Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can you listen to Greg Palast and Still not support revolution?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:06 AM
Original message
Can you listen to Greg Palast and Still not support revolution?
Since you moderates buy the castro is evil shit. Even Palast admitted, the governments we are trying to destory are leftists. I think he was being subtle criticizing the moderates. I for one refuse to let history repeat itself, no matter the measures to take. Its always up to the leftists to clean up government, and lead resistence. Even during ww2 the french moderates hated the MaQuis resistence, because they felt it made the nazi's punish france. We allied with the mob over communists in italy. It goes on and on. Spinless LinO's let fascism occur.

So if Bush stills this election what are you going to do? The party isn't exactly courages, after all wouldn't want to lost the "center vote" even though you lose the left each day. Where is the outrage that 1.9 million votes were thrown out? Either the party is exactly the same as the rethugs, or cowardly. They could protest hard if they wanted, shut down the government. But who gives a shit about the little guy, and the little guy hates the people who do (leftists)

I bet some of you actually buy into the fact that there is something wrong with the Iraqi freedom fighters. Not really objective, since they were invaded, and jay garner was fired for wanting democracy in Iraq. Oh well when you wake up under a police/corprate/theocracy, ask yourself how well you slept the night before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Castro isn't evil
He's just a commie bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:09 AM
Original message
His theory on national elections is proving to be true. <nt>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. His theory on national elections is proving to be true. <nt>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zolok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Castro izza
#ss-ho...
Sorry but I wrote that guy off after the big boatlift in 1980 which helped bring down Jimmy Carter.
Fidel and Ronald Reagan could sit down and have a good laugh together about that one.
That having been said, I got no brief for the Cuba Libre' crowd either, frankly heaven help Cuba is that bunch ever seizes power.




www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yes I can. Think you can get a revolution started? You're smoking a pipe.
Edited on Wed May-05-04 09:13 AM by Merlin
Instead of bitching at the moderates who want the same thing you want but recognize the realities of the fact that we live in a godam democracy and other people have different viewpoints, you might try to get real and do something effective to try to understand and change those viewpoints of others instead of simply ridiculing them.

Nobody on this board agrees with the Bush policy on Castro. But most of us know for certain that the surest way to lose an electin is for a candidate to get up and say we should treat Castro more fairly.

Wake up and get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. You're doing a great job The Repubs don't control the govt
Edited on Wed May-05-04 09:17 AM by Christ was Socialist
and you wander why nader can get votes. And real liberals despise clintons neo liberal policies. Appeasers are disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. And your response makes utterly no sense whatsoever.
How about actually thinking before you hit the keys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. you've managed to try to appease the republicans so much
that they control nearly every industry and aspect of american life. Look at the spinlessness gore showed, and the patriot act. Yes a real opposition party, then when dean and kucinich are up "Well we like them, but they can't be elected"

Now i wonder how many republicans went "Bush is a holy man, but lets elect forbes, because nobody will vote for bush in the general"

How many dems are pawns of the right?

Think how many repubs have abandoned?
what Ariana Huffington is one of the most famous, but she isn't a politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. Boy you've really made me rethink my life
But just so you know, Communism was as evil as fascism. And this is coming from someone who spent his college years studying communism (my thesis was on the American Communist party in the 1930s/1940s). That's not to say that every communist was evil, or even that most of them were. But Stalin was. Pol Pot was. Castro is.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. since you studied it i'm asuming
that you realise that the ussr and china were not communists. And that communism can't come by revolution, but by evolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Then what the hell are you promoting revolution for?
If all you get is corruptions via revolution, why are you yelling for revolution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Well because we still have slavery in the south and the thousand year
Edited on Wed May-05-04 09:24 AM by Christ was Socialist
REICH is in its 71st year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Oh
I love this debating technique. "The term means what I say it means and if you use it any other way you are misusing it."

But ok, let's postulate two seperate "Communisms."

1. The Communism that was theorized by Lenin and his followers which postulated that a small revolutionary cadre could bring the communist state (the utopian state) to a nation. This is what I am talking about. American Communists favored the overthrow of the American Government in order to bring about Communism. Lenin, Stalin and Mao considered themselves communists, and communism, in this version of the word generally applies to groups who want to bring about socialism by revolution (as opposed to socialist groups who want to bring to pass the socialist state by democratic means).

2. The Pure Communism as it flowed from Karl Marx's pen. In this theory there has never been a Communist state, and the transition is supposed to be by evolution.

So I will use Communism 1 when referring to the first definition of communism (unless you can suggest a secong term)(and I realize that this is a bit of an oversimplification. Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Trotsky, Guevara all believed fairly different things). And I will use Communism II to refer to the second definition.

Communism 1 contains a lot of wrongheaded ideas and has led to some really evil actions by it's practitioners.

Communism II is a nice theory, and reminds me a lot of the Christian belief in the second coming; it's nice to think about, and it doesn't hurt anybody, so why not? So long as you don't get the urge to hurry it along by revolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Communism is a religion. The manifesto is thier bible
that is why i never agreed with them. I don't even think its the worlds greatest impracticality. But do you consider north korea democratic? because they are the Democratic People republic of Korea. They were communists like Bush was a christian. They violated basic tenets, lenin had workers unions absolved almost immediately. And communism was never meant to happen in peasent nations first. It had to be evolutionary. If anything they are starry eyed idealists. In college i always held the beleive that most marxists-lennists-maoists were that way in direct opposition to right wing radicalism. Communists (the ones i know) are okay people, the system is flawed as shit though. And the theory of worldwide revolution and kids walking around with che shirts is fatuous (+ che personally hated pop culture).

I'm not talking about get your guns and lets go to washington. Once again people on this site are just as simple as the right, to propaganda. I mean taking ot the streets, hellish civil disobdience, armed will have to be a last resort. When they start dragging out Muslims (think The Siege with bruce willlis) then its time to admire the second amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. OK. I'm out in the street
So now what kind of hellish civil disobedience should i try?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. I think the best revolution is the one that should occur at the polls
This is a democracy, that is how you do things. If Bush wins fair and square, than we suck it up and start working for 2008.

If Bush steals this election, what can we do? Other than peaceful protests, there's not much that is morally justifiable. We are a civilized society. We are not going to take up arms against each other in a civil war sense. Anyone who tries is just going to end up incarcerated or dead.

Revolution=civil war=too many dead americans for any of us to live with, on either side of the spectrum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Well you let your kid get drafted. Not mines though.Slaves
wern't freed by peaceful protest. Did you forget how america became independant in the first place? You know this osunds like germany all over. Look what there cowardice brought on the world. Now look what the american complacency is doing to the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. You are making a big mistake, taking civilized behavior for cowardice
I am not a revolutionary-I have no military experience, I'm not a gun owner (not that I have any problem with those who are), and I'm not a communist. This is a civilized nation-if a group of people rise up and try to take it by force, they will be annihilated. The only way to get change in this country is through the democratic process. This not because I'm a blind idealist, I'm a realist.

Let's say you get a few thousand people to back you up. The entire military and law enforcement network will be against you. Who do you think is going to win some mismatched battle like that? The only way to "win" something like that is to use terrorist techniques, which is exactly what you and your compatriots will be labelled before they slaughter you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. it would just be the same as the 60's
Edited on Wed May-05-04 10:16 AM by Christ was Socialist
where only the radicals were the extrmely vocal. WHile modderates sat on the fence, thinking hey they speak for me.

you do realize nazi party was democratically elected right? And i mean they actually were legit. The whole argument is based on the fasade of democracy. If moderates ever got a backbone, the millitary couldnt do anything. Do you think they will be carpet bombing a city in america? but as usual the moderates would be hush hush, and by irtue of silence approve of the slaughter of protestors. But i'm not talking about stright up armed revolution. But I'm intrested to know since we have concentration camps now, and Your peoples method doesn't seem to be working, what is your next move? The system needs a radical change, as capitalism and consumerism grow, people become defined by material, then they feel a deep hole which they fill with religion hence you have your coroprate-theocracy.


First They Came for the Jews
By Franklin H. Littell

Dr. Franklin H. Littell, a Methodist minister, college professor, Holocaust expert, scholar, and world citizen, is a frequent contributor to Christian Ethics Today.

Corrupted forms of the famous saying by Martin Niemoeller are being widely circulated. Why? And why are essentially new sayings invented and circulated, falsely claiming the authority of the famous Christian opponent of the Nazis?

First, who was Martin Niemoeller? Niemoeller was one of the most respected Protestant leaders in Germany. After a signal career as a young man, a decorated U-Boat captain in the First World War, he became an activated Christian. In 1933, when he became the most high profile of Hitler's Christian opponents, he was in charge of a prestigious suburban parish in Berlin-Dahlem.

Niemoeller was a leader in the mobilization of the Pastors' Emergency League, in the Synod that denounced the abuses of the dictatorship in the famous "Six Articles of Barmen," and in other visible joint actions and sermons that finally led to his arrest on 1 July 1937. There were then a few honest judges still functioning in Germany, and when the court let him go with a slap on the wrist Hitler personally ordered his incarceration. Niemoeller was in concentration camp, including long periods of solitary confinement, until the end of the war.

After the war, active in international church affairs, he made preaching trips across the United States. At that time he brought the message of concern for others, often driving the point home with a confession of his own blindness when the Nazi regime rounded up the communists, socialists, trade unionists, and, finally, the Jews. The quotation is now famous, but often in corrupted form.

In a recent bulletin of the Social Studies School Service, a 23" by 161/2" poster is advertised for $4.95. It begins, "First they came for the Jews...." A beautiful new folder from Yad Vashem, featuring "The World Center for Teaching the SHOAH," has the Niemoeller statement on page 2 as the banner opening; it uses the same corrupted form. An educational video on skinheads and other racist extremists, produced by Jansen Associates, jumbles the sequence of Niemoeller's warning and adds "then they came for the Roman Catholics, and I didn't protest...." In other freely invented materials, we read "Then they came for the gays, and I didn't protest...."

The latter corruption of the text was never seen by Niemoller: he died before homosexual exhibitionism became a public spectacle. But when we asked him years ago about the addition of the Roman Catholics, he said, "I never said it. They can take care of themselves." (Not particularly friendly, perhaps, remembered today in the modern climate of Catholic/Protestant rapprochement; but the report has the virtue of telling the truth.) When asked about the re-arranged order, "First they came for the Jews...," he simply laughed and passed it off.

There is a more than pedantic point to insisting that the Niemoeller quotation be truthfully used, if at all. Through the texts corrupted to promote special interests, literally millions of school children and also adults are being taught lies about the Holocaust. The damage is not as serious, perhaps, as the steady infiltration of "Holocaust revision" (i.e., denial). But it does help to create an atmosphere of playing fast and loose with the facts through intellectually dishonest and self-serving manipulation of the text.

Niemoeller knew the sequence of Nazi assault, because he was there. Any average student of the third Reich should be able to give the record accurately; it is a shocking display of professional incompetence when materials that are supposed to be vetted by specialists can be issued that are simply contrary to the record. Even if a corrupt text appears in print, whether published by an ignoramus or a special pleasure, the literate reader should catch the mistake.

As Martin Niemoeller gave the message, it was true to the facts. "They" didn't "come for the Catholics" any more than "they" came for the Protestants. The true historical sequence, which Niemoeller of course followed, was communists, socialists, trade unionists, and Jews. The assault on the Jews was the culmination of the Nazi dictatorship's ruthless elimination of targeted communities and individuals.

Martin Niemoeller's message, in its true form, carries a powerful moral impact. Telling the story and drawing the lessees of the SHOAH are weakened, not strengthened, when carelessness or self-indulgence permits a corrupted text to be widely disseminated. The true sequence, which culminates the Nazi genocide of the Jews, is both literally and morally stronger than the corrupt forms that are becoming now widespread:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/009/First%20They%20Came%20for%20the%20Jews%20By%20Franklin%20H%20Littell_009_29_.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. revolution does not equal violence or bloodshed
it only requires open communication. Which is more available than ever, but most effective if made possible over the publics airwaves. You need only pick the correct battle to gain advantage. It sounds like you arent really willing to fight though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
23. THIS is a DEMOCRACY?
No it isnt. And at this rate, you will never have one. Or even deserve one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christ was Socialist Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. Yes The Cuban government has Murdered more people than the American Govern
ment. Castro has invaded and overthrew democratic countries. He is raping the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BabsSong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
18. In order to get a full blow revolution in this nation you need 3 things:
Edited on Wed May-05-04 09:39 AM by BabsSong
1) take away their teeeveees; 2) take away their junk food, beer and the couch they lie on to consume both; 3) take away sports. You think I'm making a joke, don't you?? They had an election stolen and a supreme court put Bush into power and the only thing that disturbed them was that there was too much freakin' yackin' about it on teevee that pre-empted too many of their programs. Ohhhhh, and other revolutions never took place in the electronic spying era we have now. You would disappear before you got your fist fully raised in the air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zinfandel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
19. First of of all I'm sick of moderates as well, sitting on their fence
Edited on Wed May-05-04 09:40 AM by Zinfandel
what side will they drop on the republican side or the Democrats side...flip flop, flip flop...never taking a real stand on anything except to say I'm in between and I don't want to move too fast...I prefer a snails pace...Too afraid to be labeled a liberal, Rush Limbaugh scared the shit out of the moderate sheep with that one, they shit in their pants at the thought of being known as a progressive liberal.

Revolution and moderates? Don't make me laugh, they move so slow, they'll still be trying to making up their minds as the ropes are being put around their necks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-04 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
21. sorry but do you listen to yourself?
I mean the logical fallacies are amazing.

First this idea that if the US gov has done bad thinsg then it's enemies must be Good.

Or that if people on the Right are doing horrible things then the Left must be Saints.

or how about accusing those who don't agree with you of being collaborators?

or that YOUR way is the only way to fix things? yeah, I've heard that before..from aquite a few facist conservatives. it sounds no different when a self -described socialist says it.

Sorry, the world is full of utopian 'revolutions" that ended up actually being far less then promised.
Modern communism is one. The Current republican mind set is another. just becuase they don't like each other doesn't means they are polar opposites.

and Greg Palast didn't have a theory on the Florida elections, he had an INVESTIGATION! With FACTS and DOCUMENTS to back up what he claimed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC