Fighting for Democracy* (1 Viewer)

[Thrushypants]

*And by "democracy," we mean "totalitarianism."


to·tal·i·tar·i·an pron. (t-tl-târ-n), adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralised control over all aspects of life , the individual is subordinate to the state and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Hmmm...brutal regimes enforcing the will of a small, insular group of demagogues; the rejection of rational, empirical thought in favor of radical ideology; the centralization of power to a select few; the repression of dissent and individual rights; the outright rejection of the rule of law...yep, sure sounds like "democracy" to me.

 

[Rorix]

*And by "democracy," we mean "totalitarianism."


to·tal·i·tar·i·an pron. (t-tl-târ-n), adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralised control over all aspects of life , the individual is subordinate to the state and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Hmmm...brutal regimes enforcing the will of a small, insular group of demagogues; the rejection of rational, empirical thought in favor of radical ideology; the centralization of power to a select few; the repression of dissent and individual rights; the outright rejection of the rule of law...yep, sure sounds like "democracy" to me.

Your thread sucks and should be deleted. Furthermore, if I were to respond to your shitty thread seriously I would point out that the definition of democracy is government by the people or by their elected representatives and I don't need to link to various sites to establish the self evident truth of that statement.

Additionally, the United States of America is a republic and claims to be such.

 

[Korn]

*And by "democracy," we mean "totalitarianism."


to·tal·i·tar·i·an pron. (t-tl-târ-n), adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralised control over all aspects of life , the individual is subordinate to the state and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Hmmm...brutal regimes enforcing the will of a small, insular group of demagogues; the rejection of rational, empirical thought in favor of radical ideology; the centralization of power to a select few; the repression of dissent and individual rights; the outright rejection of the rule of law...yep, sure sounds like "democracy" to me.

Is there a problem here

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol i don't think there's any states out there that are "true" democracies... However having an element of democracy is certainly better than none at all. This is a fun game!!!

Fascism -
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Who does that sound like? OMG IT'S CASTRO!!!!
*waits for comrade nathan*

 

[Korn]

lol i don't think there's any states out there that are "true" democracies... However having an element of democracy is certainly better than none at all. This is a fun game!!!

Fascism -
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Who does that sound like? OMG IT'S CASTRO!!!!
*waits for comrade nathan*

What is facisim without racism???? What would that be called

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Fascism without racism.
I don't think it really requires racism to be fascist (but you could claim he's racist against his own people). It's more a sort of nationalism, or modernist "us vs them" struggle that i think it's refering to with the whole nationalism/racism thing.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Who does that sound like? OMG IT'S CASTRO!!!!

Except.

1) Castro isn't a racist, or a nationalist.
2) The liberal bias of the word of Democracy, that it sorely means multi party. People always over look the amount of Democray in Cuba. There is much grass roots democracy, there is a large minority in government who are not party memebers. People in 1st world anglo countries are so narrow about their of definition democracy.
3) Castro is voted in at a higher level.You may say yes but the people dont vote him in, but everyone is voted and work their way into position. Its call Democratic Centralism.
4) The amount of Social, Culutural and economic rights that are given to Cubans, compared to other 3rd world countries.
5) The goal of Socialism is to use the means of production to benifit the people. Although they are controled at a buerucratic level, but meh. Note that the Soviet Cuba relations in the early years hindered the use of the means of production to benefit the people, due to Soviet revisionism.
6) Fascism is a stage of Capitalism, where Fascism has emerged has been where a failing Capitalist soceity was in place. There has been no change in class control of the means of production. The original class who controled the means of production became in great risk of losing there social relations position due to worker anger.

You are just another person who is confused that any one party state is Fascist.

but you could claim he's racist against his own people

Yes but that is extermely retarded. That would mean Castro, a Cuban belives that his race is above the race of Cubans. Can you cricle the bits were you would be called a retard NTB.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

1. A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship?
Yes! Since Castro came to power 46 years ago, only one political party has been allowed in Cuba. His party!

2. Forcible suppression of the opposition?
Yes! In Castro's Cuba no internal opposition to his regime is allowed. For example, Vladimiro Roca, son of Blas Roca, founder ot the Cuban Communist Party, was sent to jail for four years for writing a document titled 'The Fatherland Belongs to All.' Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, a Black Cuban doctor, was recently sent to jail for 27 YEARS for teaching Cuban dissidents about American civil rights leader Martin Luther King and his peaceful civil rights protests.

3. The retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control?
Yes! The Castro regime controls ALL means of production. Any foreign company that wants to invest in Cuba, MUST form a partnership with a Cuban company controlled by Castro, who has now become a multimillionaire with a fortune that Forbes magazine estimates is worth more than US$550,000,000.
No private Cuban citizen can form a partnership with a foreign investor. And the worst part, Cuban foreign companies cannot hire whomever they want. The employees (slaves) are provided by the Castro regime (the slave master). Foreign companies CANNOT pay the employees directly! They must pay the Castro government in hard currency, and Castro pays the employees (slaves) in obsolete Cuban pesos and pockets the difference.

4. Belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war?
Yes! For 46 years, Castro has kept the poor Cuban people in a war footing, waiting for an invasion of the 'Yankee imperialists' that has never taken place. Now, Castro is begging those same 'Yankee imperialists' to dump billions of dollars in Cuba to save his decrepit regime. Nationalism? Castro disguises as a 'nationalist leader' while he sells Cuba piece by piece to foreign exploiters, whose only interest is in joining his regime in the exploitation of the only slave work force in the Western Hemisphere. Racism? How many Blacks serve in the hierarchy of the Cuban regime? Why are local Cubans treated worse than dogs, while foreigners are treated like royalty? Why are local Cubans not allowed to enter the restaurants, stores and hotels that Castro has built exclusively for tourists and foreigners living in Cuba? Glorification of war? When he came to power, Castro declared war on the 'Yankee imperialists.' He promised not one, not two, but 20 Vietnams all over Central and South America! Even today, in every one of his interminable speeches, Castro is always talking about war, invasions and his imaginary battles against his 'enemies.' He still wears the same uniform that he wore when he was in the Sierra Maestra mountains almost 50 years ago, even though he now is almost 80 years old and spends most of the time on a wheel chair since he fell last year and broke a leg.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Your whole post is full of holes, they are nothing but little heresay from Time magazine or some relative of an ex cuban petty criminal.

who has now become a multimillionaire with a fortune that Forbes magazine estimates is worth more than US$550,000,000.

This is bullshit. Serious why would Castro start saving money, is he going for a trip to Florida, or going to buy into the world market?

'Yankee imperialists' that has never taken place.

Bay of Pigs april 1961. And there are numerous examples of Yankee violent intervention in the country. The US even let suspects of Terrorist acts in Cuba, travel and live in the USA.

He promised not one, not two, but 20 Vietnams all over Central and South America! Even today, in every one of his interminable speeches, Castro is always talking about war, invasions and his imaginary battles against his 'enemies.'

Stop trying to make him out to be some emporer. He merely talks about the commitment he has to helping 3rd world nations, Cuba supplies thousands of doctors to poor countries.

spends most of the time on a wheel chair since he fell last year and broke a leg.

It was his arm.

Besides the obvious lies in your post that don't need me to reference any proof, you missed the whole point of Fascism and Cuban socialism and missed the point of my first post.

So just leave it at that and you can go back to talking about how free trade and less government intervention means acces to world markets for all.

 

[Meldrum]

Don't worry Thrushy, I support you...not for your content, but for your presentation ^___^

3/10

 

[jennylim]

*And by "democracy," we mean "totalitarianism."


to·tal·i·tar·i·an pron. (t-tl-târ-n), adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralised control over all aspects of life , the individual is subordinate to the state and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Hmmm...brutal regimes enforcing the will of a small, insular group of demagogues; the rejection of rational, empirical thought in favor of radical ideology; the centralization of power to a select few; the repression of dissent and individual rights; the outright rejection of the rule of law...yep, sure sounds like "democracy" to me.

your point? i think democracy is more about voting, the people choosing their leaders and having more than one party. whether or not you agree with the policies in place is not the point....*sighs*

you do realise that real learned smart people have issues labelling hitler's germany as "totalitarian" for various reasons? like that a lot of the people actually wanted what happened (they loved hitler and 95% voted for him as Fuhrer) and also that the administration was a bit shoddy. now bush was voted in with a rather large majority so evidently people like his policies and him...(say what you will about how dumb they are, i don't care) and for goodness' sakes you can't be rabidly left wing enough to say that bush's america is anywhere near as extreme as hitler's germany. where's the surveillance state, the Gestapo, the extreme racism, the overt manipulation of people's minds and outlawing/censorship of anything opposing the state.

people like you are the reason why i am right-wing...i'm just too scarred to be associated with such a blatant lack of logic.

 

[Generator]

where's the surveillance state, the Gestapo, the extreme racism, the overt manipulation of people's minds and outlawing/censorship of anything opposing the state.

PATRIOT Act, anyone?

 

[shady_03]

*And by "democracy," we mean "totalitarianism."


to·tal·i·tar·i·an pron. (t-tl-târ-n), adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralised control over all aspects of life , the individual is subordinate to the state and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Hmmm...brutal regimes enforcing the will of a small, insular group of demagogues; the rejection of rational, empirical thought in favor of radical ideology; the centralization of power to a select few; the repression of dissent and individual rights; the outright rejection of the rule of law...yep, sure sounds like "democracy" to me.

Its called the US Patriot act...

NTB - I'd like 2 see your scared ass out there fighting in a war ......

 

[jennylim]

PATRIOT Act, anyone?

i understand that there is such a thing as rhetoric. but sometimes you just need to see things clearly and as they are without all this unnecessary rabid left-wing illogical hysteria. the patriot act, while suspending some civil liberties is in NO WAY comparable to the extreme control over lives under states like hitler's germany, stalin's russia and mao's china. and academics have issues calling these countries "totalitarian".

so stop trying to attract attention and make ridiculous unfounded statements that have no relation to reality. although elements may be right wing and on the verge of authoritarian rather than libertarian, they do not constitute "totalitarian" in any way.

(btw generator i didn't just mean u i meant thrushy also)

 

[Generator]

i understand that there is such a thing as rhetoric. but sometimes you just need to see things clearly and as they are without all this unnecessary rabid left-wing illogical hysteria. the patriot act, while suspending some civil liberties is in NO WAY comparable to the extreme control over lives under states like hitler's germany, stalin's russia and mao's china. and academics have issues calling these countries "totalitarian".

'rabid left-wing illogical hysteria'? Sure, the original post may have been an exaggeration, but that isn't to say that it was an outright lie. Also, as for the totalitarian country point, I am aware of that, yet at the same time is there any real point in creating an academic label (one that is constantly being redefined, if I remember correctly) if it is of no practical use?

 

[jennylim]

'rabid left-wing illogical hysteria'? Sure, the original post may have been an exaggeration, but that isn't to say that it was an outright lie. Also, as for the totalitarian country point, I am aware of that, yet at the same time is there any real point in creating an academic label (one that is constantly being redefined, if I remember correctly) if it is of no practical use?

yes...exaggerations...which ignorant people latch onto because it sounds really cool and makes them sound half intelligent. as for the outright lie, i never said it was. it is authoritarian and not libertarian. that much is obvious.

and the academic label is there in order to define the word. some historians say one thing, revisionist historians disagree. and they're a lot smarter and know a hell of a lot more than we do. so why are we throwing big words like this around when hardly anybody is agreed on wtf it means? especially when it is bloody obvious it does not accurately pertain to the current situation. so yes, the original post was exaggerated illogical left-wing hysteria. i stand by that.

 

[Generator]

yes...exaggerations...which ignorant people latch onto because it sounds really cool and makes them sound half intelligent. as for the outright lie, i never said it was. it is authoritarian and not libertarian. that much is obvious.

and the academic label is there in order to define the word. some historians say one thing, revisionist historians disagree. and they're a lot smarter and know a hell of a lot more than we do. so why are we throwing big words like this around when hardly anybody is agreed on wtf it means? especially when it is bloody obvious it does not accurately pertain to the current situation. so yes, the original post was exaggerated illogical left-wing hysteria. i stand by that.

I would like to point out that you could also be labelled as being ignorant for your own stance given the differing nature of opinions. We all view the world through rose-tinted glasses, after all.

It isn't that big a word, and why is it that someone cannot make use of a term if it happens to have been used in that/a similar context before? Must we all wait in anticipation for the 'true' meaning of the term to emerge? Yes, it may not the best term, and I do realise that it is being debated by many, but that isn't to say that its use must be suspended by all others.

 

[jennylim]

I would like to point out that you could also be labelled as being ignorant for your own stance given the differing nature of opinions. We all view the world through rose-tinted glasses, after all.
It isn't that big a word, and why is it that someone cannot make use of a term if it happens to have been used in that/a similar context before?

ignorance is usually based on not knowing something. different opinions, given information, cannot be called "ignorance". the claim that america is fascist, totalitarian and so on, is usually thrown around by avid leftists who think michael moore is really cool.

this particular exaggeration just pisses me off...i mean this is just one example but george bush has been called a "nazi" so often, blair/howard have been branded fascists and so on...all for the sake of sensationalism with no real base. there's anarchy, libertarian, authoritarian and totalitarian. and while these governments obviously verge on the authoritarian side, this exaggeration and self-righteous self-congratulatory tone just annoys me. as in, wow, i'm so clever, i made a history link!

the term totalitarian should be used when indeed a government controls absolutely everything and a single party state exists...etc. nazi should be specifically used to describe a fascist state in which eugenics policies and expansionist aims are pursued. yes, i am a word purist. not very big on appropriation. and while i myself would call nazi germany totalitarian (ditto for stalin's russia) i realise there are people who wouldn't. the very ambiguity means that it's a pretty silly word to use. you can say "overtly authoritarian"..."verging on a dictatorship", etc. they're actually a lot more accurate if you'd like to continue with that certain stance.

 

[Generator]

ignorance is usually based on not knowing something. different opinions, given information, cannot be called "ignorance". the claim that america is fascist, totalitarian and so on, is usually thrown around by avid leftists who think michael moore is really cool.

this particular exaggeration just pisses me off...i mean this is just one example but george bush has been called a "nazi" so often, blair/howard have been branded fascists and so on...all for the sake of sensationalism with no real base. there's anarchy, libertarian, authoritarian and totalitarian. and while these governments obviously verge on the authoritarian side, this exaggeration and self-righteous self-congratulatory tone just annoys me. as in, wow, i'm so clever, i made a history link!

the term totalitarian should be used when indeed a government controls absolutely everything and a single party state exists...etc. nazi should be specifically used to describe a fascist state in which eugenics policies and expansionist aims are pursued. yes, i am a word purist. not very big on appropriation. and while i myself would call nazi germany totalitarian (ditto for stalin's russia) i realise there are people who wouldn't. the very ambiguity means that it's a pretty silly word to use. you can say "overtly authoritarian"..."verging on a dictatorship", etc. they're actually a lot more accurate if you'd like to continue with that certain stance.

Actually, you will find that many people who do make such claims tend to be more 'reputable' than Michael Moore, and you may well be insulting the person with that particular (in all likelihood baseless) link.

No real base? You yourself admitted that the USA PATRIOT Act was socially repressive (well, you said that it may suspend some civil liberties). I doubt that anyone would make such a claim if it had no factual base, however exaggerated it may be. Also, what's wrong with taking such a righteous stance and using such a tone? Isn't that what you yourself are currently doing in correcting what you believe to be an unjustice?

Fair enough, but I can see no real reason to cry foul when a particular term is used if it is justified, especially when ambiguity is a given. Like it or not, the thread starter quite clearly justified her use of the term. Then again, you didn't agree with the justification.


For what it's worth, I think that the initial post was an exaggeration used to further the leftist/liberal argument, not a statement of fact or a baseless and illogical piece of leftist/liberal propaganda. I'm not necessarily agreeing with it, too.

 

[jennylim]

actually, i'd like to read what thrushy has to say now...she seems to have disappeared.

lol and the michael moore thing was pretty much a generalisation...i admit that. i might add that he's another person who gives the intelligent left a bad name.

but anyhoo that particular generalisation is very annoying, the patriot act in no way justifies it and i think if people really wanted to make an effect, saying it was a "military dictatorship" or an "authoritarian state" would be better and more accurate. yes - they are both exaggerations to an extent...but to a less extent than the totalitarian one. and yep, you're right, i didn't agree with her justifications of the claim. how about i replace the word "baseless" with "hysterical"? i think that would fit.