• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Do Know About Sweden?

LeftyHenry said:
okay stfu! You're one liners are extremely hypocritical. You've never heard of Hitler, Pinochet, Franco and other capitalists who have purged people? What about now where the actions of the US are responsible for 650,000 civilian casualities.

How do you think we treated the British during the revolution? What do you think we would have done after if they were in the government and were during us back into a colony? Already Tories were being tarred and feathered and all other kind of nasty **** because it was a revolution! Radical change (Not extremely radical) change was being introduced.

In anycase, the purges were not perpertrated by a communist. Stalin was responsible for ending any form of socialism by ending any form of Worker Control.

War communism was a period where rights were restricted and state became gigantic. To the Bolsheviks, they were in a situation where they were surrounded by countries who were monarchies or capitalist and were itching to destroy the USSR. It would be the equivelent of having a 100 North Koreas or Irans around the US. Already our civil liberties are being curbed in the name of counter terrorism, and we're not surrounded by enemies who hate America!

Stalin killed probally twice as many as those guys in work camps and purges.

Yes, you are right about the former rights of Soviets being restricted in teh war, but during the 60's and 70's the economy improved and rights and liberties improved after the war period.
 
LeftyHenry said:
okay stfu! You're one liners are extremely hypocritical. You've never heard of Hitler, Pinochet, Franco and other capitalists who have purged people?

Well considering that except for the actions of Pinochet; Hitler and Franco were both socialists who ran state planned economy not to mention that even if we do consider them as capitalists (which they weren't) their numbers were far outweighed by Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, North Korea, the Sandanistas, and the North Vietnamese.

What about now where the actions of the US are responsible for 650,000 civilian casualities.

Well first of all the source you're citing is complete bullshit they failed to do a crazy thing like counting bodies in their supposed body count and second of all that report clearly stated that 70% of the deaths were caused by the terrorists.

How do you think we treated the British during the revolution? What do you think we would have done after if they were in the government and were during us back into a colony? Already Tories were being tarred and feathered and all other kind of nasty **** because it was a revolution! Radical change (Not extremely radical) change was being introduced.

Umm ya we didn't slaughter the loyalists in mass body.

In anycase, the purges were not perpertrated by a communist. Stalin was responsible for ending any form of socialism by ending any form of Worker Control.

Yes we know we've heard this bullshit "Stalin isn't a communist," line before.

War communism was a period where rights were restricted and state became gigantic. To the Bolsheviks, they were in a situation where they were surrounded by countries who were monarchies or capitalist and were itching to destroy the USSR.

Stalin helped start that war by joining along with Hitler in invading Poland.
 
LeftyHenry said:
that's bull. Poverty has been mostly eliminated thanks to the progressive social policies and 'socialistic' charactaristics that are left in the gov't.

Ya and the giant welfare state nearly destroyed their economy and they have been privatizing ever since.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well considering that except for the actions of Pinochet; Hitler and Franco were both socialists who ran state planned economy not to mention that even if we do consider them as capitalists (which they weren't) their numbers were far outweighed by Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, North Korea, the Sandanistas, and the North Vietnamese.

North Korea and Pol-Pot - Not communist or socialist. Never were. They kill strikers and have banned unions. Communism is about worker control.

Mao - starvation was from terrible weather. Droughts and floods are common in Chinese history. In fact if Jishi had been in power, the situation would have been far worse considering that the rationing probably saved more lives.

Stalin - industrialized a country which was living in the 14th century. Brought electricty, cars, education, healthcare, and many 20th century things to people who had never dreamed of it. Stalin wasn't a communist. He was a State-Capitalist.

Sandinistas - didn't kill anyone except the contras. The sandinistas formed a fledging democracy and the US crushed it and the contras destroyed Nicargua's infrastructure.


Nazi Germany didn't have a state planned economy. There were social classes, there was free trade, there was a market economy, and there was private property. People had mansions and others lived in garden sheds. It was capitalist.

You're confusing Franco. Franco wasn't a socialist. He OUSTED socialists who were elected democratically (although you'll spew some bullshit that it was rigged or whatever). Franco banned unions, and the socialist and communist party. He was ultra nationalist and was buddies with Hitler. There were also social classes and private property like Hitler and Capitalism in general.

BTW Hitler, Franco, and Pinochet weren't the only capitalists who killed thousands if not millions. Look at almost every dictator in Africa, Idi Amin for example. Halie Sallasie. The current dictator of Iran is definately not a communist.

Here's a list of capitalist dictators we've supported. Not all of them have commited mass murder but they have all at the very least tortured or beaten people.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaC.html

Well first of all the source you're citing is complete bullshit they failed to do a crazy thing like counting bodies in their supposed body count and second of all that report clearly stated that 70% of the deaths were caused by the terrorists.

You have your opinions...

Proffesional researchers have theirs...

70% may have been caused by terrorists. But the terrorists are in direct response to our presence there. We 'opened the can of worms'.


Umm ya we didn't slaughter the loyalists in mass body.

there weren't an abundance of them, however we killed those who were. I mean we just finished fighting against everything they stood for. Do you think we'd let them undo that? There are famous paintings of loyalists being tarred and feathered!


Yes we know we've heard this bullshit "Stalin isn't a communist," line before.

How can you be a communist or a socialist when you consolidate all worker power. Marx specifically stated that socialism is proletariat - worker control of the state.


Stalin helped start that war by joining along with Hitler in invading Poland.

Stalin was appeasing hitler. The last thing he wanted was to oppose hitler when hitler was crushing any resistance.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya and the giant welfare state nearly destroyed their economy and they have been privatizing ever since.

That's why they are and have been for a while, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, or at least Europe.
 
LeftyHenry said:
That's why they are and have been for a while, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, or at least Europe.

Not during the 90s their economy started to tank and they've been backpeddling from socialism ever since:

SWEDEN: AN EXAMPLE FOR CONSERVATIVES

American conservatives should be shouting the Swedish experience from the rooftops

What would American conservatives say of a country that NOT ONLY has an extensive system of government-paid vouchers for private schooling but also has an extensive system of government-paid vouchers for private hospitalization? And what if the same country had ALREADY made big cutbacks in the size of government? A dream for the distant future? Not quite. That country does already exist. It is Sweden. Probably because the mainstream media turn a blind eye to it, most people seem totally unaware that Sweden is moving steadily AWAY FROM the "Swedish model". In the early 90s, the Swedish government was spending nearly three quarters of the national income. That is now down to about half.

Sweden still has a long way to go of course. After their big economic meltdown in the early 90's (huge unemployment and welfare benefits that could no longer be paid for) they undertook an exemplary program of privatizations and made big cuts to both taxes and welfare benefits but there are still huge disincentives to work in Sweden. Incomes are kept pretty uniform regardless of what you do -- meaning that there is little incentive either to improve one's skills or to work hard -- and the sickness benefit side of the welfare system is still a huge racket. People on sickness benefits no longer get a higher income than they would by working but the benefits are still close to wages and access to the system is very easy. So huge numbers of Swedes have declared themselves too ill to work.

As a consequence, average Swedish incomes have fallen well behind American standards -- as indexed by the most objective criterion we have: GDP per capita. When purchasing power is taken into account, the picture is even worse. A cup of coffee, for instance, is likely to cost you three times as much in Sweden as in the USA. Individual Swedes do however manage their money well so there is little visible sign in Sweden of their lower incomes. Visible poverty in any modern society mainly reflects bad decisions rather than lack of income. Money now buys options rather than survival.

So Leftists who advocate high taxes and pervasive welfare need to be told that the country that went furthest in that direction hit a rock years ago and has been paddling in reverse ever since.

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2005_07_24_dissectleft_archive.html#11222432919593 5742
 
LeftyHenry said:
North Korea and Pol-Pot - Not communist or socialist. Never were. They kill strikers and have banned unions. Communism is about worker control.

I don't care what you say yes they were too Communists.

Mao - starvation was from terrible weather. Droughts and floods are common in Chinese history. In fact if Jishi had been in power, the situation would have been far worse considering that the rationing probably saved more lives.

No ofcourse it had nothing to do with the great leap forward. :roll:

Stalin - industrialized a country which was living in the 14th century. Brought electricty, cars, education, healthcare, and many 20th century things to people who had never dreamed of it. Stalin wasn't a communist. He was a State-Capitalist.

No he was a communist and since he did all of those wonderful things we can just look past all of the genocide right?

Sandinistas - didn't kill anyone except the contras.

Tell that to the Moskito's.

The sandinistas formed a fledging democracy and the US crushed it and the contras destroyed Nicargua's infrastructure.

A fledgling genocidal totalitarian dictatorship is more like it.

Nazi Germany didn't have a state planned economy.

lmfao not even worthy of a response your ignorance is staggering.

There were social classes, there was free trade, there was a market economy, and there was private property. People had mansions and others lived in garden sheds. It was capitalist.

It was far from capitalist you have no clue what you're talking about every aspect of German life was controlled by the state you do know what totalitarianism is right? Totalitarianism is incompatable with a free market economy.

You're confusing Franco. Franco wasn't a socialist. He OUSTED socialists who were elected democratically (although you'll spew some bullshit that it was rigged or whatever). Franco banned unions, and the socialist and communist party. He was ultra nationalist and was buddies with Hitler. There were also social classes and private property like Hitler and Capitalism in general.

There are social classes in France and Canada too doesn't make them any less socialist.

BTW Hitler, Franco, and Pinochet weren't the only capitalists who killed thousands if not millions. Look at almost every dictator in Africa, Idi Amin for example. Halie Sallasie.


The current dictator of Iran is definately not a communist.

But he is a socialist I suppose you've never heard of the MEK why do you think the Soviets were allies of the Ayatollah?

Here's a list of capitalist dictators we've supported. Not all of them have commited mass murder but they have all at the very least tortured or beaten people.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaC.html

Pure revisionist history and Communist propaganda for example just look at two glaring misrepresentations found in the the site which claim that we supported Hitler and the Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, A) We went to war with Hitler and B) We assasinated the Ngo Dinh Diem.

You have your opinions...

Proffesional researchers have theirs...

They are partisan hacks and their methodology has been proven to be seriously flawed I and others have already covered all of this in the thread on the topic no sense in repeating myself:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-excess-death-toll-has-reached-655-000-a.html

70% may have been caused by terrorists. But the terrorists are in direct response to our presence there. We 'opened the can of worms'.

The blood these monsters spill is on no-ones hands but their own.



there weren't an abundance of them, however we killed those who were.

Prove it.



How can you be a communist or a socialist when you consolidate all worker power. Marx specifically stated that socialism is proletariat - worker control of the state.

Oh I see now Marx is the only communist thinker, little hint buddy there was an evolution of Communist thought after Marx, Stalin was a communist.

Stalin was appeasing hitler. The last thing he wanted was to oppose hitler when hitler was crushing any resistance.

Oh I see is that why Stalin helped him invade Poland? To appease him?
 
Last edited:
hmmm.... I think LeftyHenry is a little more educated on this stuff than you.

"Pure revisionist history and Communist propaganda for example just look at two glaring misrepresentations found in the the site which claim that we supported Hitler and the Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, A) We went to war with Hitler and B) We assasinated the Ngo Dinh Diem."

Yes, we orignally helped these leaders. Our businesses were drawn to the economic growth of Nazi Germany and flocked to make their tanks and other war machines. I think our government and banks gave them loans too. Of course we supported Ngo Dinh Diem you ignorant fool. Who do you think we supported during the Vietnam War, the communists or him?

Quote:
The current dictator of Iran is definately not a communist.

"But he is a socialist I suppose you've never heard of the MEK why do you think the Soviets were allies of the Ayatollah?"

You have no knowledge on this matter ok. First lets start from the top. Iran does not have a dictator, their government is similar to democracy(electors are clerics). The Soviet Union had nothing to do with MEK, their aid was from Saddam epecially during Iran Iraq War. Ayatollah means "sign of god"(not commi) in arabic, didn't you ever take history, it has nothing to do with this.

"Stalin helped start that war by joining along with Hitler in invading Poland."

Stalin had little to do with starting the war, the main reason for the war were several fascist states popping up looking for a new world order.

"Nazi Germany didn't have a state planned economy."
This is true for the most part. Germany was definately a free market economy at the time. If you say that Germany did have a state planned economy, you could say the same for Britain and U.S. during the war.
 
bismitch said:
hmmm.... I think LeftyHenry is a little more educated on this stuff than you.

Oh ya his website claimed we supported one Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam who infact JFK had assasinated on November 2, 1963 for being a tyrant, thus commiting us to the Vietnam conflict, because if you break it you bought it; subsequently, Kennedy was killed by a Communist traitor 2 weeks later on November 22, 1963 and his brother was killed by a Palestinian terrorist who was angered at U.S. support for Israel. Oh and for you conspiracy theorists out there who claim the establishment killed JFK, JFK was the establishment and the first true Conservative after the New Deal; he had the love of the Republicans and the Democrats alike.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. " --
John F. Kennedy
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No ofcourse it had nothing to do with the great leap forward. :roll:


GLF actually created amazing results until 1959. It brought universal healthcare and education and ended disgusting treatment of woman like binding feet to make them smaller and 'cuter'. It also produced record grain and in general drastically improved the living conditions of the Chinese farmer and worker.


No he was a communist and since he did all of those wonderful things we can just look past all of the genocide right?

Genocide??? Do you know the definition?


[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the Moskito's.
Oh that's how you want to play? Than tell that to the Iroquois, Lakota, Dakota, and hundreds of other tribes we destroyed.




A fledgling genocidal totalitarian dictatorship is more like it.

LO ****ing L dude you have no idea what you're blabbering about. For starters, how can a dictatorship be elected out of office?



lmfao not even worthy of a response your ignorance is staggering.

It was corporatism. Corporatism is closely related to capitalism. In both, Corporations are major economic contributers.

It was far from capitalist you have no clue what you're talking about every aspect of German life was controlled by the state you do know what totalitarianism is right? Totalitarianism is incompatable with a free market economy.

Social classes, private property, and free trade are unique to capitalism. Only in capitalism is there any of the above. The economy was controlled by corporations and Nazis. Sorta like here except no nazis, just bourgieousie. Totalitarianism is ultra-compatible with the free market. I'll save the explanation and just tell you to look up this guy named Pinochet and this other guy named Peron and well, lol Hitler!

There are social classes in France and Canada too doesn't make them any less socialist.

lmfao you consider France and Canada socialist? Can you even define socialism? Do you know what the difference between socialism and communism is?

Why do you consider them socialist? Is it because they provide healthcare for their citizens lol?

But he is a socialist I suppose you've never heard of the MEK why do you think the Soviets were allies of the Ayatollah?

Soviets were allies of everything anti-american. Besides, Iran is ultra conservative that's a well known fact. MEK had nothing to do with the CPSU.

Pure revisionist history and Communist propaganda for example just look at two glaring misrepresentations found in the the site which claim that we supported Hitler and the Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, A) We went to war with Hitler and B) We assasinated the Ngo Dinh Diem.

Our corporations sponsored the rise and We went in to Vietnam to save Diem's capitalism.


They are partisan hacks and their methodology has been proven to be seriously flawed I and others have already covered all of this in the thread on the topic no sense in repeating myself:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-excess-death-toll-has-reached-655-000-a.html

You're a partisan hack. I believe them more than ****ing General Casey and Iraq Body count who claim it's 50,000 even though IBC admits they're missing many if not most of the casualties.

The thing is, even if it's not 650,000 now, it'll be soon. and you can't defend it forever. I love how you and other cons are saying "It's only 30,000" how hypocritical, you want to debate bloodshed by Stalin lmfao.

The blood these monsters spill is on no-ones hands but their own.

That would be nice...

however it's our fault. We turned the country into a ethnic-civil-race war somehow, they're just exploiting the chaos.





Prove it.


Are you really that ****ing naiive? You really think we didn't kill brits during the revolution? It's called logics!



Oh I see now Marx is the only communist thinker, little hint buddy there was an evolution of Communist thought after Marx, Stalin was a communist.

Marx was more than just a communist. He was the founder of modern communist theory. He put scattered ideas into revolutionary works. In particular, the communist manifesto. What he wrote in the Communist Manifesto is the doctrine of communism. You cannot evolve a system that's based on worker control, or control by the masses to a totalitarian system. You can masquerade as communist but that doesn't mean that. Crusaders who killed muslim woman and children masqueraded as christians but that makes no sense. Would that mean that Christianity, founded on peace evovled into a religion of violence?

Stalin wasn't a communist. He destroyed socialism in Russia because of his paranioa of

a) being attacked by Nazis and capitalists

b) being assasinated.

The first came true.

Oh I see is that why Stalin helped him invade Poland? To appease him?

strategic positioning. Like the Iraq war. Every educated person knows that it's really about strategic postioning of American Ideals in a increasingly anti-american region.
 
LeftyHenry said:
GLF actually created amazing results until 1959. It brought universal healthcare and education and ended disgusting treatment of woman like binding feet to make them smaller and 'cuter'. It also produced record grain and in general drastically improved the living conditions of the Chinese farmer and worker.

Do you even know what Mao did? Do you even know why Taiwan exists today? Tell me where would you rather live Taiwan or China?
OK after World War 2 and the alliance between the Nationalists and the Communists that formed therin they formed a unity government but then Mao stabbed Shek in the back and started a civil war for no damn reason other than Communist ideology from Marx on down demands that the voice of any dissent must be destroyed. Do you know how you can tell a Communist country? Freedom of speech is non-existent there.


OK I'll give you a chance to convert a die hard libertarian to socialism if you can find the next 10 rights guaranteed in the Communist Manifesto, then I'll submit to the genious of Marx:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

OK perhaps that's to many I'll convert to Communism if you can show me the next three rights in the Communist Manifesto:



"Man... hath by nature a power.... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men.” -- John Locke

<<<Continued>>>
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Do you even know what Mao did? Do you even know why Taiwan exists today? Tell me where would you rather live Taiwan or China?

Neither. One is state-capitalist, the other is capitalist. Both suck. Plus, I can't even speak the language.

OK after World War 2 and the alliance between the Nationalists and the Communists that formed therin they formed a unity government but then Mao stabbed Shek in the back and started a civil war for no damn reason other than Communist ideology from Marx on down demands that the voice of any dissent must be destroyed. Do you know how you can tell a Communist country? Freedom of speech is non-existent there.

Nope.

The Chinese Civil War was a conflict in China between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC). It began in 1927 after the Northern Expedition when the right-wing faction of the KMT, led by Chiang Kai-shek, purged the Communists from a KMT-CPC alliance.


OK I'll give you a chance to convert a die hard libertarian to socialism if you can find the next 10 rights guaranteed in the Communist Manifesto, then I'll submit to the genious of Marx:

Nonsense. The communist manifesto was a book about why someone should be a communist and communism as a revolutionary economic system. Not as a social system. Marx spoke little of democracy because he was an economist. However, he did stress worker control. Since the workers are the masses, the only way that can actually work is through some sort of democracy. Like Soviet (Russian for workers council) Democracy.

Why wasn't the USSR democratic? It was until about 1919. Worker's councils ran the factories and voted for government officials. It was when Germany started advancing into Russia did the Bolsheviks consolidate a little power in order to supply troops in the frontlines with supplies and food. Once WWI was over, things loosened up a bit but then Stalin came into power and he forsaw a war with capitalists or fascists and consolidated power. This did happen and had it not been for the iron fist industrialization, Russia would have fell a decade later to the Nazis in a day. WWII ended, Khruschev came into power. Cold War started and the USSR was officially the enemy of every country surrounding them who was capitalist. France, W. Germany, England, and also the US which was a nuclear power. This went on 'til the collapse. Why? Well mainly because Trotsky's idea of the Permanent Revolution, worldwide revolution, was not ready to happen. That was a necessary factor to successful socialism.

It's like I said before. The USSR and their allies were surrounded by Irans and North Koreas.
 
LeftyHenry said:
Neither. One is state-capitalist, the other is capitalist. Both suck. Plus, I can't even speak the language.


lmfao it's funny that modern communists won't take credit for not one of their comrades kind of tells you something about the ideology.



Nope my *** not one communist nation has had freedom of speech infact the Communist manifesto specifically states that anyone who disagrees with its tennents must be silenced and destroyed IE Marx's belief that all previous instistutions must be destroyed in order to achieve communism.


Nonsense. The communist manifesto was a book about why someone should be a communist and communism as a revolutionary economic system. Not as a social system.

Did you just say that the Communist manifesto didn't prescribe a particular social system? LMFAO and thus any credibility that you may have had (which was little) is now gone.


Marx spoke little of democracy because he was an economist.

No that would be because he was a communist.


However, he did stress worker control. Since the workers are the masses, the only way that can actually work is through some sort of democracy. Like Soviet (Russian for workers council) Democracy.

Why wasn't the USSR democratic? It was until about 1919. [/quote]

Bullshit the Bolsheviks killed Democracy after the civil war

Worker's councils ran the factories and voted for government officials. It was when Germany started advancing into Russia did the Bolsheviks consolidate a little power in order to supply troops in the frontlines with supplies and food.

You're so full of **** the USSR was a dictatorship with Lenin.

Once WWI was over, things loosened up a bit but then Stalin came into power and he forsaw a war with capitalists or fascists

lol Stalin didn't forsee anything except for a military alliance with the fascists.

and consolidated power. This did happen and had it not been for the iron fist industrialization, Russia would have fell a decade later to the Nazis in a day. WWII ended, Khruschev came into power. Cold War

Bullshit the cold war started and the iron curtain dropped over eastern europe long before Kruschev the rest of your crap is just the communist propaganda which was spewed by the party during the cold war in order to justify the iron curtain and it isn't even worth a reply.
 
Even the swedish conservative are basicly conservative socialists, so how can it be a "guiding light for American conservatives"? They make the Democrats look like right wing nationalists....

And Franco was a nationalist with "conservative" ideas blended in. He was in no way a socialist. He was very religious and neoptism was ripe in his Spain. He might have used certain socialist ideas to form his Spain, but it went only so far as to provide backing for his nationalistic views and for him to stay in power. Its in fact only after the fall of Franco, that socialism in Spain really took off... basicly it was banned under Franco.

Pinochet was a nationalist also and in no way a socialist. He was a brutal dictator that replaced a socialist goverment (who were not clean either), and was supported by the US dispite his human rights record. He also stod behind the semi failed privitized social security system the right wingers praise so much.

As for Hitler. He was not a socialist. His party might have been called National Socialist but it was almost totaly nationalist. He used religious and traditional things from various parts of society and formed it into his own warped version of Nationalism. Germany was controlled by big business who supported the Nazies, and these businesses were private owned. Thats not saying he did not use socialist ideas when it suited him, but he likewise used plenty of "conservative" ideas when it suited him.

Socialism is on the rise around the world and conservatism is on the fall and in a few years it will probally be the opposite depending on what side ****s up the most.
 
PeteEU said:
Even the swedish conservative are basicly conservative socialists, so how can it be a "guiding light for American conservatives"? They make the Democrats look like right wing nationalists....

And Franco was a nationalist with "conservative" ideas blended in. He was in no way a socialist.

Franco was a syndicalist which is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism.

Pinochet was a nationalist also and in no way a socialist. He was a brutal dictator that replaced a socialist goverment (who were not clean either), and was supported by the US dispite his human rights record. He also stod behind the semi failed privitized social security system the right wingers praise so much.

Oh so free trade is akin to support now, well then if that is the standard then the EU supports Castro.

As for Hitler. He was not a socialist. His party might have been called National Socialist but it was almost totaly nationalist.

Are you sure about that?

June, 2001. (A much expanded version of this article giving more detail about the Leftist nature of Nazism is available here)

HITLER AND SOCIALISM



J.J. Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)

University of New South Wales, Australia



Although Hitler himself claimed to be a socialist, this claim seems normally to be totally ignored. Evidence in support of the view that he was in fact a vociferous socialist is reviewed. The essence of his popularity with Germans appears to have been his combination of two very seductive policy themes: socialism and nationalism. He thus stole the emotional clothes of both the Left and the Right. The implications for present-day German and Russian politics are briefly explored.​
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitold.html

Socialism is on the rise around the world and conservatism is on the fall and in a few years it will probally be the opposite depending on what side ****s up the most.

I guess that's why German and French economic growth is stagnant and their unemployment rates are above 10%
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lmfao it's funny that modern communists won't take credit for not one of their comrades kind of tells you something about the ideology.

Any country that makes deals with Wal-Mart is not socialist.

Nope my *** not one communist nation has had freedom of speech infact the Communist manifesto specifically states that anyone who disagrees with its tennents must be silenced and destroyed IE Marx's belief that all previous instistutions must be destroyed in order to achieve communism.


You have no credibility because you fabricate historical facts and hope the other guy has no knowledge of 20th century history.

Please show me where Marx says that everyone who isn't a communist should rot in hell. Thanks.

Did you just say that the Communist manifesto didn't prescribe a particular social system? LMFAO and thus any credibility that you may have had (which was little) is now gone.

The communist manifesto didn't go into social planning because it was mainly an economic work. You have no credibility because you don't know how to read.


No that would be because he was a communist.

You are a dumbass. How can ideology which preaches liberation of the workering class be anything other than democratic?

Bullshit the Bolsheviks killed Democracy after the civil war

Russia was more democratic then, then it has ever been. It was a worker's state.


You're so full of **** the USSR was a dictatorship with Lenin.

You have no idea what you're talking about. There was no democracy in Russia before Lenin. the Interim president starved his people by continuing WWI. Worker's councils grew powerful and supported the communist party. That is why the October Revolution was so fast. The Bolsheviks had major support.

The worker's councils ran the factories and the government. Except that. It was the first worker's democracy since the Paris Commune. Unfortunately it was consolidated because of outside pressure and imperialism.


lol Stalin didn't forsee anything except for a military alliance with the fascists.

You're a ****ing dumass. The Nazis would have won if it wasn't for the Soviets. James Bradley, the historian who wrote flags of our father which is now becoming a major motion picture and who is the son of one of the flag raisers said that 75% of Nazi casualties were because of Russians.

You have no ****ing clue what you're spewing. Poland was saved from the Nazis if anything. It was strategic planning.


Bullshit the cold war started and the iron curtain dropped over eastern europe long before Kruschev the rest of your crap is just the communist propaganda which was spewed by the party during the cold war in order to justify the iron curtain and it isn't even worth a reply.

Once again, you show your lack of knowledge of the 20th century. The Cold War officially started with the Churchills speach and Truman announcing the Nuclear bomb in Yalta.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Franco was a syndicalist which is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism.

WTF??? Franco fought against the socialists (Trotskyists) and Anarcho-Sydicalists! If he were a socialist or syndicalist, why would he do that? You have no idea what propaganda you're spewing, do you?

PeteEU said:
He was a brutal dictator that replaced a socialist goverment (who were not clean either)

Allende was democratically elected.



Are you sure about that?

Again with the JohnJay propaganda.


You can post that **** as much as you want but it doesn't change the facts.

Hitler was a capitalist

Nazi Germany had Social class, private property, unequal wealth distribution, free trade, and a free market. It's economy was run by corporations. Nothing is more capitalist than that.


I guess that's why German and French economic growth is stagnant and their unemployment rates are above 10%


I guess that's why Germany and France are capitalist and you proved you no nothing about socialism.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Franco was a syndicalist which is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism.



Oh so free trade is akin to support now, well then if that is the standard then the EU supports Castro.



Are you sure about that?





I guess that's why German and French economic growth is stagnant and their unemployment rates are above 10%

I don't know that much about Franco, so i guess i can't prove you wrong there.

German unemployment rate rise is a result of East Germany joining West Germany.

As for Hitler. He was not a socialist. His party might have been called National Socialist but it was almost totaly nationalist. He used religious and traditional things from various parts of society and formed it into his own warped version of Nationalism. Germany was controlled by big business who supported the Nazies, and these businesses were private owned. Thats not saying he did not use socialist ideas when it suited him, but he likewise used plenty of "conservative" ideas when it suited him.

good explanation
 
hmm..... i don't think that their unemployment is over ten percent. I think Germany is close but is less than 10.
 
LeftyHenry said:
Any country that makes deals with Wal-Mart is not socialist.

There is more than one type of socialism. Communist ideology has evolved since Marx.

You have no credibility because you fabricate historical facts and hope the other guy has no knowledge of 20th century history.

Please show me where Marx says that everyone who isn't a communist should rot in hell. Thanks.

That's the whole idea behind Marxist revolutionary thought IE the dictatorship of the proletariat and class genocide; from the manifesto:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

That sure as hell doesn't sound like they would allow for an opposition party.

The communist manifesto didn't go into social planning because it was mainly an economic work. You have no credibility because you don't know how to read.

The entire work is a social plan.

You are a dumbass. How can ideology which preaches liberation of the workering class be anything other than democratic?

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx

IE Marx advocated a tyranny of the masses rather than a true Democracy found in Democratic Republics where the will of the majority is respected but the rights of the minority are guaranteed and protected.

[quote
Russia was more democratic then, then it has ever been. It was a worker's state.[/quote]

Bullshit the Russian Revolution of 1917 created a true and free Democracy which was destroyed by the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution :

Public Announcement of the Formation of the First Provisional Government


The actual work of the cabinet will be guided by the following principles:
  1. An immediate and complete amnesty in all cases of a political and religious nature, including terrorist acts, military revolts and agrarian offences, etc.
  2. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and the right to form unions and to strike and the extension of political freedom to persons serving in the armed forces limited only by the demands of military and technical circumstances.
  3. The abolition of all restrictions based on class, religion, and nationality.
  4. The immediate arrangements for the calling on the Consituent Assembly on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage and secret ballot, which will determine the form of government and the constitution of the country.
  5. The substitution of a people's militia for the police, with elective officers responsible to the organs of local self-government.
  6. Elections to the organs of local self-government are to be held on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage and secret ballot.
  7. Those military units which took part in the revolutionary movement shall be neither disarmed nor withdrawn from Petrograd.
  8. While preserving strict military discipline on duty and during military service, the soldiers are to be freed from all restrictions in the exercise of those civil rights which all other citizens enjoy.

If it wasn't for the Bolsheviks there would have been a Constitutional Democracy in Russia.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

No there was a true Democracy before the October Revolution that all changed when Lenin came in and established the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You're a ****ing dumass. The Nazis would have won if it wasn't for the Soviets. James Bradley, the historian who wrote flags of our father which is now becoming a major motion picture and who is the son of one of the flag raisers said that 75% of Nazi casualties were because of Russians.

You have no ****ing clue what you're spewing. Poland was saved from the Nazis if anything. It was strategic planning.

LMFAO Stalin invaded Poland for no other reason but to continue Soviet expansion. Stalin would never have fought Hitler if not for the fact that Hitler foolishly attacked Stalin, the so called "non aggression pact" was nothing more than a military alliance and an agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union to carve up Europe half for Germany and Half for Germany as can be seen by the secret protocal contained therin:

Secret Additional Protocol.
On the occasion of the signature of the Non-Aggression Pact between the German Reich and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics the undersigned plenipotentiaries of each of the two parties discussed in strictly confidential conversations the question of the boundary of their respective spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. These conversations led to the following conclusions:

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish State, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish State and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinterest in these areas.

Article IV. This Protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/pact.htm

Once again, you show your lack of knowledge of the 20th century. The Cold War officially started with the Churchills speach and Truman announcing the Nuclear bomb in Yalta.

A) Truman didn't mention the nuclear bomb until the Postdam convention and Stalin had known about it long before that due to his spy network in the U.S. not only did he already know about it but he urged the allies to use it.

B) The Cold War started when Stalin violated his promise made at the Yalta Conference to allow Poland to remain a free and independent nation and allow them to hold "free and fair," elections.

C) The Iron Curtain speech would not have been made if not for the fact that Stalin did infact drop an Iron Curtain.
 
Last edited:
LeftyHenry said:
WTF??? Franco fought against the socialists (Trotskyists) and Anarcho-Sydicalists! If he were a socialist or syndicalist, why would he do that?

Because he was a national syndicalist and rejected internationalism, much like Stalin


Allende was democratically elected.

Not by a majority but by a plurality, and it is not how a man comes to power it is what he does once he has gained it and Allende set out to destroy the Republic by violating the Chilean Constitution which is the dually elected Chamber of Deputies removed him from power in the first place:

<<<SEE BELOW FOR ALLENDES NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CHILEAN CONSTITUTION>>>

Again with the JohnJay propaganda.


You can post that **** as much as you want but it doesn't change the facts.

Hitler was a capitalist


Nazi Germany had Social class, private property, unequal wealth distribution,

free trade, and a free market.

Bullshit there was no free trade or a free market it was a state planned economy you don't get any more socialist than that.

It's economy was run by corporations.

No the economy was run by the state. Your problem is that you don't understand the difference between a corporate and a corporation in fascism corporations do not control the state the state controls the corporations.

Nothing is more capitalist than that.

I never said Hitler was a Marxist but he was most certainly a socialist:

Chapter VII:
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these 'bourgeois mass meetings' as the devil shuns holy water.​
Chapter 4:
The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 


If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.​
Chapter XII:
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People's State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.​
Some other quotes:

Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.​
On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan "MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’"

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak ... and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.​

F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:
The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.​
See also his chapter 12: "The Socialist Roots of Naziism."

Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:
There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers ... bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.​
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/08/hitler-was-socialist.html



I guess that's why Germany and France are capitalist and you proved you no nothing about socialism.

They may not be full on Marxists but they are most certainly Democratic Socialists.

I suggest you read the road to serfdom here's a condensed online version of it:

http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf
 
Allende's violations of the Chilean Constitution:

Editor's Note: This is the complete text of the resolution that Chile's Chamber of Deputies approved by 81 votes against 47, on August 22 1973. The resolution includes a list of the legal and constitutional violations committed by the Marxist government of President Salvador Allende. In the absence of a viable impeachment procedure contemplated in the Constitution, it "presents" the Armed Forces, among other authorities, with this "grave breakdown of the Republic's constitutional and legal order." Likewise, it serves to "remind them that, by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution, and to the laws of the land . . . it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land." After this call to "immediate" action by the equivalent of the US House of Representatives or the UK House of Commons, the Chilean Armed Forces, led by the Army commander General Augusto Pinochet, decided on September 11, 1973—only 18 days later—to remove from office the President, thus charged with violating the Chilean Constitution. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.")


The Resolution

Considering:

1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

a) It has usurped Congress's principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country's social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country's institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress's oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller's Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>
 
<<<continued>>>

10. That among the administration's constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile's Channel 9, by assaulting that university's new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;

d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens' security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile's institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,

The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.
 
The Road to Serfdom in Cartoons:

01.jpg
02.jpg

03.jpg
04.jpg


<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom