Who you vote for?

Von

I'm registered in Meath and voted for the Greens and er, the CSP, in the last election. It took over 20 years for my town to get a secondary school. For FF and FG, it was quite a useful "political football" as I recall.

mr_angry

Yes 'socialist'.

http://www.internationalism.org/wr/244_weapon.htm

I don't mean to slag off people's honest opinions, but I think that is a very unbalanced article. To me, its just a very left-wing person trying to force anti-disestablishmentarianism (sorry!) down the throats of impressionable readers.

I also appreciate that communism has a bad reputation because the US attacked every country implementing the idiology, but its failure can't be attributed to that single point. People seem, from my perspective, to be better off in democratic countries than in communist ones. I don't think US foreign policy is the only factor to blame for that.

DadaKopf

Even though Marxism is direct democracy.

UH OH!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Even though Marxism is direct democracy.

Sure they're all democracies - Even the corporatist one's! :rolleyes:

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Mr Angry
I also appreciate that communism has a bad reputation because the US attacked every country implementing the idiology, but its failure can't be attributed to that single point. People seem, from my perspective, to be better off in democratic countries than in communist ones. I don't think US foreign policy is the only factor to blame for that.

Correct. One, the revolution occured in Russia, the weakest link in the capitalist chain without the worker's institutions inherent in the capitalist pseudo democracies of the West in which Marx claimed the revolution must first occur for it to work. Therefore it was possible for the dictatorship to creep in and thence for the 'Socialism in One Country' Stalinist theory to destroy any chance the USSR had of being corrected by outside since this was effectively a nationalist point of view. Then, secondly, there was the attack on Russia by Germany which killed millions of workers - some who were Stakhanovite heroes in the pre-war USSR and stood up against the petty nepotism and corruption of the Party, which was by this time institutionalised, much like the Committee for Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission are institutionalised in the USA and provide the manpower for the important governmental positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Finally there was the incompetence and lack of initiative engendered by Stalin's purges against the working class which resulted in the stagnation of a communist society and the failure of the most important parts of the revolution.

That all regimes since 1917 which underwent 'communist' revolution based their ideologies on Stalinism in order to get Soviet aid was their downfall - that is something the Americans, for the most part, are not to blame for. Mind you they hardly ease the situation with a destroyer blockade around Cuba or the slaughter of 4 million Vietnamese, Laosians and Cambodians.

Biffa Bacon

Why do Commies seem to think that they would waltz into power if only the corporate meeja weren't biased against them?

Well I've got news for you guys. The reason no one votes for Communists is pretty much the same reason why no one votes for Fascists...it's because it's a bat**** insane ideology that has MURDERED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS around the world.

And don't give me the "no honest, this time it will be different" spin, because we've already seen Eomer express genocidal views on different threads and Lenin has declared himself to be anti-democratic and in favour of political violence on this one.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Correct. One, the revolution occured in Russia, the weakest link in the capitalist chain without the worker's institutions inherent in the capitalist pseudo democracies of the West in which Marx claimed the revolution must first occur for it to work. Therefore it was possible for the dictatorship to creep in and thence for the 'Socialism in One Country' Stalinist theory to destroy any chance the USSR had of being corrected by outside since this was effectively a nationalist point of view. Then, secondly, there was the attack on Russia by Germany which killed millions of workers - some who were Stakhanovite heroes in the pre-war USSR and stood up against the petty nepotism and corruption of the Party, which was by this time institutionalised, much like the Committee for Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission are institutionalised in the USA and provide the manpower for the important governmental positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Finally there was the incompetence and lack of initiative engendered by Stalin's purges against the working class which resulted in the stagnation of a communist society and the failure of the most important parts of the revolution.

Doesn't say much for Marx and his theories about "historical inevitablity", if all communist revolutions are so easily corrupted...

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Why do Commies seem to think that they would waltz into power if only the corporate meeja weren't biased against them?

Well I've got news for you guys. The reason no one votes for Communists is pretty much the same reason why no one votes for Fascists...it's because it's a bat**** insane ideology that has MURDERED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS around the world.

And don't give me the "no honest, this time it will be different" spin, because we've already seen Eomer express genocidal views on different threads and Lenin has declared himself to be anti-democratic and in favour of political violence on this one.

I would like to see the points you raise here answered as they seem valid.
People generally vote for who ever for their own selfish interests, regardless of whether they are open about this or not.
The perception , that most people probably have of communism and Fascism runs counter to their own interests by and large.
The stable door, by now, in 2003 has long since been left wide open regarding, peoples possibilities in a capitalist world.
The horse has truly bolted and is so far off in the distance now, that the Devil that is capitalism would require an opium much more potent than Religion ever was, for to convince people that they must relinquish its freedom and possibilities in favour of a communist or fascist altenative, in my honest opinion.

mm

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Meh
Doesn't say much for Marx and his theories about "historical inevitablity", if all communist revolutions are so easily corrupted.

That statement doesn't say much for your history or politics teachers. One communist revolution was corrupted through a device Marx himself predicted and I have outlined on many occasions - so the revolution was still inline with Marxist theory but the course ceased to be Marxist and non-Marxist principles were practised, as predicted by Marx.

As a result of the pre-eminence of the lesser hegemon, the USSR, other revolutions occured which were not communist at all but assumed that guise in order to recieve military and financial aid from Russia which liked to consider itself communist, therefore common sense dictates that sharing an ideology with Russia would bring aid - that ideology was Stalinism. A prime example of this is Cuba.

Further revolutions occured also which were indirectly influenced by Stalin in a genuine way - ie the theoreticians were actual Stalinists rather than proper communists or opportunists and led their 'revolution' in the form envisioned by Stalin, incorrectly of course.

Marx' theory of historical inevitability is not even implicated in these series of events.

When the last of the 'communist' powers loose their guise - ie Vietnam, NKPR, PRC, Cuba etc etc etc become capitalist or 'social democratic' (diet capitalist or capitalist-lite) nations in the manner that the PRC is already progressing and workers struggle, then people will return to the true ideals of communism rather than an ignorant and uneducated perception thereof, misbegot from the failures in Russia.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from BB
Why do Commies seem to think that they would waltz into power if only the corporate meeja weren't biased against them?

Reference that from a proper communist source and then I'll accept that it's accurate.

Quoted from BB
The reason no one votes for Communists is pretty much the same reason why no one votes for Fascists...it's because it's a bat**** insane ideology that has MURDERED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS around the world

You have stated this misconception who knows how many times and each time I reply to you, you refuse to listed to the answer. I refuse to waste more time replying to the same trolling drivel over and over again.

If you want a proper discussion, PM me and stop forever posting this clichéd rubbish.

Quoted from BB
And don't give me the "no honest, this time it will be different" spin, because we've already seen Eomer express genocidal views on different threads

Genocide; 'deliberate extermination of a race of people.'

Nowhere have I advocated that, stop trying to be sensationalist.

ColinM

Originally posted by Sparks
That's not a protest. Spoilt votes, whether caused by ineptness or political protest, are binned. End of story. The net effect is that the election carries on regardless. Which means that the decision is made by those that do not spoil their vote, and there's always enough people benefiting from corrupt politicians that they'll get elected.
[...]
Not an effective protest at all.

I take your point alright, but imagine if the people who stayed at home on polling day arrived en-masse to spoil their votes. The government could not claim that all of them had "accidentally" spoiled their votes. In the last general election, only 63% of the electorate voted. Of that 63%, 41.5% voted for Fianna Fáil. That is 26% of the electorate. You would of course hope that the 37% of the electorate that didn't vote would turn up and vote for anyone but FF, but it's logical to assume that if they were forced to vote that their voting pattern would probably reflect the existing voting pattern.
What I would like to see is an election result where the people who wouldn't ordinarily vote, turn up to spoil their vote by writing "none of the above" on the ballot paper (in the absence of a genuine none of the above option). Could you imagine the furore if we had a general election result like this:
"None of the above":37%, FF:26%, FG:14%, Lab:7%, Other: 7%, SF:4%, PD:2.5%, Green:2.5%
Now that's a much better protest than simply not turning up. If a low-voter turnout is discussed in post-election TV and radio debates, "voter apathy" is often suggested, but the reasons for the voter apathy can only be guessed at and cannot be proved to be the case. If everybody turned up to vote and "none of the above" won, it would send a very clear and unambiguous message that everybody is dissatisfied enough to turn up, and that they are not happy with the "choice" of representatives that they are given. It would not be possible for the fact that so many people had spoiled their votes in this manner to be kept secret.

Plus, the next general election is supposedly to be held on those new electronic voting boxes and that means that you physically cannot spoil your vote.

It had occurred to me that this would be a problem alright!

No, what's needed is an offical, counted, legal, "none of the above" option on the ballot.
Hence the None of the Above campaign.

I had heard of this campaign alright. I hope it succeeds, but somehow I don't see it happening.

Originally posted by Von
Wow. Crazy. Is this you?

Yes, although I've grown the hair longer and put on a few pounds since that photo was taken.

bloggs

Originally posted by Lenin
If you lived under a Marxist-Leninist 'Regime' then no you wouldn't have 'democracy', not in the way you know it anyway. The prolateriat would own the country, you just wouldn't have parliamentarianism. The only reason you wouldn't like Marxism is if you were previously part of the elite and you wouldn't even get a chance to get rid of it if you were.

But what if the majority didnt like it? We liked to have more than one TV channel or we liked more than one type of car? We didn't like queuing from our bowl or rice or loaf of bread. How do you suggest we remove the gegime?

This is what i dislike most about communism/marxism is that once it's in place you can't get rid of it (except by force or it's own demise)

Also do you serious believe that if we had a your regime tomorrow, i could protest against it, or would i be taken away by the secret police to be never seen again?

gurramok

Originally posted by ColinM
For the 25% of people who will not vote because there's no alternative - there is. It's called spoiling your vote. Draw a new box labelled "none of the above" on the ballot paper and neatly place a tick in it. That's a much better statement of dissatisfaction than staying at home.

Hate to say this but some people deliberately strike themselves off the electoral register to avoid the indirect taxes being imposed.
I know a few people in my estate who have done this so the council authorites cant track who lives in what household and determine what income levels there are.

Most of the culprits are sons/daughters(often single living at home) of the homeowners rather than the homeowners themselves who often state when questioned that their offspring is either living away from home/living with relative/travelling the world/emigrated/
They are careful not to put their name to any document(eg household bill, bank\credit union statement) that ties them to an address for a long time which would be eligible for tax, (remember residential tax ?)
Same applies for when submitting a home address for a job, they change it often to cause confusion for the authorities to track.
Call it fraud or whatever but it does goes on.