I have talked about this with people who have lived in Communist countries and they for the most part said they dont want to be part of another experiment while you are trying to fix it. They didn't like the experiment being forced on them in the first place with no option to leave it. They didn't like Stalin and aren't willing to take another chance with a new set of trotskyites. You want to revive Communism, realize you have a massive credibility gap to overcome. Your still arguing theory when millions lived the reality.

I am suppose to stop working, studying other more useful topics to find out every aspect and subset of a system that failed over and over and ignore what all the people from countries around the world tell me? I leave a little crack in my beliefs because I realize I am not perfect and I am always open to more information. That's just being intellectually honest. If people want the collective that may be their choice but don't force it on everyone else. That's the first step, letting people come and go in case your little utopia fails again.

This thread was about ANSWER and they support what you call the failed Communism. Why do people who argue for Communism always bring up the failed symbols? I am suppose to make Mao, Che Guevarra, or Ho chi min my symbols? When people whom I have tremendous respect for risked their lives to get out from under those banners?

Why don't you go read the works of vaclav havel, lech walesa, Solzhenitsyn or all the other dissident's who opposed communism. Why are their reality and lessons any less important or brushed aside?