Karl Heidenreich wrote:The worst part of this argument is that we got Vic here again which is very sad. I must say it that way. Comunists tried to invade my country, they actually killed friends so for me they were, are, and will always be, the enemy and traitors to the western democracies. I could remember the rainy nights at the North of my country and the terror of comming action, the terror to be taken prisioner by the sandinistas who were no more than comunists. That was 25 years ago. No, I don´t want to remember that. Now they are on the move again, with mobsters as Chavez and Zelaya using the Honduras crisis for a resurgence of their criminal organizations. I could see it, as they began to re surface in the political arena in my country: a nightmare I thought was buried by the Reagan Victory over that vermin. If Vic finds "intelectually excitement" in this filth then he is not more than that.
Sorry for the language but the feelings are true.
Bgile wrote:The emergence of AQ had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq of any significance. In fact, Saddam Hussein was not friendly to them. There was never any association at all until we invaded Iraq the second time, after which they established a significant presence because of our invasion. Iraq was not a problem for the West at all until we failed to make our opposition to his plan to invade Kuwait clear and unequivocal. The only thing he really had to go on was our apparent ambivalence plus our support in his war with Iran.
Bush Sr. had no plans to invade Iraq. The operation was planned and executed successfully. The terrible mistake was in encouraging the Shiites to revolt, thinking we would help them when we had no plans to do so. Another terrible blunder on the part of the Bush I administration, and then Bush II thought he needed to "fix" something that wasn't worth the sacrifice in men and materials and the real result of which we won't know for years.
Vic Dale wrote:
I am not and have never been a communist or a member of the communist party. I am a long time Marxist member of the British Labour party.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Useful fools are despictable. We got many of them in the 80ies in Central America: long hair filthy self proclaimed "intelectuals" singing the greatness of the Soviet Union and their thugs. I face them not in a "civilized" 90ies or XXI Century "discussions" but in the streets and in the field. The only language they achieved to understand was 5,56 mm or it´s transalation to 7,62 mm. And the nicaraguans were the only ones that fought back: the "intelectuals" simply run away to their moms...
Vic Dale wrote:
The experience of the EEC in the 1970s showed how food production could go if the brakes were taken off. That is what gave birth to the butter and beef mountains and sadly because of the market which needed to keep the price up to maintain profits, those mountains of food became an embarrassment.
That is the planned economy and it requires not one gram of political ideology.
Vic Dale wrote:Well of course Lenin was a Bolshevik. which means "man of the majority." Majority means most of those entiteld to vote. Surely we support democracy where majorities carry against minorities (mensheviks).
The actual terms relate to a conflict within the Russian Social democratic Labout Party (RSDLP) in 1903, when Lenin put forward ideas for changing the programme and some of the demands of the RSDLP. He also proposed organisational changes too and his idea carried the majority of support. It is true we are talking about a relatively small party at that time, but it was still democratically run in it's internal affairs. The minority (menshviks) didn't like some of the changes, because they opened organisational positions up to the youth dislodging some of the old and well established members of the central commitee.
In anger at the democratic decsisions of the party, the minority split away and the RSDLP now had two antagonistic factions. Sadly Trostky being young and inexperienced took sides with the mensheviks saying they had been badly treated and did not rejoin the majority until just after the February revolution in 1917, though by his words and actions it could be seen that politically he was still with Lenin - if not organisationally.
The menshviks never succeeeded in becoming the majority, because they did not have the ability and energy to recruit the youth and were content to sit around pontificating. So by the time of the revolution they were in no position to have any great influence in leading the workers and went over almost to a man to the side of Kerensky and his new capitalist government. Many Bolsheviks also supported Kerensky, Stalin and Kamenev among them, but Lenin booted their arses with sound reasoning and turned the Bolsheviks around to opposition to Kerensky and support for the Proletarian masses to seek power.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests