Viva Alpha 66! (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Viva Alpha 66, viva la revolution, nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex!

A CUBAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS ORGANIZATION

1961 - 2006

Our purpose for having a Web-Page on the Internet:

There appears to be a relentless campaign spearheaded by the tyrannical government that misappropriated the island of Cuba, interested organizations, and other foreign governments that pretends that the Castro-Communist system is about to release its grip on the Cuban people and that peace with them is at hand.

This campaign which pretends to believe that little by little the system will surrender all its power and freedom will come to our people lacks perspective and is absolutely wrong. First, it forgets the character of the tyrant -- a totalitarian subhuman incapable of any noble feelings, who has mercilessly taken away from the Cuban people all their human rights.

Secondly, great efforts are being made to conceal the fact that there is a revolution already going on inside Cuba. That this underground revolution could explode at any moment unexpectedly and that throughout the island thousands of secret groups are working day and night to bring about this moment of liberation.

Occasionally news of clandestine operations, sabotages, slowdowns, silent and not so silent protests which keep the prisons full at all times, demonstrates a movement that has only one objective: TOTAL VICTORY. History has shown us that once a people enter into a revolutionary state of mind, in pursuit of its rights, nothing will deter them from obtaining the final triumph.

To inform the world of this revolution in the making, which ALPHA 66 has been a part of since its inception; to give a voice to those Freedom Fighters who are risking their lives and to hold accountable those who are helping the tyrant, we bring our information to the Internet.

We invite all to visit our Web-Page, to work with us, to participate in the pursuit of the glorious day when Cuba's liberation will mark one of the golden pages in the history of the 20th century. All those that work with us will be proud to have had a part in this unique event of seeing the end of Communism in our America.

http://www.alpha66.org/

 

[Comrade Brian]

This is a bull**** arguement. I find it filled with propagandist words such as:

tyrannical government

Castro-Communist system

release its grip on the Cuban people and that peace with them is at hand.

totalitarian subhuman incapable of any noble feelings

mercilessly taken away from the Cuban people all their human rights.

That this underground revolution could explode at any moment unexpectedly and that throughout the island thousands of secret groups are working day and night to bring about this moment of liberation.

to give a voice to those Freedom Fighters

to participate in the pursuit of the glorious day when Cuba's liberation

one of the golden pages in the history of the 20th century

All those that work with us will be proud to have had a part in this unique event

Communism in our America.

And no, I don't even like Castro.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is a bull**** arguement. I find it filled with propagandist words such as:
And no, I don't even like Castro.

Ya because 'your' Communism is the real Communism and if only people would follow the 'real' teachings of Marx all would be well, right?

That's the starting line for every tyrannical Communist regime ever to have taken power in the history of the plannet.

Do you think people are that ****ing stupid?

 

[FinnMacCool]

Though I'm not a communist, I will add some support Comrade Brian. Homage to Catalonia, a book by George Orwell about the Anarchist struggle against the fascist Franco, asserts that the communists supporting a marxist government in Spain (Orwell himself fought for the Marxists) were actually conservative fascists using the mirage of socialist ideals to gain political power.

If you take this into account, then it is perhaps possible that people like Comrade Brian are, while misguided, not entirely incorrect in saying that communism doesn't always have to lead to tyrannical Stalinist states.

In my opinion, communism would lead us to being equal to the point of absuridty in which individualism disappers and a grey "perfect society" descends into people being equal in their own misery.

 

[Engimo]

Though I'm not a communist, I will add some support Comrade Brian. Homage to Catalonia, a book by George Orwell about the Anarchist struggle against the fascist Franco, asserts that the communists supporting a marxist government in Spain (Orwell himself fought for the Marxists) were actually conservative fascists using the mirage of socialist ideals to gain political power.

If you take this into account, then it is perhaps possible that people like Comrade Brian are, while misguided, not entirely incorrect in saying that communism doesn't always have to lead to tyrannical Stalinist states.

Indeed. The people that have been labeled as Communists (Stalin, Mao, etc), are to actual Marxist Communism as Trajan is to Libertarianism. That is, they were not Communists at all.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Indeed. The people that have been labeled as Communists (Stalin, Mao, etc), are to actual Marxist Communism as Trajan is to Libertarianism. That is, they were not Communists at all.

Ah the old: "We are the real Communists follow us into proletariat paradise." line, the first line to enact every totalitarian Communist dictatorship that ever existed.

If you repeat it enough times it might just come true. :roll:

 

[Engimo]

Ah the old: "We are the real Communists follow us into proletariat paradise." line, the first line to enact every totalitarian Communist dictatorship that ever existed.

If you repeat it enough times it might just come true. :roll:

I'm not a Communist, I am just saying that those who have been the figureheads of Communist governments in the past do not accurately represent what Marx was advocating in his writings at all.

 

[George_Washington]

I'm not a Communist, I am just saying that those who have been the figureheads of Communist governments in the past do not accurately represent what Marx was advocating in his writings at all.

Um, I wouldn't go that far, dude. Karl Marx specifically advocated the abolition of religion and that is what all of the communists have tried to accomplish in the past. Marx advocated that everyone should have an equal amount of wealth and this is also what the communists did, at least to an extent.

 

[Engimo]

Um, I wouldn't go that far, dude. Karl Marx specifically advocated the abolition of religion and that is what all of the communists have tried to accomplish in the past. Marx advocated that everyone should have an equal amount of wealth and this is also what the communists did, at least to an extent.

They also had an elitist, entirely non-egalitarian government. The fundamental point of Communism is to have equality - the exact opposite of what happened in China and Russia.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm not a Communist, I am just saying that those who have been the figureheads of Communist governments in the past do not accurately represent what Marx was advocating in his writings at all.

Bullsh!t, every planket of Marxism was put into practice by the Soviets, Marx himself advocated that authoritarian state control was necessary in order to determine what the common good actually was, what he said was that after time that the state would whither, but what he failed to realize is that the basic pretenses of a socialist society can not in reality exist with out the state.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

They also had an elitist, entirely non-egalitarian government. The fundamental point of Communism is to have equality - the exact opposite of what happened in China and Russia.

No they had equality, they were equal to the lowest common denominator, the class system was disbanded by the Bolsheviks only to be replaced by another set of classes; that of the buraucrat and the worker.

 

[Engimo]

Bullsh!t, every planket of Marxism was put into practice by the Soviets, Marx himself advocated that authoritarian state control was necessary in order to determine what the common good actually was, what he said was that after time that the state would whither, but what he failed to realize is that the basic pretenses of a socialist society can not in reality exist with out the state.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Oh really? Marx advocated the essential abolition of the "borgeoise state", removing the heirarchical division of government and society.

 

[Comrade Brian]

not entirely incorrect in saying that communism doesn't always have to lead to tyrannical Stalinist states

Actually I don't believe that. I believe that Stalinist states don't lead to communism, not communism to Stalinist states.

Karl Marx specifically advocated the abolition of religion and that is what all of the communists have tried to accomplish in the past

I haven't heard that by Marx, but Marx did say in short that "religion is the opium of the people" which I translate as religion being something to comfort people's misery.

Marx advocated that everyone should have an equal amount of wealth

No, based upon need, some need more than others.

Marx himself advocated that authoritarian state control was necessary in order to determine what the common good actually was

Where?

socialist society can not in reality exist with out the state.

Agreed, socialist society cannot. Communist society is without it. And yes there is a difference between socialism and communism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh really? Marx advocated the essential abolition of the "borgeoise state", removing the heirarchical division of government and society.

And what does this have to do with anything I said? Read the Communist Manifesto and get back to me, it's clear that the state was the agreed upon arbitor for the transition to a Communist society.

 

[Comrade Brian]

And what does this have to do with anything I said? Read the Communist Manifesto and get back to me, it's clear that the state was the agreed upon arbitor for the transition to a Communist society.

Trojan you are probably referring to this part:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

But there are a few problems you are overlooking.

#1:This was a ten-point program for socialism not communism, and really just measures.

#2: Just before the list it says this

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

this means that it won't always be the same, but in general will, but can be some differences.

#3: Do you think we take the Communist Manifesto like its a holy scripture, and must follow it word for word?

#4:Both Marx and Engels admitted it was outdated later, because they noted that they were becoming more say "smarter" as time went on, because the CM was one of their earlier works because it was published in 1848.

#5: In later works, they come up with different things, that contradict this program.

#6: They later admitted that it was also outdated because things have changed and require say a different solution.

#7: This was also refered to immediate tasks, and since neither socialism nor communism were expected to come directly after "the revolution", it was what was thought was needed to achieve socialism right after "the revolution" when it was written.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Bullsh!t, every planket of Marxism was put into practice by the Soviets

Must be a Marx you're thinking of then.

Marx himself advocated that authoritarian state control was necessary

Where?

authoritarian state control was necessary in order to determine what the common good actually was

How could it do that?

but what he failed to realize is that the basic pretenses of a socialist society can not in reality exist with out the state.

No. He was trying to create a communist society, which is stateless. Socialist society would have a state, though one that would "whither away" once a classless society was achieved.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Must be a Marx you're thinking of then.

Where?

How could it do that?

No. He was trying to create a communist society, which is stateless. Socialist society would have a state, though one that would "whither away" once a classless society was achieved.

and the Commie propaganda keeps on flowing. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Must be a Marx you're thinking of then.

Where?

How could it do that?

No. He was trying to create a communist society, which is stateless. Socialist society would have a state, though one that would "whither away" once a classless society was achieved.

and the Commie propaganda keeps on flowing. :roll:

 

[Comrade Brian]

and the Commie propaganda keeps on flowing. :roll:

Why don't you show us where Marx advocated an authoritian state then? You keep on saying this over and over, yet you have never provided anything to show it at all, you just keep saying it.

Stupid remark by the way.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Strange, this article you provided Trojan, can't tell time.

Lets see at first it says:

1961 - 2006

Then later it says:

We invite all to visit our Web-Page, to work with us, to participate in the pursuit of the glorious day when Cuba's liberation will mark one of the golden pages in the history of the 20th century

Didn't know they overthrew Castro a while back.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why don't you show us where Marx advocated an authoritian state then? You keep on saying this over and over, yet you have never provided anything to show it at all, you just keep saying it.

Stupid remark by the way.

March 5, 1852
"The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat." - Marx

 

[Comrade Brian]

March 5, 1852
"The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat." - Marx

How is that advocating an authoritian state?

I think I see.

Trojan the thing is, is that what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat" is that the proletariat shall rule and "supress" the bourgeosie. As because the bourgeosie "supress" the proletariat in capitalism, the proletariat "supress" the bourgeosie in socialism. This by no means advocates an authoritian state. "Proletariat" is the plural form of "proletarian", and "proletarian" in simple words is one of the working class. So the working class as a whole "rules". So therefore in order to have the "proletariat" to rule as a whole, you need a "democracy". As Marx once said : "Democracy is the road to socialism."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How is that advocating an authoritian state?

I think I see.

Trojan the thing is, is that what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat" is that the proletariat shall rule and "supress" the bourgeosie. As because the bourgeosie "supress" the proletariat in capitalism, the proletariat "supress" the bourgeosie in socialism. This by no means advocates an authoritian state. "Proletariat" is the plural form of "proletarian", and "proletarian" in simple words is one of the working class. So the working class as a whole "rules". So therefore in order to have the "proletariat" to rule as a whole, you need a "democracy". As Marx once said : "Democracy is the road to socialism."

Ya because there have been so many Democratic Communist states right?

 

[Comrade Brian]

Ya because there have been so many Democratic Communist states right?

"Communism" and "state" are contradictory.

And you are probably referring to USSR, China, etc.

I have explained this many times before.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

"Communism" and "state" are contradictory.

And you are probably referring to USSR, China, etc.

I have explained this many times before.

No Communism and Democracy are contradictory, you can rant about the utopian ideals of Communism all you want, I'm sure you and Stalin would have gotten along quite well in that respect, but the fact of the matter is that whenever the tenants of Marx have been implemented tyranny, statism, and authoritarian dictatorial regimes have been the natural results, you can not argue with the lessons of history.